https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h_mMVwQnAk
Quote from: pr126 on February 02, 2018, 01:41:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h_mMVwQnAk
Because 3/4 of the people expect the other half to support them?
Indoctrination by the academics and supported by the media (opinion shapers).
Politics is becoming the identity. It is personal.
Quote from: pr126 on February 02, 2018, 02:01:45 PM
Indoctrination by the academics and supported by the media (opinion shapers).
Politics is becoming the identity. It is personal.
I sometimes forget you are serious about this. My apologies.
I think Marxism is an ideal situation where there are no 1%ers and everyone is closer to the medium. I think the experience of the unregulated commons shows how difficult that can be. I'm fine with the concept. It's the regulation that gets awkward.
Marxism is a step toward communism. Socialism is communism lite.
See Venezuela.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SP2cXoeOxY
It is easy to see why Marxism is attractive. When there are obvious disparities in wealth and power it offends people's sense of fairness. Marxism promises to balance the scales, to have equality of outcome. The problem is to balance the scales you have to restrict people's liberty. On the other end, you have capitalism promising everyone liberty but there will be a disparity of outcome since all people are not created equal or start the game of life with the same opportunities. In my opinion, both ideologies are flawed, they both have unrealistic views of human behavior, and the best approach is to focus on outcomes, not ideological consistency.
Thankfully, nobody is advocating Marxism in the West.
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2018, 02:36:06 PM
Thankfully, nobody is advocating Marxism in the West.
You mean "real" Marxisn or the Russo-Chinese versions of semi-communist dictatorships?
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2018, 02:36:06 PM
Thankfully, nobody is advocating Marxism in the West.
I dunno, I think certain collage professors adhere to it and try and get students into the beginnings of its thought process, plant the seed so to speak.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 02, 2018, 02:33:32 PM
It is easy to see why Marxism is attractive. When there are obvious disparities in wealth and power it offends people's sense of fairness. Marxism promises to balance the scales, to have equality of outcome. The problem is to balance the scales you have to restrict people's liberty. On the other end, you have capitalism promising everyone liberty but there will be a disparity of outcome since all people are not created equal or start the game of life with the same opportunities. In my opinion, both ideologies are flawed, they both have unrealistic views of human behavior, and the best approach is to focus on outcomes, not ideological consistency.
its very much the other end of the scale, which conservative and liberal values fall into, and honestly if you only follow one political ideology all the time, without question, you run the risk of going down a rabbithole of that sides extremist views. This is why you should always take two steps back in what your following and wonder or question it, ask 'isn't this enough?'
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2018, 03:33:42 PM
its very much the other end of the scale, which conservative and liberal values fall into, and honestly if you only follow one political ideology all the time, without question, you run the risk of going down a rabbithole of that sides extremist views. This is why you should always take two steps back in what your following and wonder or question it, ask 'isn't this enough?'
I look at life and ask for more.
Quote from: pr126 on February 02, 2018, 02:27:33 PM
Marxism is a step toward communism. Socialism is communism lite.
See Venezuela.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SP2cXoeOxY
Actually has more to do with the rampant corruption (spoiler alert; not exclusive to "communism") and the fact that they were a banana republic, but let's not let facts get in the way.
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2018, 02:36:06 PM
Thankfully, nobody is advocating Marxism in the West.
Democrats are 1960s campus communists, grown old in the tooth.
Don't you mean "long in the tooth"?
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2018, 03:30:40 PM
I dunno, I think certain collage professors adhere to it and try and get students into the beginnings of its thought process, plant the seed so to speak.
The purpose of a DI in boot camp, is to break you down, and rebuild you in the image of the military. Campus professors do the same ... to remake you into a 1960s communist like they once were (see 1968 Paris riots/coup). It is all so existential, oui?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 03:42:53 PM
I look at life and ask for more.
No more gruel for you, Oliver!
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 02, 2018, 06:29:19 PM
Don't you mean "long in the tooth"?
