Hegemony or Survival?
 

Has anyone read this work by Chomsky? I recently picked it up (I am only 50 pages in) but I find it fascinating. Does anyone have any opinions on it? Good bad or ugly?

Re: Hegemony or Survival?
 

I have examiend this text. Yes OK it makes logical sense.

The problem is that a state of war is the natural state of mankind. He kind of glosses over that essential fact.

At least, that's what the evidence says up to this point.

So much for 'survival'.

Re: Hegemony or Survival?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is that a state of war is the natural state of mankind. He kind of glosses over that essential fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

War came about following the creation of an agraian soceity. Before that we had conflict, but the weaker party would retreat.

Since humans existed without war for thousands of years, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that it is not a "natural state of man".

Re: Hegemony or Survival?
 

Violence certainly appears to be part of the equation when it comes to the natural state of man. Chomsky most certainly would not agree with me.

Re: Hegemony or Survival?
 

I thought it was very interesting and true and well written like all Chomsky books. However, it was a bit repetitive, could have been shorter IMO.

Re: Hegemony or Survival?
 

I've read this. I think Chomsky's claims on the nature of man are not only flawed, but just flat out assumed.

What do I mean? Define "war:" Violence between two groups of people ... over land? over religion? over interests? Does it matter what?...

I don't buy that there was ever a period in human history where "war," by a reasonable definition did not occur. In my mind Chomsky weasels to avert Hobbes and even Rousseau, as Rousseau's natural state accepts violence.

Re: Hegemony or Survival?
 

[ QUOTE ]

War came about following the creation of an agraian soceity. Before that we had conflict, but the weaker party would retreat.

Since humans existed without war for thousands of years, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that it is not a "natural state of man".

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disaggree- war existed in many forms in non-agrarian societies (think north american plains indians). Because we live in a world with competition and limited recources, conflict, weather it be in the form of war, skirmishes, whatever, is wholly inevitable and impossible to prevent in every case.

additionally, there is no such thing as a 'natural state' of humanity- continuity and change are ever-moving forces that cannot be qualified based on some notion of an 'original' state of humanity- adaptation and selection are the only constants that apply universally to aincient and modern humanity.

chomsky raises some excellent points, though he has to be taken with a grain of salt. try 'manufacturing consent'.

Re: Hegemony or Survival?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've read this. I think Chomsky's claims on the nature of man are not only flawed, but just flat out assumed.

What do I mean? Define "war:" Violence between two groups of people ... over land? over religion? over interests? Does it matter what?...

I don't buy that there was ever a period in human history where "war," by a reasonable definition did not occur. In my mind Chomsky weasels to avert Hobbes and even Rousseau, as Rousseau's natural state accepts violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.


I do not disagree that there was violence and conflict in our hunter-gather stage. But there was no war in the modern sense because people could always flee. With farms to defend, you must give your life to defend them.