The Dawn Of Everything - Money and Freedom

 Topic Four

Money and freedom

Describing how the invention of farming first leads to private property, and property to the need for civil government to protect it, this is how Rousseau puts things: ‘All ran towards their chains, believing that they were securing their liberty; for although they had reason enough to discern the advantages of a civil order, they did not have experience enough to foresee the dangers.’

Graeber, David. The Dawn of Everything (p. 12). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. 

The point that  the management of property, money, can be the root of evil is made not only by Rousseau, but Jesus, Buddha, and many other sages over the millenia. What are the social mores and attitudes about the possession of wealth? Are resources to be hoarded for one’s own personal benefit or are they to be shared for the good of the group, the society, all of humanity?

In capitalist societies, for the most part, resources are to be accumulated and hoarded. With the accumulation of resources comes social power such that the “haves” can dictate the behavior of the “have nots.” Money is social and political power so that the “haves” can rig the economic system of the society to maintain control of the resources and maintain their power. What happens to the valuing of virtues such as wisdom, honesty, compassion, generosity, courage, kindness? These virtues do not require the accumulation of wealth nor in a capitalistic society are they valued as much as the resources and power.

While resources have benefits in and of themselves, it is the social power that having the resources creates that leads to a social hierarchy that is the genesis of social good and evil. The social power of the few who possess the resources, the “haves”,  contributes to a loss of freedom of the “have nots.” What is at stake in capitalistic societies is power and freedom.

The Dawn Of Everything - Selfishness or altruism?

 Topic Three

Selfishness or altruism?

The political implications of the Hobbesian model need little elaboration. It is a foundational assumption of our economic system that humans are at base somewhat nasty and selfish creatures, basing their decisions on cynical, egoistic calculation rather than altruism or co-operation; in which case, the best we can hope for are more sophisticated internal and external controls on our supposedly innate drive towards accumulation and self-aggrandizement. Rousseau’s story about how humankind descended into inequality from an original state of egalitarian innocence seems more optimistic (at least there was somewhere better to fall from), but nowadays it’s mostly deployed to convince us that while the system we live under might be unjust, the most we can realistically aim for is a bit of modest tinkering.

Graeber, David. The Dawn of Everything (p. 6). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. 

It might be said that Graeber and Wengrow describe a false dichotomy. It’s not a question of whether human beings are selfish or altruistic because they are both. As human beings struggle with issues of survival are they more inclined to protect themselves or help others? Remember the old slogan, “One for all and all for one?”

Each of us at different times and in different situations have to decide what matters more to us: our personal well being or the well being of the group and to what extent can we have both? These two choices do not have to be mutually exclusive, do they?

The Dawn Of Everything - Is there an account of human society other than the one of Rousseau and Hobb's?

 Topic Two

Another account of human society besides the models of Rousseau and Hobbs

Graeber and Wengrow give a quick overview of the historical view of humanity and society from the viewpoints of Rousseau and Hobbs. Rousseau proposed the idea of the social contract which was based on property rights and the need of the government to adjudicate claims of ownership. Hobbs proposed the idea of selfishness, greed, and violence to dominate one’s fellow human beings who are perceived as a threat to the accumulation of scarce resources. Therefore the government is needed to constrain its citizens' baser instincts to harm one another. Graeber and Wengrow, after is brief description of the views of Rousseau and Hobbs , write:

This book is an attempt to begin to tell another, more hopeful and more interesting story; one which, at the same time, takes better account of what the last few decades of research have taught us. Partly, this is a matter of bringing together evidence that has accumulated in archaeology, anthropology and kindred disciplines; evidence that points towards a completely new account of how human societies developed over roughly the last 30,000 years. Almost all of this research goes against the familiar narrative, but too often the most remarkable discoveries remain confined to the work of specialists, or have to be teased out by reading between the lines of scientific publications.

Graeber, David. The Dawn of Everything (pp. 3-4). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. 

The Dawn Of Everything: A New History Of Humanity by David Graeber and David Wengrow Are human beings good or evil?

The Dawn Of Everything: A New History Of Humanity is being shortened for the tag of TDOE

Topic one

Are human beings good or bad?

Essentially the question is: are humans innately good or innately evil? But if you think about it, the question, framed in these terms, makes very little sense. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are purely human concepts. It would never occur to anyone to argue about whether a fish, or a tree, were good or evil, because ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are concepts humans made up in order to compare ourselves with one another. It follows that arguing about whether humans are fundamentally good or evil makes about as much sense as arguing about whether humans are fundamentally fat or thin.

Graeber, David. The Dawn of Everything (pp. 1-2). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. 

Christianity teaches that human beings are basically bad having been born with original sin. It is only through the death of Jesus that human beings have been redeemed and protected from a judgmental God who consigns people to heaven or hell depending on their beliefs and sins.

Further, it is through the exonerating powers of the Church activated through its sacraments such as baptism, holy communion, and confirmation that human beings are “saved”. Some Protestants even teach that all one must do is “accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior” and you will be “born again” and saved from the fiery pit of hell.

Other religions have similar myths of human unworthiness and human well being is only achieved by some sort of sacrifice to the gods or adherence to ethnocentric religious creeds and practices..

These are primitive beliefs held by people at lower stages of spiritual development which are sometimes called the “egocentric,” “ethnocentric,” and even “world centric” worldviews. At maturer stages of spiritual development the question of human good and evil get answered on metaphysical and integral levels of consciousness and understanding and the question of “good and evil” as Graeber and Wengrow describe it is seen as silly.

It is the belief of people at higher levels of spiritual maturity that all humans have inherent worth and dignity. It is their beliefs, thinking, values, and behavior which can be described as “good or evil” but not the person themself.

What do you think of yourself? Are you good or evil? What about other people? Who do you judge as the “good guys” and the “bad guys”? What are the factors which you take into account when you make these judgments?