Greetings

[Blackleaf]

Oh. They're still here.

[Mike Cl]

Not full Communism, but primitive Communism in hunter-gatherer societies which were egalitarian.

You keep saying that.  Can you give any examples?  I don't think that that is accurate.  I don't think hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian.

[Shiranu]

If greed is not human nature, then who taught it to us?

[Shiranu]

You keep saying that.  Can you give any examples?  I don't think that that is accurate.  I don't think hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian.

From studies of modern isolated hunter-gatherer tribes, the evidence is they were; it makes sense too, as all members of the tribe would have been required to carry their weight and, because of their small numbers, unity is extremely necessary for survival. They are essentially one large family, even if it doesn't necessarily fit our model of a family, and you can see this in their mythology with tribes generally believing they are all descendent of one person. We still have this in the Judeo-tradition, with all mankind coming from Adam/Eve and then Moses.

But that doesn't mean that all hunter-gatherers are peaceful, or that it is an inherent trait of humanity to behave this way; it's survival of the fittest... the tribes that worked together are more likely to survive than the ones that have a lot of internal strife. Once a civilization gets large enough that if x-amount of people no longer contribute to society it won't cause any large-scale damage you almost uniformly see chieftains and a warrior class emerge, meaning that it is also human nature that once people extend outside their tribe/family, greed and conflict is 100% human nature.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways


I think I've said it before, but in my opinion no civilization should be larger than a city-state; at most a county, because the larger a society is the more expansionist and corrupt it tends to become + the individual loses any real representation or decision-making power.

[the_antithesis]

You keep saying that.  Can you give any examples?  I don't think that that is accurate.  I don't think hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian.

You know, even if she's right about that, if that kind of society is so great, why did we change it? Obviously, it sucks balls. So, even if she right about these egalitarian societies and even if she's able to convince the whole world to adopt her definition of communism, it will be abandoned because it ultimately doesn't work.

[Hoxha Cat]

You know, even if she's right about that, if that kind of society is so great, why did we change it? Obviously, it sucks balls. So, even if she right about these egalitarian societies and even if she's able to convince the whole world to adopt her definition of communism, it will be abandoned because it ultimately doesn't work.

Listen bud, it's not my definition of Communism, it's the true definition of full Communism which involves the "withering away of state" as Engels worded it and a gift economy "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as Marx had said. It's just in the western world people inaccurately and quite often refer to Socialism as Communism, despite the fact they had not achieved it and were merely Socialist that's why those nations and their leaders had proclaimed to be building Socialism. You can not guarantee that Communism would not work, if you went back into the feudal time period and told them about Capitalism they would most likely laugh at you and call it impossible, just because you think it's impossible doesn't mean it is, especially when due to the inherent contradictions within Capitalism we start to see a new era of Socialism and then eventually after that and its conflicts, the achievement of Communism.

[Shiranu]

You know, even if she's right about that, if that kind of society is so great, why did we change it?

Advancements in technology (primarily agriculture) allowed people to contribute less to society while not causing significant damage to society as well as allowed tribes to expand far beyond the family units that held them pretty tightly together.

You suddenly need less people to generate food while simultaneously having a massive boon in population. Like evolutionary traits, not all progress is necessarily positive... or rather not all aspects of that progress will be positive. And like evolutionary traits, cultural evolution has only one goal, reproduction.



And of course once a society is, say, 5,000 people strong... why wouldn't they see the lands of tribal people's and say to themselves, "We out number them 500-1, why not just take it for ourselves", meaning the tribal societies will die off not just to evolution and people migrating to cities, but the cities using violence to kill them off.

I would argue neither is great... they both have their positives and their negatives.

[drunkenshoe]

Patriarchy and greed had started to develop when society transitioned to the period of slavery and then increased during feudalism and Capitalism.

What a theistic expression. Humans are animals. Our basic needs, desires and behavioral patterns can be explained, and tracked back to their evolutionary and sometimes even direct genetic roots. Greed has always existed along with every kind of other human trait.

There is no such matriarchy -or patriarchy for that matter- to shape society into homogenic (?) system, some -archy place back in ancient world. People were really busy trying to survive. Average life span was around 30. Women kept dying like flies giving birth. The big problem is that they don't anymore. That's how we got here. The urgent part of the big problem of over population is that it is very recent kind of past. Before building socialist utopias, you need to find place for these human animals because they keep breeding.   

Centralisation of arms and administration, and chasing resources with that make life easier. That's the transition you talk about. And guess what? The soldiers were men. They still are. Female combat troops are a political construct and they should exist. It doesn't change anything.
 

[Hoxha Cat]

What a theistic expression. Humans are animals. Our basic needs, desires and behavioral patterns can be explained, and tracked back to their evolutionary and sometimes even direct genetic roots. Greed has always existed along with every kind of other human trait.

There is no such matriarchy -or patriarchy for that matter- to shape society into homogenic (?) system, some -archy place back in ancient world. People were really busy trying to survive. Average life span was around 30. Women kept dying like flies giving birth. The big problem is that they don't anymore. That's how we got here. The urgent part of the big problem of over population is that it is very recent kind of past. Before building socialist utopias, you need to find place for these human animals because they keep breeding.   

Centralisation of arms and administration, and chasing resources with that make life easier. That's the transition you talk about. And guess what? The soldiers were men. They still are. Female combat troops are a political construct and they should exist. It doesn't change anything.

Listen pal, my expression was not in any way theistic. There is indeed a patriarchy within society! You have misinterpreted my points.

[Hoxha Cat]

Oh. They're still here.

Listen screw you, why would you think I wouldn't be here?!

[Hoxha Cat]

If greed is not human nature, then who taught it to us?

I wasn't saying, implying, nor attempting to imply that it was taught as if by some nonsensical deity, it was rather something that developed, this doesn't mean it's natural.

[Hoxha Cat]

Oh. They're still here.

You tryin' to imply I was or should be banned?

[drunkenshoe]

From studies of modern isolated hunter-gatherer tribes, the evidence is they were; it makes sense too, as all members of the tribe would have been required to carry their weight and, because of their small numbers, unity is extremely necessary for survival. ...

That sounds like an exaggerated romanticized notion, imho. People in small groups can learn to act according to the benefit of the family, and be greedy, ambitious... Especially when survival is in question which was often. They are not stupid. That's why human culture invented politics and social roles, key roles, side roles...etc.

Do you have a link or some source?

[drunkenshoe]

Listen pal, my expression was not in any way theistic. There is indeed a patriarchy within society! You have misinterpreted my points.

Yes, it is theistic. It suggests humans have learned to be greedy in some artificial way. ?

There is indeed a patriarchy within society! You have misinterpreted my points.

Yeah it is nauseating. Men do not like it either. Human culture = Mad Max Fury Road in a nutshell. And then look at socialists. We are doomed. 

[Hoxha Cat]

Yes, it is theistic. It suggests humans have learned to be greedy in some artificial way. ?

Yeah it is nauseating. Men do not like it either. Human culture = Mad Max Fury Road in a nutshell. And then look at socialists. We are doomed.

No, it is not theistic dipstick, something can be developed without coming from a deity.