edit
edit
^don't even waste time on boarz, he hasn't graduated high school yet, but he's offering these 'definitive' opinions on things he has no practical understanding of.
it's hilarious how elaborate his essays become without displaying any actual synthesis or analysis of the subject matter, just spouting what is probably the 'conventional wisdom' that he's absorbed from those around him that he preceives to be knowledgable.
the more you know, the more you know that don't know anything...and the inverse is doubly true.
Why should they create more employment? People create their own jobs. It's called creating the market. If you're out of a job sit around and try to think up a business plan. See what people need, figure out how to get them what they need at a reasonable price and how to scrape enough money from it to live and pay off investors, find some other people with money, try to convince them to throw you a bone to try out your idea, and then when it works boom, new jobs created. Capitalism has no shortage of jobs. And mass production only came into being because the workers want more money all the time, so they figured out how to do shit with less people. The worker is as greedy as the bourgeoisie. Why? Because people are greedy. Its a survival instinct. We horde wealth to guarantee our own success. This puts strains on group efforts, but we overcome it through authority.
What you believe about tribal society is directly in contradiction with the findings of American anthroplogist and social theorist Lewis H. Morgan (whose writings went on to influence the likes of Darwin, Freud and even Marx). He not only studied ruins of ancient society, but was adopted into several uncontacted ones and wrote greatly of their inner relations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_H_Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Society
Somehow I trust Morgan's researched findings more than your unresearched opinions.
Somehow none of that mentions communal life... In fact it mentions Gentes and tribalism which supports my idea of authoritarian tribes serving a dominant male or female. Like apes have...because we are apes. Gorillas follow the biggest and oldest male. Chimps are either patriarchal or matriarchal depending on the subspecies. But mostly patriarchal.
Perhaps if you cared to look beyond the wikipedia article and perhaps hit a library or two.
But as for the wiki, it is the period of 'savagery' (of natural subsistence). Note how this period of, his estimate, 60,000 years comes before the period of government. Yeah. The more you know.
The explanation is that in this period of natural subsistence, where a surplus had yet to exist for no person/no tribe could diverge from the daily calorie-intensive procurement of their own means of subsistence, there was no means to exploit one another. One could not exist alone without the tribe, and the tribe could not live without its people. Without a surplus, there is no means for exploitation, there is no class stratification.
We're still savage. Nothing's changed. Government exists in animal groups. I don't think you understand. Animals follow a leader or they follow themselves. Mammals are naturally aristocratic or Anarchic. There are no intelligent communists. Bugs are communists. That's it. Only ants and wasps and bees and shit are communists. But they're almost machines almost entirely controlled by pheromones. That's your people's opium.
To address your new point about survival, you're ultimately saying communism only works when everyone is on the verge of starving to death and are forced to work together or die. Point made. You lose this debate. Communism cannot be a success while people are successful.
Holy shit, you're so stupid.
The explanation is that in this period of natural subsistence (forget the word "savagery", this is just an outdated word Morgan used), where a surplus had yet to exist for no person/no tribe could diverge from the daily calorie-intensive procurement of their own means of subsistence, there was no means to exploit one another.
One could not exist alone without the tribe, and the tribe could not live without its people. Without a surplus, there is no means for exploitation, there is no class stratification. There is no need to mention communal living in the wiki (but is easily mentioned in his documents), it's evidenced by the lifestyle if you can put two and two together.
Class stratification denotes a class domination, but a social hierarchy among tribes limited to natural subsistence, devoid of classes and thus with no means to exploit its people has no such domination.
Yes, there are plenty of intelligent communists. In fact, "Das Kapital" by Marx is a required reading in many economics classes for it taught capitalists a lot about their own system. "The Wretched of the Earth" by philosopher Fanon is also a required reading for all members of the pentagon, I suppose to empathize with the struggles of racial minorities and colonized people.
You commit a disservice to yourself and your own philosophical development if you throw everything red out of the window. Wake up and smell the struggle.
