Most people in capitalist countries never leave the economic bracket they were born into. Capitalism is a primitive system of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death.
Most people in capitalist countries never leave the economic bracket they were born into. Capitalism is a primitive system of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death.
As is China. As was the USSR.
What you've described is just humans, not capitalism. Alas.
"There is actually no difference between anything"
'Human nature is when you kill and betray your own species for greed.'
LOL straw man argument if ever there was one
You made the broadest comparison possible you fucking dork
Firstly, that's not a comparison, that's a correction. Secondly jumping from what you wrote above to "there's actually no difference between anything" doesn't make sense. It's not even funny, it's just nonsense.
you've gotta say something that makes sense if you don't want to be rebutted with nonsense
Edit: well, no I expect people to respond with nonsense regardless.
Then why are you here? Hog out or log out.
You straw manned, you steel manned, you no true Scotsman-ed
You have no choice but to anandon communism now
Your argument was a straw man massive enough to burn Nicholas Cage inside, don't go accusing other people.
deleted by creator
No you’re wrong. The USSR was a truly more equal society, dramatically more equal, provable in the empirical sense by the Gini coefficient.
It also achieved greater long term average growth, also provable empirically by measuring the size of the economy from the revolution to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Even if you include the destruction of the apocalyptic world war 2, a vicious revolution and counter revolutionary civil war, Hitler murdering tens of millions, the Cold War which saw insane spending on military, and the poor economic performance of the 1980s following the oil shocks of the late 70s…. All of that and still it was the greatest economic growth story of the 20th century when averaged over its lifetime.
Equality is good and a choice that can be made. You are eating the propaganda of your masters when you tell yourself that it’s somehow the natural state of man. Some inevitability that must be accepted for the greater good.
It’s not inevitable and it doesn’t lead to a greater good.
They don't know what that is. And they definitely haven't read Scheidel.
Didnt they also have huge technological leaps including leading the space race and putting a lander on Venus?
I disagree.
But still a primitive system of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death.
I don't think I can choose to be equal to others. And I don't think members of elites will reduce the likelihood of propagating their genes by choosing to make me equal to them. Because they haven't.
You're confused. I don't believe it must be accepted for the geater good. I simply recognise the futility of wishing the world was not as it is: a primitive system of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death.
I disagree. The evidence would appear to be to the contrary.
You said “you’re confused” then said you viewed the world exactly as I said you did
You claimed that I believed the view must be accepted "for the greater good" which I do not. That's what you're confused about. As I said.
So you accept it just because you like being socially inferior to some inbreds who were born rich?
No.
Then why DO you accept it? You seem to agree that things are like that. Yet you accept the world as it is so much as to argue with people who refuse to accept it and wish to build towards something better. The world was made this way by people, and we as people can change it.
I don't accept it. I acknowledge that it is the case and see its inevitability but I don't accept it.
I don't think we can change the way the world works. We didn't make biological life. Big fish eats little fish. The strong prey on the weak. Prime example: Stalin preying on the Ukrainians and stealing their food. This is the nature of biological life. There's no escaping it.
Stalin's giant spoon was just human nature.
Stalin did not 'steal the Ukrainians food' and there is no actual historical evidence to back that up. There is evidence of natural famine conditions all across Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan through that period, and then never again even during WWII. There is evidence of Stalin and the Central Committee eventually responding to these famine conditions, shipping in scarce food from other areas of Russia, and holding party members who did not properly report their yields accountable. You can lay some level of blame on the Central Committee for trying to use food, their only widely available resource at the time to trade with Western powers for currency in order to buy industrial equipment, but there is no evidence that the famine conditions were intentional and plenty of evidence that the Central Committee, Russian soviets, Kazak SR and Ukrainian SR governments did their best to alleviate the crisis and then make reforms to assure that it wouldn't happen again, with no evidence of the same response from Western powers with whom were learning about the crisis, who instead gloated about the internal failings of the soviet system.