That only applies in Transylvania. These people are older than I am ... they are lucky if they still have any teeth.
Historically, the countries that switch over to communism (which is the first stage of Marxism) turn out to be countries where capitalism isn't working for the >90% of the people, and usually results in slaughter of the privileged few where capitalism worked for them. It is in the best interest of the 1% to give the lower 99% a decent life.
This is not to say that communism works either. It just becomes aristocracy by another means.
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2018, 02:36:06 PM
Thankfully, nobody is advocating Marxism in the West.
Only because it has never ever been tried before anywhere at any time.
A breakdown of the unholy trinity of Cultural Marxism, Islamism and Feminism; psychological warfare and subversion tactics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkjNAFUgLwU&feature=youtu.be
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 02, 2018, 11:13:42 PM
Only because it has never ever been tried before anywhere at any time.
The single truest thing I heard in any of my political science classes was: "The only political theorist whose ideas worked without modification was Machiavelli."
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 01:51:02 PM
Because 3/4 of the people expect the other half to support them?
I think it's because that it's obvious to people that working together for the common good is an efficient way to achieve a goal.
I think this works in well small groups. However in large groups, it's easy for a cheater to coast.
It's not difficult to imagine someone seeing it work in a small group and thinking that such a thing would work on the scale of a whole state.
But seriously folks, who wouldn't like a day at the races followed by a night at the opera?
Stupid sexy communism, strutting around in a bikini, acting like it doesn't want us to look.
...
It wants us to look.
*grumble* *grumble*
I would think People's Republic is trolling the alt right if I wasn't sure he's lacking the skills.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 03, 2018, 07:34:31 PM
But seriously folks, who wouldn't like a day at the races followed by a night at the opera?
It isn't over until the fat lady sings!
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 04, 2018, 03:05:58 AM
Stupid sexy communism, strutting around in a bikini, acting like it doesn't want us to look.
...
It wants us to look.
*grumble* *grumble*
With fiat money and other forms of magic (BitCoin or even Adam Smith) nobody needs to work for a living anymore. Put the whole population on welfare, it would be better if the peasants stopped coming to work and messing things up ;-) We have had this problem ever since agriculture became more efficient and the peasants moved from the farm to the city. Just give them addictive phone apps and other social media, to keep them distracted ...
Communism fails because communists as a general rule are destructive, angry, irrational people. It doesn't matter how "perfect" your system is if the people suck.
Quote from: orcus on February 04, 2018, 11:00:04 AM
Communism fails because communists as a general rule are destructive, angry, irrational people. It doesn't matter how "perfect" your system is if the people suck.
are you talking about communists or capitalists?
Quote from: orcus on February 04, 2018, 11:00:04 AM
Communism fails because communists as a general rule are destructive, angry, irrational people. It doesn't matter how "perfect" your system is if the people suck.
Why are they angry, though? Almost always it comes in response to capitalism and absolutism being taken to their extremes; when you are barely scraping by with little to no power while there is an aristocracy that is unbelievably well of... Yeah, you're going to be angry, destructive and irrational. It's that, or remain a serf.
Even in England and countries that had more economic equality, the early communists were people working the coal mines, the factory workers living in horrible tenants and nearly all day in dangerous sweatshops, and so on.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; communism is just a response of the people to unregulated capitalism. Both are way too far to the left/right.
That's why when pr and someone else said socialism is on the road to communism, I don't inherently disagree; they do follow the same path. But if we want to be honest and not ideologically biased, then we have to confess that capitalism is the road to child labour, slavery, mass poverty, and so on.
Frankly, holding socialists responsible for communism is as stupid as holding regulated, ethical capitalists responsible for the slave trade. That argument can be made, and it's what was made by pr, but it's a pretty impractical, and frankly stupid, argument (not to mention hypocritical when you only want to make it about one side and not the other).
Some issues are easier with a socialist mindset, like road building, schools and health care. You want your poorer neighbours to have access to good healthcare because it directly affects you.
Because Marx-chan is a fucking cutie.