Quote:
I wonder if it has ever occured to you that your political and philosophical views are shaped at all by the comfortable suburban lifestyle you've grown to enjoy, alienated from any life-or-death struggle - because 75% of the world is nowhere near such an economic position.
Economists are scientists. It makes sense to see both sides of the coin. You have to know what the problems are with both principles and weigh the odds. Most people see that capitalism is the lesser evil.
I wear red all the time, but "I keep a blue flag hanging out my backside
But only on the left side, yeah that's the Crip side
Ain't no other way to play the game the way I play"
I don't want to smell your struggle. Filthy heathen savages fighting with sticks and stones? Unsporting wot?
Interesting that Morgan, besides being a world renowned anthropologist, was himself a capitalist in the railroad industry, yet documented tribes that he lived with who existed without classes and private property.
You're right, social science involves both ends of the coin. I used to be a conservative and later a liberal (around your age) before I became a communist. John Stuart Mill was my favourite long before Marx came into my life.
I had huge utilitarian illusions, before I began to realize that Mill's concept of 'harm' has no account for economic manifestations of the word - unlike Marx who saw the quality of our very lives dependent on it, which I believe is not an absurd notion at all.
So the only reason I give you the time of day is because you remind me of a younger version of myself. However, know that your views are subject to change, and they hopefully will, especially once you live on your own and you're scraping by to survive with a disgusting job and indebted to the government for a commodified post-secondary education that is a free right in dozens of other progressive nations.
the irony of the fact that you said this IN DEFENSE OF P2P is blowing my mind right now.
That description IS P2P
I won't comment on BHB's KTL-style posts because they are far too long for and meandering for me to ever consider reading.
But then it's rare that I see any KTL post by anybody that doesn't make me embarrassed to be human
Yeah but while you went from conservative to liberal to communist I can't see myself doing that. I'm trapped in an infinity loop between Authoritarian Conservative and Individualist Liberal. I don't like the idea of Authoritarian Liberal. Its impossible to work. That's what communism always turns into. You're chasing a dream. Fascism worked. Communism worked. Neither were nice. Fascism purely as an economic socialist principle works better then communism. The other elements of fascism are ugly but the core idea works. Capitalism controlled by the elite for the good of the whole. While Stalin the "Communist" starved Ukraine like a brute, Hitler's only flaw (politically speaking) was his progressive beliefs. Hitler took progressive American liberal ideas like Eugenics and Racial superiority and used the power of fascism to destroy those enemies. Fascism is Imperialism distilled down to its science. Government powered "Third Position" capitalism. Realistically its the middle position.
Anyhow I think our quality of life has nothing to do with economics and that its easier to be poor and happy then rich and happy. Economics is simply there to keep us alive and moving forward. I'm happy, but not because I have a nice house and a car and nice clothes. I'm happy because I'm alive, the weather is nice, the air is cool, there are puffy white clouds in the sky and the water I'm drinking is clean my salsa is spicy and my chips are salty. I could have the same experience on welfare.
Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera was critical of both left-wing and right-wing politics, once saying that "basically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile".
DMX is ill as fuck and I don't really like Ghostface. Voted yes.
lol
i know, i know...it's just with boarz it is more egregious; because his posts on any subject become multi-paragraph rambles filled with fallacies and poorly thought out arguments that have been given a fresh coat of upper-middle class pseduointellectualism.
the idea of BHB and P2P actually reading all of, and then actually breaking down, and then responding to, one another's posts actually impresses me.
The problem with "discussing" topics online is flawed because nobody has an open mind. The step missing from the communication process is "consideration".
Nobody really cares what anybody has to say, because nobody has an open mind. Every one has already informed an opinion on everything and refuse to consider that they might not know everything.
It's pointless Except in KTL sometimes when people bring up completely theoretical nonsense and then it turns into a "build" which is KTL-ese for a pseudo-intellect dick-measuring contest, where a bunch of douchers try to out-google eachother for obscure theories by other douchers to see who's adopted non-provable theory is the KTL-est of them all.
But usually it's Palehorse being retarded
Damn, I got way off topic.
Also, I'm just as bad as everyone else, in that I don't care what any of these retards thinks about anything