Tags
anti-exclusivity, chris scott thompson, exclusivity, Heathen, marxism, Pagan, polytheism, Rhyd Wildermuth
So we’re actually getting an original post from me today rather than me commenting on someone else’s work. Rare, I know. But this is thought that’s been rolling about in my head. In his recent post (that I went over) Rhyd attempted to claim that exclusivity was wrong, and that for example the exclusivity of private property was a violent action against the homeless and was part of the cause of homelessness.
Which I responded with by asking him how it was sleeping with his co-writer’s wife. Now, I’m actually writing this before that post goes live, so I don’t know for sure how people are going to respond to what I said. I can only imagine that a number of people will feel I crossed a lined there. Which, okay, I probably did. But it was a line I crossed for a reason. Mostly, because using Rhyd’s anti-exclusivity logic, it’s a line that would be crossed in the future should such an idea take hold.
At its heart, Exclusivity is a concept that says a person has the exclusive right to something. Typically, this is something they own, be it a house, a tool, a car, or some object of that nature. To an even further extent though, it also refers to an individual person’s ownership of themselves. It actually is based on individual ownership of the self. If you own you, exclusively, then no one may possess you. If you own yourself, by logic, then you own what you produce and no one has the right to gainsay your possession or even what you do with that possession (so long as it does not violate a law).
Exclusivity then, is something that originates with the Individual, and then expands out to the World/Collective.
Anti-Exclusivity, however, begins at the Collective and then progresses to the Individual.
So let’s talk about Marxism.
Marxism, as originated by Marx, was about class conflict. The Workers produced goods via Industry, but the Rich enjoyed the profits of those labors. (This is a gross simplification of the process, but it’s is the one most Marxists go with so we’ll start here).
But basically, Marxism started as a call for Exclusivity. Workers have the exclusive right to their labor, but that the “Bourgeoisie” were taking that labor’s wealth for their own needs and exploiting the worker. But the initial position was “you have a right to what you create.”
Now, unfortunately Marxism didn’t stop there and went on with ideas that everyone deserves to have an equal amount of everything as their neighbors and that they then had a right to those things…even when they did not produce those things or even trade for them. Basically “you have a right to what your neighbor has because you need it and it is just.”
This then, has an unfortunate contraction and ultimately is one of the reasons why Marxism fundamentally fails. You cannot both have a right to what you create and a right to what someone else has created. It has to be one or the other. Either an individual has the right to what they create or the individual has the right to take what they desire from others and have others take what they desire from the individual.
Rhyd is clearly holding the latter position. People have the right to what others have, because it is “unjust that some have, and some have not.” Now…maybe he doesn’t realize that means others can take from him what he has, or maybe he does. Maybe Chris does, because he’s spoken to similar positions and spoken favorably of groups that do hold this position. In fact, as I stated in the article Chris mentioned one of the groups, I noted that I thought they were a group I’d heard which had banned monogamous relationships because…they were a form of exclusivity.
Hence the comment about Rhyd and Chris’s wife.
If everyone has the right to what someone else has…this ultimately comes down to the individual person themselves.
If I have a right to what someone has, simply because “I am” and “I have a right to have equal measure.” Then that logic means I have a right to a house created by someone else…and I don’t have to compensate them. It’s mine by right They just have to give it to me, because refusal means they are being “exclusionary” with that object. But what if I want them to make something for me? By anti-exclusion logic, if they refuse to make that thing for me they are being “Exclusionary” with their talents, because I have a right to the thing I “need made.”
So far, then, I can force someone to give me something, and I can force someone to make me something. I have “seized” their means of production for myself (ironically, an anti-Marxist position fully supported by Marxism). And if I can own what a person makes, and I can own what they are made to make, then I ultimately own most of their person already.
Now lets say that what you want them to make is a Child.
I can already hear the horrified gasps. After all, seizing a person and forcing them to produce my child against their will is Rape. But, under anti-exclusivity logic, their refusal to have my child is an exclusionary act.
After all, if I have a right to food, a right to a house, a right to clothing, then I most certainly have the right to have my family line carry on, and dare I say it, since I apparently have the right to have my bodily needs of food, clothing, and shelter met there is then no argument that says I should not have my body’s sexual needs met as well. After all, the entire point is that a person has a right to have their needs met in equal measure to everyone else, even if those resources must be taken from those who would hold them “Exclusively for themselves.” And since some people “have’ sex” that means I have a right to “have’ sex” as well. Because it would be unjust for me to “have not’ sex.”
And if someone can produce for me a sexual experience with their labor, by anti-exclusionary logic I have the right to have that need met by that person and their refusal would then be an exclusionary act (which according to Rhyd would be an act of violence against my person, and thus an immoral act).