There is also plenty of documented and letter evidence that Stalin and other Russian and Ukrainian soviet leaders were particularly sensitive to the needs of the rural and urban poor during the revolution and civil war period, with them requesting Lenin (who would usually grant it) that they give the food they were getting from the loosely organized soviets to feed the poor instead of hoarding for their soldiers.
There is plenty to criticize Stalin about, particularly his methods of handling inter-party disputes, but the idea that he 'stole food' is ahistorical nonsense.
Your 'le human nature' argument is literally a child's propagandized understanding of history. But whatever, you'll just say 'I disagree' and then fuck off, so idk why I even bother.
Everything you've said here flies in the face of what I've learned from multiple sources and you've provided no references to back up what you're saying so I'm extremely skeptical.
I recommend Fraud, Famine, and Fascism by Douglas Tottle.
That said, there seems to be a lot more recent scholarship on this that I have not personally read, including some stuff about rejection of foreign aid and a secret decree preventing migration that I was not aware of so I will have to do more reading on the issue in question. Maybe Stalin did 'steal the food'.
That said, pretending the current market economy set-up and it's incentives are inevitable or 'natural' is foolish. There will be alternatives and there will be change, it is the only constant.
Elites such as Elon Musk, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Rupert Murdock, Mitch McConnell or even Joe Manchin?
Have you considered human nature?
Alas, checkmate tankie
Yes. That's why I said what I said.
You're right all humans are irredeemable garbage and we shouldn't try
I didn't say that.
Are whales garbage because they indiscriminately scoop up tons of fish? No, they're surviving. In the same way, one should expect despicable behaviour from humans because surviving is very hard and often requires such behaviour.
Look at the Russians suffering in Ukraine in order to avoid the certain suffering of refusing their dictator's wishes.
Depends on what it is you're trying to do.
Please keep your whataboutism to whales separate from this discussion
Even in this conversation you find a way to bring up Ukraine. Human garbage fucking gweilo gammon Redditor begone
That's a masked man fallacy
I disagree.
That's a disagreement fallacy.
Alas, you've made an appeal to the one true scotsman fallacy. Try again
Minus 50 points
we're making fun of your toddler-level lib brainrot. This is what 4 years old believe.
The "Humans" your talking about all have names. So unless you think the "peasants" are as equally responsible for their explotiation as their oppressors you should start naming names. I'll start for you. Henry Kissinger.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
deleted by creator
Bro, you just don't get it. Greed is a totally justified reason to cause mass suffering to your own species for temporary benefits without any other incentive to do so!!!
People who say this stuff unironically are just psychos.
I didn't say that. I can't imagine how you conjured that up.
I will say that genocide is a part of human nature just as feeding and housing people is.
huh
Le epic hooman nature means we can't fix anything. Amirite fellow redooters?
OO im such a slave to my instincts!!! Oo im just gonna clock out and watch TV for 15 hours because i cant help it!!!! Ooo you dont get it, i have to listen to my body when it tells me to indulge because its a natural instinct! I neeeeed to satisfy my Pleasure Centers because you cant escape that paranormal phenomenon we call Capitalist Realism (Dont you DARE tell me i misread that book). Capitalism was inevitable!
Runs off, aggressively humps a nearby streetlight because i had an intrusive thought
Sorry! My human nature made me do it!
As someone with ADHD, we would have global communism in a week if this was suddenly even half true for everyone. There's no way current society could survive that.
Boo comparing developed countries to countries that immediately left colonized feudal society and rejected the world order at the same time is not 1:1
I didn't say it was.
You blamed the problems of humanity on humans, not taking into account of material circumstances ans historical context of different places of the world. You didn't say that specifically but you generalized enough to not make difference.
I don't believe that material circumstances or historical context alters the truth of what I said.
You barely said anything so you might want to reassess that opinion.
