Pinker: Things are getting better
- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In spite of Syria, the Middle East generally and other flash points, Pinker stick to his guns:
‘Despite the headlines, and with circumscribed exceptions, the world has continued its retreat from violence.’
What are the implications for socialists – if any?
With the neo-cons in full swing on all fronts worldwide, and the resulting downward pressure on working conditions and wages as well as upward pressure on stress levels – might not the relative calm we are experiencing suddenly come to an end?
The comments underneath the article are interesting, too, (some showing that we have to keep our Maths heads on) – for example:
Quote:recent civil wars that ended without fanfare (in Chad, Peru, Iran, India, Sri Lanka, India (sic) and Angola)If that the extent of his scholarships then i think he requires to return to study. India still has several on-going civil wars – Kashmir, Assam and the Naxalite rebellions. Chad is still involved with battling Boko Haram. But i suppose they are not on his list due to mortality/casualty statisticsBut, of course, our socialist case is not that war has to be taking place to make capitalism a war-like society but preparation for war for the threat and fear of war. I can't fathom his flow of thought.
Quote:Wars between nation states, a constant of history for centuries, have continued their fall into obsolescence: no more than three in any year since 1945, none in most years since 1989, and none since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.Is a NATO air-war in Libya not an invasion even if there are no boots on the ground …Various North African wars via the Africa Union described as humanitarian peace-keeping. I think he wishes to redefine conflict and war to suit his purposes…Apparently intervention is not invasion.
Quote:Are the recent crackdowns on dissent in Russia, Venezuela, Turkey and China signs of a worldwide retreat of democracy?…Myanmar certainly has not moved from dictatorship to democracy, nor Mexico, and a number of other countries. Very subjective selection, i believe, more an error of omission of those other states and how do we classify repression of dissent,…I think overall though, we can concur that the world is not slit your throat stab – you in the back culture…we have always maintained that people are co-operative. See this recent blog-posthttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2015/09/declaring-peace.html
Alan, I agree with you that the world is far from a peaceful place.There are in any case plenty of things to be worried about apart from war and conflict, not least impending climate catastrophe.And as I mentioned, I wonder what the continuing onslaught of the neo-conservatives are going to have on workers: how far will they be pushed before they turn and retaliate? Or will the pressure just result in more tension among workers, more "Golden Dawns"?Pinker does not just make his assertion based on wars and conflicts; he also draws in data regarding rape and murder (in peacetime), the decline of capital punishment, etc. And – the figures he quotes are from other sources, not his own.Take a look at the graphs again and note the sources quoted underneath:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2015/sep/11/graphic-evidence-steven-pinkers-optimism-on-trial
Can I press you on this, Alan:You question Pinker's scholarship, does this mean that you also distrust his sources, for example the following organisations:*** Dept of Peace and Conflict Research, US Census Bureau*** Bureau of Justice Statistics (US)*** Uppsala Data Conflict Project*** Peace Research Institute of Oslo*** FBI*** Office for National Statistics*** UNIncidentally, this is a graph I just found going to the Peace Research Institute of Oslo’s website:https://www.prio.org/Data/Armed-Conflict/Battle-Deaths/The-Battle-Deaths-Dataset-version-30/Quite a dramatic decrease in battle deaths since 1946.Of course, there is no guarantee that this trend will continue (Pinker admits as much in his book, the Better Angels of Our Nature). If the trend does continue, the next thing is to ask why.
As i have not read anything by Pinker except for the original article you link to, you well may know more than myself. I just have a gut reaction from the article. It is all down to the use of statistics, isn't it? "The Uppsala Conflict Data Program(UCDP) defines it as a conflict between a government and a rebel force which verifiably kills at least a thousand soldiers and civilians a year." Thus the Northern Ireland civil war was no civil war since its death rate does not meet this criteria. As i mentioned in my earlier reply he does not include the many low-intensity conflicts in India, for instance, which requires the military occupation and the militarisation of whole regions. For a tourist to visit Assam region in North East India for instance a special permit is required because of rebel activity. Does the reality on the ground not define if conflict exists? But Pinker says there is no conflict…according to the methodology he applies. I don't have the facts at hand but if troop battle deaths are reduced it is compensated by a definite increase in civilan casualty rates. War in the last century or so is no longer about combatants only. And can we only discuss the effects of war as battle deaths and not the accompanying hunger and disease it causes from destruction of infrastructure. Denial of humanitarian aid has become a military tactic in many places…eg Gaza blockade…Alan Kurdi wasn't a battle death…but it was the direct result of the battle that he drowned because he was fleeing from it. Does he figure in the statistic rules of academia?I accept that the media coverage presents a false sense of insecurity. The blog post article refers to this. i have also seen figures comparing American and Canadian news items on crime and the correlation is that the US media reports it far more than Canada, even if the numbers aren't much different and that this creates an air of fear in America which perhaps explains their compulsion to arm themselves against a largely imaginary threat. I don't think you also took on board that i don't suggest that the world is far from peaceful , the blog again explains we are mostly a peaceful people and that to create the psychological reasoning for violence the ruling class has to evoke propaganda and then actually train killers. Yugoslavia is an example where long-past national rivalries were resurrected by local media and then a campaign of lies told to provoke and justify violence.In my reply, i also mentioned that our case is not purely based on the number of wars but that resources are diverted and wasted to the threat of war. Has this gone down or grown? Which leads us on to robotic wars, which of course another issue for another time. The Socialist Standard has reviewed Pinker a few timeshttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1311-november-2013/steven-pinker-clarifies-his-opposition-socialismhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1311-november-2013/book-reviews-better-angels-our-nature-failure-lahttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1184-april-2003/human-nature-and-human-behaviourhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1311-november-2013/modern-denial-pinkerPlus a lot more to cite here. You can do a website search for the complete list. In your opinion, is capitalism successfully solving the problem of violence without requiring the need of a socialist revolution?
Hi AlanYour last question is the most important one:"In your opinion, is capitalism successfully solving the problem of violence without requiring the need of a socialist revolution?"II very much doubt it. As you mention, the resources wasted by being devoted to the war machine is staggering, starting with the consumption of the larger share of the world's R&D budget, from what I remember. I cannot remember the exact percentage.I am also wondering if, when capitalism can no longer expand, and jobs become even more scarce due to mechanisation – are we going to see increased violence between different groups of workers? Also, what happens when large groups of people are displaced because of war – and no life prospects – the situation that's now facing Europe?Horrific television pictures of what happened at the Hungarian border today is a case in point. Even children were tear gassed by the Hungarian border guards. Workers in many European countries will be worried about their jobs as (often) well educated young Syrians move in. Housing in this country, in that situation, is certain to become a flashpoint.You may well be correct in saying that low-intensity conflicts in India should be included in the figures. I have not got masses of books and reports in front of me full of statistics and figures about war and violence in general. My gut reaction on seeing the graphs (https://www.prio.org/Data/Armed-Conflict/Battle-Deaths/The-Battle-Deaths-Dataset-version-30/) was that they have been produced by independent bodies, not Pinker himself.I have read some of Pinker's books. He is neither a bogey man nor a saint but definitely worth a read, in my opinion. Some of his conclusions seem plausible and are worth a think-through, others I do not agree with.I did read the blog post you mentioned in your first reply in full. I have some comments on it floating around in my head – if I get round to putting them down in a post, I must be prepared for the time it will take to reply to any follow-up from yourself and others. My interest is in the nature of violence itself – not just violence as in wars and conflicts. When I'm sure I have the time I will attempt to do so.Meel
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
All the figures quoted are per x of the population. Considering the population is rapidly increasing does anyone know what the actual numbers are rather than the rates?