Which would be bad enough to an exclusively minded individual. However, it goes even further. Say the person I desire is married to someone else. That spouse’s refusal (or desired refusal) to let me sleep with their lover would be a secondary act of exclusionary violence against my person. Which again, according to anti-exclusionary logic, is both immoral and violent. In fact, it would be even worse than if I propositioned a single person, because this married could would “haves” in both terms of “having” sex and “having” marriage, where as I would be a “have not” when it comes to both sex and marriage. Meaning by anti-exclusionary logic theirs is an even more violent action against my person.
This road cuts both ways though. I as a person can then have sexual demands made of me by anyone who desires my sexual labor. Now, I can already imagine any number of people making the petty “who would want to sleep with a loser like you,” comment. At which point I will just smile and point out that I’m not the person(s) demanding politically/morally sanctioned cuckoldry. So who is the real loser?
But if the first example (you could demand sexual favors from anyone you wanted against their will, and they would be morally wrong to refuse you) doesn’t horrify you, then perhaps the second example that you could have sexual favors demanded of you and you would be morally wrong to refuse them, will horrify you. (I never underestimate the narcissism of people anymore).
And it won’t matter what your “sexual identity” is. Because to claim a sexual identity is to claim exclusivity to ones own self. So say you’re a gay man (like Rhyd is I believe) and say some woman finds him strong, handsome, and intelligent and she has the need to have a child by him because she desires a child that has his traits. His claim to denying her (that he is not heterosexual) is an act of exclusionary violence against Her Right to have her needs met. And should he try to further refuse, then there need only point to the fact that the Collective has need of a child with his traits, so he should be made to breed, because the right of the collective to have their needs met is higher than any individual’s exclusivity right to their person or property, including their genetic code.
After all, we have the right to have our basic needs met equally, and if that means we have to take from someone who has “more” then that’s okay. That’s the heart of Marxism. That’s the heart of anti-exclusivity.
Now some may think I’m taking the logic too far, but I will point out it is still within the logic of the anti-exclusionary philosophy. As soon as you say that something a person owns can be taken from them because another person has a right to that thing, then the argument is made that anything can be taken from the person who “owns it.”
Religious belief, sexual identity, private property, even “means of production” rely in an individualist and exclusionary system in order to exist. I have the right to choose my religion because I have a right my individual person. I have the right to choose my sexual/gender identity because I have a right to my individual person. I have a right to engage or not engage in sex with someone because I have a right to my individual person. I have a right to my labor because I have a right to my individual person. I have the right to be paid for my labor because I have the right to my individual person, and my individual labor. I have a right to the things I buy with the profit of that labor because I have the right to my individual person and my individual labor.
And because I have the right to myself, the right to my labor, and the right to what I obtain via the profits of that labor, I have the exclusive right to dictate what can and cannot be done with my person, my labor, my profits, and my possessions. And I either have all these rights…or I have none of them.
Hela Bless
Son of Hel 
I wonder what Rhyd and the others think about intellectual property since they want to make a living as writers.
An argument can be made for communal living, and communal living has been attempted. It takes a certain point of view and philosophy to do it. Marxism doesn’t seem to mesh well with communal life. It is more small group and tribal based. But it is with the mores of the tribe such as sharing children, sex, etc.
Since you and I and Rhyd and many of the others are steeped in Western civilisation, it would be difficult for any of us not to resent giving up any of our property rights – belongings, intellectual, spiritual, or physical. We are taught to be individualistic to an extreme. We would not do well in a commune, since there will always be some sort of resentment, jealousy or envy.
Marxism as an economic system is outdated for today’s global economy. It is industrial based and based on the idea that someone owns the means of production. Technology in the form of the Internet, etc has spread the means of production to the four winds. We all own a piece of it, and we can’t really control it all. Capitalism is a little better, but the world economy is drowning in capital and debt. So an entirely new economic system has be considered. At present, Rhyd’s arguments are outdated, and will not really do much to change what is happening.
I did want to point out that a recent article at G&R did have footnotes and sources! Refreshing to read. However, the author, on other blogs, in arguing for Rhyd’s point of view committed the logical fallacy of “this is a special case.” As in everyone else is bad but not Rhyd, he is different and special.It is called “special pleading.”
From wikipedia:
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.
In the classic distinction among informal (material), psychological, and formal (logical) fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of psychological fallacy, as it would seem to relate to “lip service”, rationalization and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the “appeal to” logical fallacies.
LikeLike
do you have a link to this post claiming rhyd is a “special case?”
LikeLike
I don’t have cut and paste on my kindle. But it was John Michael Greer’s blog _ The Well of Galabes for April. Title: A Wind that Tastes of Ashes. Greer discusses Rhyd’s fascist post, and basically sends Rhyd back to the woodshed. In the comments, first half, Barefoot Anthropologist engages Greer, only to have Greer finally shut him down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most of this argument seems to be based on taking terms to their absolutes. As signaled by your closing sentence. Take into the equation the concept of solidarity and community. If you see someone starving, and someone else standing next to him just setting fire to all sorts of foodstuffs and defecating on it just because he is bored, does that not strike you as injustice? In today’s society it is possible for everyone to have their basic needs met, without forcing anyone into poverty who is not already living in it. Morality and what’s right is not a binary thing.