The verbosity of my own speaking and writing doesn't effect my reasoning about my opinions, it effects your reasoning about my opinions. There's no reason for me to reassess my opinion because you perceive a lack.
deleted by creator
I haven't tried to articulate my reasoning in any of the parent comments in this particular thread.
Text is an incomplete method of communication. Making short, generalized statements is only playing to the mediums weaknesses. When writing, you gotta try and consider the possible ways its going to be interpreted, cus without tone and body language and rhythm, it's pretty open.
If its not 1:1 then its not "just humans."
I disagree.
Elaborate.
After you.
Your really going to make me post an essay? Well, fine I've got time.
First we will start off with this excerpt from Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid:A Factor of Evolution,
Again, one cannot recognize scientific value in the way in which certain serious difficulties are set aside by the promoters of the patriarchal family theory. Thus, Morgan has proved by a considerable amount of evidence that a strictly-kept “classificatory group system” exists with many primitive tribes, and that all the individuals of the same category address each other as if they were brothers and sisters, while the individuals of a younger category will address their mothers’ sisters as mothers, and so on. To say that this must be a simple façon de parler — a way of expressing respect to age — is certainly an easy method of getting rid of the difficulty of explaining, why this special mode of expressing respect, and not some other, has prevailed among so many peoples of different origin, so as to survive with many of them up to the present day? One may surely admit that ma and pa are the syllables which are easiest to pronounce for a baby, but the question is — Why this part of “baby language” is used by full-grown people, and is applied to a certain strictly-defined category of persons? Why, with so many tribes in which the mother and her sisters are called ma, the father is designated by tiatia (similar to diadia — uncle), dad, da or pa? Why the appellation of mother given to maternal aunts is supplanted later on by a separate name? And so on. But when we learn that with many savages the mother’s sister takes as responsible a part in bringing up a child as the mother itself, and that, if death takes away a beloved child, the other “mother” (the mother’s sister) will sacrifice herself to accompany the child in its journey into the other world — we surely see in these names something much more profound than a mere façon de parler, or a way of testifying respect. The more so when we learn of the existence of quite a cycle of survivals (Lubbock, Kovalevsky, Post have fully discussed them), all pointing in the same direction. Of course it may be said that kinship is reckoned on the maternal side “because the child remains more with its mother,” or we may explain the fact that a man’s children by several wives of different tribes belong to their mothers’ clans in consequence of the savages’ ignorance of physiology;” but these are not arguments even approximately adequate to the seriousness of the questions involved — especially when it is known that the obligation of bearing the mother’s name implies belonging to the mother’s clan in all respects: that is, involves a right to all the belongings of the maternal clan, as well as the right of being protected by it, never to be assailed by any one of it, and the duty of revenging offences on its behalf.
hell yeah, drown that nerd in facts
In hindsight The Ants would've been more of a relevant section to whatever human nature argument was being attempted here but its shorter so its less funny. Also click the federation button under their comment it looks beautiful from their end.
I for one don't think we should fix the emoji size. Too beautiful by far to get rid of.
Alas
There's limmy emotes! How did I never know this!
I know right!
🤡
No, you really don't
deleted by creator
LOL
deleted by creator
I don't think what I'm saying is an ideology, let alone the ideology of capitalists.
Is biology the ideology of capitalists? Is mathematics the ideology of capitalists? Is philosophy the ideology of capitalists?
oppa gangnam style
Human nature
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
That doesn't contradict what I said. Human beings must necessarily cooperate and aid each other in order to survive. It's how our species evolved. However, that doesn't mean humans only ever aid each other, or even that they care about others except as a means to survive. Humans will cooperate when it's beneficial and also stab their fellow humans in the back, step on them and exploit them when it's beneficial. That's why all we have are systems of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death. But the species continues because of those systems.
my favorite story about human nature is when the Spanish (who didn't bathe because of human nature) thought that people were burning incense to praise them as gods, but it was actually because they smelled like a butt hole. nahuas and their neighbors had universal education AND hygiene AND high living standards.
but I can't argue with human nature, the Americas aren't full of historical counterfactuals at all.