(https://archive-media-1.nyafuu.org/bant/image/1493/95/1493955977507.jpg)
Capitalism also assumes a perfect man just as imaginary as communism's perfect man. Capitalism is proven to distribute goods and services 100% optimally in every case, but only if you assume the perfect consumer, who is able to evaluate and weigh all costs and benefits (And I do mean all of them, including ones we don't normally put a dollar cost on.) and choose the one, unique prefect action that is uniformally best in all situations now and forever. It is only this ideal man who is able to balance out capitalism and make it work without intervention.
Humans aren't perfect economic engines. Far from it. We just have to face the fact that we're not suited to any ideal, because we ourselves aren't an ideal. Any system we live under is just going to have to be constantly tweaked and adjusted and sometimes outright changed as we go along as the scenario changes.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 04, 2018, 07:13:04 PM
Because Marx-chan is a fucking cutie.
yes but don't forget, everyone loved Duck Takes.
(http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/scrooge-mcduck-gif-1.gif)
they even made a remark.
(http://epicwhim.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Woo-hoo.gif)
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 04, 2018, 07:46:48 PM
Capitalism also assumes a perfect man just as imaginary as communism's perfect man. Capitalism is proven to distribute goods and services 100% optimally in every case, but only if you assume the perfect consumer, who is able to evaluate and weigh all costs and benefits (And I do mean all of them, including ones we don't normally put a dollar cost on.) and choose the one, unique prefect action that is uniformally best in all situations now and forever. It is only this ideal man who is able to balance out capitalism and make it work without intervention.
Speaking as an advocate of the free market, I wasn't aware that I believed that.
Of course, if you have actually read Marx, it's obvious that so-called "communism" as practiced by the old Eastern Bloc, by the Asian "communist" states, et al., bears no resemblance to communism as actually defined by Marx. The behavior of the state in Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany were essentially indistinguishable -- either way you had a cult of personality atop an oppressive, intrusive police state with forced-labor and death camps and state control (directly or indirectly) of industry.
As for myself, I think pure communism is as impossible a dream as pure libertarianism -- they both make the same fatal flaw of assuming that people will act in the interest of the community over the self. Limited socialism, in the form of social democracy, appears to work quite well: the Nordic states of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland are all social democracies, and lead the world in nearly all important quality of life measures.
That is because NATO pays for their defense ... same as NATO pays for the defense of Switzerland. They are freeloaders, whether in a world of the Soviet Union or Putin's Russia. Let them pay for everything, then see how free stuff is. And Norway doesn't count ... because of North Sea petroleum. The others don't have that.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 04, 2018, 10:11:33 PM
Speaking as an advocate of the free market, I wasn't aware that I believed that.
Making that assumption is the only way free market capitalism will have the performance you assure. If you believe that your average human being can make free market capitalism work, then you are simply a fool. We've seen free market capitalism operating at all levels in the real world, and its failures are rife and well-documented, because the basic cog in the machinery is held together with bailing wire and spit.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 05, 2018, 06:47:07 PM
Making that assumption is the only way free market capitalism will have the performance you assure. If you believe that your average human being can make free market capitalism work, then you are simply a fool. We've seen free market capitalism operating at all levels in the real world, and its failures are rife and well-documented, because the basic cog in the machinery is held together with bailing wire and spit.
That is why so many modern people are anti-social. Their home life, work life or both ... sucks. Doesn't matter if it is a boss or a commissar. Same ape people either way.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 05, 2018, 06:47:07 PM
Making that assumption is the only way free market capitalism will have the performance you assure. If you believe that your average human being can make free market capitalism work, then you are simply a fool. We've seen free market capitalism operating at all levels in the real world, and its failures are rife and well-documented, because the basic cog in the machinery is held together with bailing wire and spit.
Again, as an advocate for the free market, I wasn't aware that I believed that.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 05, 2018, 07:49:30 PM
Again, as an advocate for the free market, I wasn't aware that I believed that.
I don't see the logic in advocating a system you don't believe can actually work...