LikeLike
I may do a larger post to respond to this, because you raise some good points, but I’ll go ahead and give a short response.
If a person has the right to what they obtain because they worked for it, so long as what they do with it doesn’t break the law, it is not “unjust.” So for example a person burning and defecating on foodstuffs in front of a starving person is not “unjust” because said person can do with their property what they will.
However, this is not to say that said action is not, potentially, immoral. After all, if you have food which you can give to a starving person, we do consider this a morally good act. To cruelly destroy food in front of a starving person could be considered an immoral act (though there may be reasons to destroy said food, such as plague, taintedness, bacteria, ect).
The fundamental issue however is that justice and morality, though often on parallel roads, are two entirely different things. Sometimes justice is immoral and sometime morality is unjust. It is immoral to let a man starve. It is unjust to take from a man what he possesses. Yes, we could “meet everyone’s basic needs, without “forcing anyone into poverty” by taking from those who “have more” and giving it those who “have less” and you would potentially be doing the “moral thing.” but you would still be doing the unjust thing, because you would be taking from someone what they had rightfully earned and rightfully possessed and forcefully giving it to someone who had not rightfully earned and thus cannot rightfully possess via forced seizure.
LikeLike
Perhaps its due to English being a second language to me, causing me to miss the finer points in defining justice and morality. But I do believe that we at the core have a different opinion about justice. I’d rather have someone lose part of what they have (regardless of how they got it) so that someone else goes without need. I believe we have evolved well past the need and the use for social darwinism. The correlation between working hard/useful and having wealth is, not exactly strong. I have no problem with some having more then others, but I do have a problem with undeserved and disgusting amounts of wealth in the hands of a handful while much more people have no chance to improve their lot in life.
I appreciate your intellectual consistency and openness to different views in this. While I believe we are in difference on an important ethical issue, I am glad we can discuss it honestly and civilized.
LikeLike
If a man obtains something lawfully, through his own will, cunning, hard work, or the charity of another, can that thing, regardless of quantity, truly be considered “undeserved?” After all, someone thought they deserved it for various reasons. The instant we start talking about what a person does/doesn’t deserve we start crossing very dangerous lines. Especially if that discussion is in regards to “taking away something that person doesn’t deserve.” Which to me speaks less of justice, morality, and equality, and more to pettiness and vindictiveness.
Which relates to “a disgusting amount” of something. Who gets to decide what is “a disgusting amount.” At that point you’re not talking empirical data or fact based amounts, you’re talking gut level, emotional determinations. Determinations based on being disgusted that someone else has something that the judgmental party feels they shouldn’t have because said judge is emotionally invested in stripping away what that person possesses. This too, is neither just nor moral.
Now, the alternative is a “social Darwinist” thing where “survival of the fittest” does in some measure apply. Which, perhaps, is neither fair, nor moral, nor maybe even just…however, all of life, all of nature, does work on a Darwinist system. To claim that society has no need of Darwinism is to claim that nature has no need of Darwinism. However, Darwinian evolution is the thing (along with/side the Gods) which has made the world, all its creatures, and humanity itself, into what we are today and ensures our survival through various changes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually Darwin didn’t say the survival of the fittest – that was interpreted by others to condone the imperialism that they were engaged in.
Darwin did discuss evolution as survival by the most adaptable. The organisms that survived extinction events were the most general or the most adaptable to their new environments. Trilobites, which are the longest lived species (900 million years), were the most adaptable until the Devon Era, where they decreased in how they responded to their environment. They went extinct by the Permian Extinction event. when 95 percent of all life went extinct.
So nature does work in a Darwinian system but not of the fittest, but the most adaptable. If you think of the fittest, remember that the predator-prey relationship is always in a dynamic balance – both keep pace with the other.
Polar bears are a relatively late species of bear – evolved for the polar marine environment. However, they are so specialised that they can not adapt fast enough for climate change. Pandas have evolved to eat only bamboo, once the bamboo is gone, no pandas. Opossums and armadillos, on the other hand, have been expanding their territories north. They are both generalists.
Sorry for the lesson, but I did study paleontology, and often encounter how misunderstood Darwin’s theory is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This attitude towards exclusivity (especially when it comes to monogamous marriage) might be the reason for the sudden spike in pro-polyamory articles over at Patheos.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I would pray tell me thou art joking, but I just went over there and….Gods Damn It
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, all in the space of a couple of days, like three or four articles by different people (but most within the G&R “orbit” as it were), all saying how great pagan polyamory is.
LikeLike
I had a book about modern pagans, and just about all people interviewed where in some form of non-traditional relationship. I am strongly in favour of people exploring their romantic options (between adults on equal footing and with mutual respect ofcourse), but I do think that for most people, a traditional monogamous relationship is going to work best. And there is nothing wrong with that.
LikeLike
Pingback: So You Wanna Talk About Death Part 4 | Son of Hel