AND exploitation AND social climbing AND duplicity AND violence AND murder
Edit: AND squalor
but not squalor!
The human nature argument is not an argument at all because everything we do is 'human nature'. What is far more evident is that humans will adapt to their environment to succeed or find a way to change the environment, and so when you have a system which promotes certain behaviours it is 'nature' to follow them and act in a certain way to take advantage, or to find a way to change the environment they are in.
This is such a one dimensional view of 'human nature' because you should need to define what it is before you make such a statement. Why is greed any more human nature than care and empathy? It's almost always been projection or ignorance when I hear people say that 'capitalism is human nature.' There will always be sociopaths and psychopaths, but why then have a system that promotes the worst traits of humanity at the expense of the rest rather than one that serves to find the greatest benefit for the most people? You act like greedy and corrupt people can't be held down or put in check, and conveniently ignore that the environment humans are now raised in is entirely centred around poorly regulated capitalism.
I didn't use the phrase 'human nature' in the comment you replied to.
I haven't said that it is.
I haven't said that.
You implied it, don't be stupid. If you want to say abusing power is 'human' it comes down to a very similar problem. What is your point if not that?
That primitive systems of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death, is what humans in general create, not just capitalists.
That wasn't my original point but that is certainly true.
Just false though. You are ignoring how heavily the environment you live in impacts you. It's literally everything. Living in a hierarchic society that oppresses those below and provides massive benefits for those above just incentivises people to express greedy behaviours because otherwise they will be stuck below to suffer. If you changed the environment one lived in and was educated in, you could create a completely different outcome. It's no surprise abusive families tend to be cyclical, while it is incredibly rare somebody becomes abusive on their own. Behaviours are learned for the most part.
Also, the whole 'humans in general' is just dishonest. The people making the decisions are a minority within a minority. It's not representative of the larger population. You can say the people participating are supporting it, which is true, but even then it doesn't mean that they would want the system to be that way in the first place. For many poorer people without opportunities, they have no choice or chance to advance. It's literally rigged against them.
Abusing power and killing people are acts that humans do. But so is everything, so that isn't really even a point. Literally everything is we do is 'human'.
If you want to say 'humans in general' create these systems, then why do you think that is anyway?
I disagree.
Because lying and cheating increases one's chances of survival. Hence humans lie, cheat and steal and the most "successful" people (read: richest and most powerful) are those who lie, cheat and steal the best.
This is from contemporary philosopher Martin Butler, informed by Spinoza and Schopenhauer:
https://martinbutler.eu/
Hell is Other People
Power Games
Martin Butler - Corporeal Fantasy 115 (Business managers and intelligence)
Martin Butler - Corporeal Fantasy 001 (Success)
But it doesn't even to serve to increase the chance of survival past a point. It becomes redundant and if anything makes you a bigger target once you get so high. Eventually, it just becomes needless greed at the expense of others and requires a lack of morals and apathy to continue on. I think the real problem is that people don't hold others accountable, and because narcissistic and psychopathic people tend to search for power, they are usually the ones ending up in the roles. The issue is that society doesn't care that it is that way, and that people have used their influence to conditions others into thinking that the system they live in is OK and not completely unjust. So yes, when people are not held accountable, the worst people climb to the top the fastest. Yet, humans have also proven that they can overcome their own instincts and also through their own work managed to make it so that modern day survival is incredibly easily for almost everyone when they didn't need to. Humans are not bound to act a certain way due to their genetics. It's usually a reaction to the system they live in and what they are told that causes their behaviours, of course certain people will always end up a certain way, but that is very rare.
The driver is not just survival of the individual but survival of their genes. That is, procreation. And there's no point in the acquisition of power at which more power stops being sexually attractive.
I disagree.
But not the same problem. Hence your straw man.