Another point worth remembering.
Capitalism and Marxism are economic systems, not political systems. Neither one presupposes democracy or dictatorship. Bayer and BASF are doing just fine under Angela Merkel, and when united as I.G. Farben they did just fine under Hitler. The Soviet rocket program started, and for the early years dominated, the Space Race; as RKAâ€"and especially since the retirement of the Shuttleâ€"they remain leaders in manned spaceflight, and the Soyuz and Progress craft are the most successful designs used in space travel.
Quote from: trdsf on February 04, 2018, 11:29:06 PMLimited socialism, in the form of social democracy, appears to work quite well: the Nordic states of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland are all social democracies, and lead the world in nearly all important quality of life measures.
Yeah, but you forgot one thing: American exceptionalism. Numbers are for nerds! Best by fiat!
I have been waiting for 50 years, for all the socialists to move to Stockholm, so they can experience the Stockholm Syndrome first hand ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2018, 11:23:26 PM
I have been waiting for 50 years, for all the socialists to move to Stockholm, so they can experience the Stockholm Syndrome first hand ;-)
(http://0.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/22/47/c8e06ed7102a22de637500e07d1a0c34.jpg)
Quote from: Shiranu on February 05, 2018, 09:02:29 PM
I don't see the logic in advocating a system you don't believe can actually work...
Human beings don't work. They want to sleep all day in a hammock, with a cold drink and a hot woman (or man).
Quote from: Munch on February 06, 2018, 07:09:58 AM
(http://0.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/22/47/c8e06ed7102a22de637500e07d1a0c34.jpg)
Belle isn't blond or blue eyed enough, or frigid enough so I have heard ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 06, 2018, 12:31:39 PM
Human beings don't work. They want to sleep all day in a hammock, with a cold drink and a hot woman (or man).
If humans didn't organize, work, accumulate enough successfully, differentiate labor for specialists to arise, etc, we would still be living in caves knee deep in our own shit.
Sleeping all day in a hammock, even with "benefits" gets old fast. We advanced due to people who worked, questioned the current mythology, and proved it wrong (step by step). Theists have basically been a drag on the learning.
Name anything theists have given to society (other than a believe in the non-existent, which I consider no benefit) that has actually advanced human knowledge.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 05, 2018, 07:49:30 PM
Again, as an advocate for the free market, I wasn't aware that I believed that.
You don't need to believe that in order to be an advocate for the free market, but in order for the free market to
work as well as you believe it will, you need the perfect man. Period.
Quote from: pr126 on February 02, 2018, 02:27:33 PM
Marxism is a step toward communism. Socialism is communism lite.
See Venezuela.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SP2cXoeOxY
Communists would probably say modern socialism is just capitalism lite.
The way I see it, all modern wellfare states implement 'socialism' to some degree in their system. And for a society to function, I do believe some dosage is necessary.
I am a socialist, by the way. At least in that sense.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 06, 2018, 06:11:28 PM
You don't need to believe that in order to be an advocate for the free market, but in order for the free market to work as well as you believe it will, you need the perfect man. Period.
For perfect Socialism/Communism .. you need the New Soviet Man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNRlbn7_zHY
Brought to you the "Friends of Ho Chi Minh"
^ Yes, glad you were paying attention to my previous messages where I made exactly that point.
There is both a left and a right shoe. They both fit, on the correct feet.
Quote from: Baruch on February 06, 2018, 06:37:44 PM
For perfect Socialism/Communism .. you need the New Soviet Man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNRlbn7_zHY
Brought to you the "Friends of Ho Chi Minh"
That graphic is really quite a complicated symbolic image. To the point of being incomprehensible. Oh I'm sure someone can explain a lot of it. But it really falls into "bad art almost meaningful".
Why don't you ask trump? Full-on communist dictator wannabe that he is, he wants a communist-style military parade in Washington.
For as much as Republicans say they hate Communism (and Islam), they looooove to emulate Communists (and religious theocrats) to a tee.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/07/donald-trumps-demand-military-parade-draws-comparisons-dictators/
Quote from: Atheon on February 07, 2018, 02:51:51 AM
Why don't you ask trump? Full-on communist dictator wannabe that he is, he wants a communist-style military parade in Washington.
For as much as Republicans say they hate Communism (and Islam), they looooove to emulate Communists (and religious theocrats) to a tee.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/07/donald-trumps-demand-military-parade-draws-comparisons-dictators/
It is actually frightening to see how Republicans have switched from being "democracy-around-the-world" to authoritarianism here. There is a disturbing suggestion of "one election, one time" among them.
I don't what has changed about them to cause this authoritorian choice. Perhaps it is that they finally got control over all 3 branches of government and want desperately to make it permanent?
The Republicans have been yearning for dictatorship for decades. Their supposed championing of democracy around the world has always been a sham (one that I saw decades ago). They love to say one thing and do another. The only thing that has changed is they are no longer hiding their true nature. They ARE the very communists/nazis/islamists (i.e. anti-democratic autocrats) they claim to oppose.
And people wonder why I oppose the Republicans so vehemently. THIS IS WHY.
Yet the right-wing sycophants will continue to worship his ass like he's lord gawd almighty because they are too stupid to understand reality, having been duped by right-wing propaganda.
Quote from: Atheon on February 07, 2018, 04:38:43 AM
The Republicans have been yearning for dictatorship for decades. Their supposed championing of democracy around the world has always been a sham (one that I saw decades ago). They love to say one thing and do another. The only thing that has changed is they are no longer hiding their true nature. They ARE the very communists/nazis/islamists (i.e. anti-democratic autocrats) they claim to oppose.
And people wonder why I oppose the Republicans so vehemently. THIS IS WHY.
Yet the right-wing sycophants will continue to worship his ass like he's lord gawd almighty because they are too stupid to understand reality, having been duped by right-wing propaganda.
I agree. That's it. "I agree". You said it right.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 03:53:07 AM
It is actually frightening to see how Republicans have switched from being "democracy-around-the-world" to authoritarianism here. There is a disturbing suggestion of "one election, one time" among them.
I don't what has changed about them to cause this authoritorian choice. Perhaps it is that they finally got control over all 3 branches of government and want desperately to make it permanent?
Every party is partisan. That is tautological. The Republicans have been authoritarian since they were Wigs. New England Uber Alles. Of course Democrats are based on slavery, and still are.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 07:14:12 AM
Every party is partisan. That is tautological. The Republicans have been authoritarian since they were Wigs. New England Uber Alles. Of course Democrats are based on slavery, and still are.
Have you not YET figured out that the parties switched sides in the 1960s? Yeah, party=partisan, duh. I dislike both parties and most of the minor ones. I am not entirely on any party's side because none is entirely on MY side.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 07:18:20 AM
Have you not YET figured out that the parties switched sides in the 1960s? Yeah, party=partisan, duh. I dislike both parties and most of the minor ones. I am not entirely on any party's side because none is entirely on MY side.
Unless you work directly for the DNC or RNC, neither party works for you. You haven't yet figured that out. And no, I don't care which form of Hell is more flavorful this week. Partisanship is part of the problem.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 07:19:58 AM
Unless you work directly for the DNC or RNC, neither party works for you. You haven't yet figured that out. And no, I don't care which form of Hell is more flavorful this week. Partisanship is part of the problem.
As I said (elsewhere?) I know neither party is entirely on my side. Which is why I liked the 60s when there were candidates on all sides to choose among. Sadly, no longer.
For all you closet Marxists out there ... here is the real thing on a recent topic ...
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right
Reading this takes a lot less time than reading his books or listening to his meandering video lectures.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 12:26:39 PM
For all you closet Marxists out there ... here is the real thing on a recent topic ...
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right
Reading this takes a lot less time than reading his books or listening to his meandering video lectures.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Fluss only alludes to Peterson being a post-modernist, but completly fails to demonstrate that.
Only thing I could draw from that article was that the author has reactionary response to Peterson's critic of the status quo of PC culture and post-modernism.
Sendt fra min SM-G920F med Tapatalk
Quote from: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 07:29:07 AM
As I said (elsewhere?) I know neither party is entirely on my side. Which is why I liked the 60s when there were candidates on all sides to choose among. Sadly, no longer.
Also, it's pretty clear which of the two main parties is not just less on my side but is actively hostile to me. Any place that exists within the current GOP for a gay atheist is small enough to fall victim to quantum mechanical effects.
Quote from: Baruch on February 07, 2018, 12:26:39 PM
For all you closet Marxists out there ... here is the real thing on a recent topic ...
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/02/jordan-peterson-enlightenment-nietzsche-alt-right
Reading this takes a lot less time than reading his books or listening to his meandering video lectures.
And, not being a closet or admitted Marxist, I don't care.
So, why is Marxism so attractive? Because many people want a shortcut.
Marxism is humanity's tendency to form groups and work in and as a group taken to its absurd extreme. The force multiplier of combined effort is not to be underestimated. Two million people operating completely on their own can manage a bunch of straw huts and subsistence farming. Operating together, they become an empire capable of building pyramids.
Two million people interacting independently is far more powerful than two million people under one central control.
Central control gives you pyramids. Independent interaction gives you computers.
QuoteTwo million people operating completely on their own can manage a bunch of straw huts and subsistence farming. Operating together, they become an empire capable of building pyramids.
I'm actually going to have to disagree with you there, though not as heavily as I am going to have to disagree with Jason.
Two million people operating completely on their own won't even get you huts and subsistence farming. Two million people operating completely on their own will get you dead. There is a reason that even the earliest of human beings lived in groups of 5-10, and before them all our pre-humanoid ancestors lived in bands as well; we are not evolved to be individually self sufficient... we are infact the exact opposite, we are evolved to be extremely well suited for cooperation and group team work.
We are not exceptional hunters. We are not exceptional physical specimens. After working as a group, we can have the base resources required to live as purely individual creatures, but even then it is an extreme struggle. It's just not how we physically or mentally evolved. Without groups, we never would have had the time and organization to discover farming in the first place... and we would not be able to gather the resources to farm, hunt, and build houses. Farming is extremely hard work, harder than hunting (hence the reason farming only really develops in regions were hunting wasn't bountiful) and hunting takes up too much of your time to spend innovating housing and making anything other than the most basic of shelter.
But 90%, your point was bang on. Now to Jason's rebuttal...
QuoteTwo million people interacting independently is far more powerful than two million people under one central control.
Evidence please, because the entirety of human (and pre-human) history directly contradicts that.
QuoteCentral control gives you pyramids. Independent interaction gives you computers.
"Independent interaction gives you computers."
Right. Take a second and think about that comment. No, please, go ahead.
Independent interaction, since about 8,000 BC and really well before then, has been borderline impossible. But lets just stick to the age of computers...
Did the people who invented computers live in houses? They are part of a interactive, organized community. Did they live in a city? That is a interactive, organized community. Did they have running water? Interactive, organized community. Electricity? Interactive, organized community. Where did they acquire the parts to build the computer? An interactive, organized community. What gave them the funding to spend time building a computer? An interactive, organized community. Did they go to school to have even the most basic of knowledge that allowed them to even formulate the idea of a computer? Product of an interactive, organized community.
I could literally go on for hours about how many factors required a centrally organized community for a computer to exist, but the point should be clear. You are just simply wrong from every facet of a factual standpoint; neither historically nor philosophically is the part stronger than the whole, or the disorganized stronger than the organized.
Early man wasn't communist or democratic. Marx is obsolete anthropology. Early man was family/clan/tribe based. And engaged in inter-clan rivalry and inter-tribe warfare. There wasn't an early commissar for basket weaving or hut building. Trying to do things bureaucratically would have gotten you clubbed (they had no writing to make a bureaucracy at first). For early man, think Vikings, Mongols etc.
The advanced early civilizations were formed in semidry areas that required organized irrigation projects to function. Weather, fertility, agricultural means ... made necessity the mother of invention. And that produced theocracy and monarchy. Again ... not republics, democracies or communes. They had communes in modern Israel, kibbutzim, and they failed. Everyone was paid the same, but not everyone worked as hard. The Pharaoh knew how to put a stop to that.
Alright. Yes, two million people living completely on their own would be dead. I was being generous.
We banded into tribes precisely because we are social creatures and we depend on each other for protection and aid each other. We have never, at any time in our history, lived and done things alone. Not even our greatest inventions are the product of any one person. Take those computers, for example. To just discover the principles that makes the computer work took at least thirty people, to say nothing of the underpinnings that enabled them to discover those principles.
James Watt didn't invent the steam engine. He only invented a small, vital bit of it that turned the primitive steam pumps at the time into more-or-less efficient engines. Take any invention and trace the intellectual provenance of all its components, and you will never find a singular person. The process of science itself depends on a community to check your work; those who don't let others check their work are called "cranks."
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 06:44:15 PM
Everyone was paid the same, but not everyone worked as hard. The Pharaoh knew how to put a stop to that.
Enforcement is vital to every society, because cheaters always exist in every population.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 10, 2018, 07:28:41 PM
Enforcement is vital to every society, because cheaters always exist in every population.
Which is why the plantation model, disguised many times, is the only available model.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 07:44:41 PM
Which is why the plantation model, disguised many times, is the only available model.
You are suggesting, I think, that "the plantation model" is about corporations and workers today. Is that correct?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 02:32:48 AM
You are suggesting, I think, that "the plantation model" is about corporations and workers today. Is that correct?
People don't know how to treat each other in a good way, we like to exploit. Plantation = exploitation. Of course there is still chattel slavery (mostly young girls), and we have much more wage slavery and debt slavery than we had 150 years ago. The most persistent exploitation is implied. I benefit indirectly for example, from American imperialism abroad. But also from collectivist exploitation at home (and not just because my salary is ultimately from the government). Plantation life as we know it, started with the invasion of Ireland by England, under Queen Elizabeth I. This naturally extended into the time of her successor, King James I, and into the New World. Of course, we anglophones think that our New World exploitation was more human than the Spanish or French version. It wasn't ... anglophones were actually more racist.
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2018, 05:24:52 AM
People don't know how to treat each other in a good way, we like to exploit. Plantation = exploitation. Of course there is still chattel slavery (mostly young girls), and we have much more wage slavery and debt slavery than we had 150 years ago. The most persistent exploitation is implied. I benefit indirectly for example, from American imperialism abroad. But also from collectivist exploitation at home (and not just because my salary is ultimately from the government). Plantation life as we know it, started with the invasion of Ireland by England, under Queen Elizabeth I. This naturally extended into the time of her successor, King James I, and into the New World. Of course, we anglophones think that our New World exploitation was more human than the Spanish or French version. It wasn't ... anglophones were actually more racist.
I think that you are admixing centuries sufficiently that I will dodge this one. Going from 1533 Elizabeth 1 of England to today (your benefits working for the US Govt) is a big bite.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 12:44:51 PM
I think that you are admixing centuries sufficiently that I will dodge this one. Going from 1533 Elizabeth 1 of England to today (your benefits working for the US Govt) is a big bite.
We still speak the Queen's English, and take the Queen's shilling. US is just the un-admitted to part of the Commonwealth.
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2018, 01:17:24 PM
We still speak the Queen's English, and take the Queen's shilling. US is just the un-admitted to part of the Commonwealth.
Actually, last I checked, we don't take the Queen's Shilling or speak er English, bucky, but ye might find we do a twisty mite after BBC hour, whot? Sniff, sniff... Bugger that bloke, e's on the wrong way of the road...
Ahem! As I was saying, we aren't british over here. we're just idiots....