Has capitalism civilized the world?

[Nehru]

What I mean is: are people who're exposed to capitalism more civilized than others who aren't? For instance, South Asia is essentially feudalistic, and people's mentality will reflect that - small-minded, casteist, xenophobic, violent, and so on.

Or, even in western countries, places which are thoroughly exposed to industrial capitalism (NY or London, for instance) are more civilized (meaning less racist, more open-minded, multi-cultural, humanistic etc.) than small towns in the same country.

Would it be fair to conclude that capitalism, for all its flaws, has at least civilized people (because its global nature gets people from different backgrounds working together and therefore becoming more tolerant and liberal)?

[RGacky3]

Not really, you could say Capitalism is more civilized than feudal societies, but not really from primitive communist societies (take American indians or pre-feudal european tribes).

[thefinalmarch]

How exactly is South Asia feudal? When we talk about feudalism we talk about objective relations to the means of production, not about individuals' subjective views and opinions. Besides, being small-minded, casteist, xenophobic and violent isn't necessarily a mark of feudalism at all.

[Misanthrope]

What does civilized even mean?

[ВАЛТЕР]

No, it may have given the nations who do the exploiting a higher standard of living than those who are exploited. However, as for these nations being more "civilized" I think not. Crime in the US is rampant, much of it a direct result of capitalism. The working class have no future with capitalism. They struggle for the crumbs from the bourgeois feast.

These same "civilized" nations constantly bomb, invade, occupy, and harass other sovereign nations throughout the world. It is in their best interest to keep the working class of the third world as nothing but slaves to produce cheap commodities. Is any of this the mark of a civilized nation? I think not.

[danyboy27]

To be able to claim that the capitalistic nation are more civilised than the other, you need to define what civilised is.

If civilised mean peaceful, then the mesoamerican, african and native indian where less bloodthirsty than europeans. There was war and sacrifice, but nothing comparable to what France, england or spain was doing at that time.

if civilised mean having an advanced social structure, then the mesoamerican, indian and africans where far more civilised in many way. most of these civilisations had an advanced set of right for their slaves, they where able to set up verry advanced code of laws that where more socially advanced than their european counterpart. A mayan slave was more free and had more right than a poor englishman.

if civilised mean more technology, then all those non-capitalistic tribes and civilisation at the time where more advanced than europe. hygiene standard where better than europe, sewers systems where more functionnal, their engineering skills where outstanding, and their mathematical skill far beyond our capabilities at the time.

The capitalists won beccause they where overly barbaric and less civilised than those civilisations.

there is a reason why the civilised nations didnt came up with the idea of firearms, beccause there was no real need of constant escalation of the mean of destruction in order to plunder even more.

[Maslo]

Of course it has. I am sure noone here disputes that capitalism is better than feudal societies.


if civilised mean more technology, then all those non-capitalistic tribes and civilisation at the time where more advanced than europe. hygiene standard where better than europe, sewers systems where more functionnal, their engineering skills where outstanding, and their mathematical skill far beyond our capabilities at the time.

You mean compared to feudal Europe? That was not truly capitalist.
After Europe became capitalist the rate of progress increased exponentially.

So which non-capitalist tribes were better than capitalist (not feudal) europe?

[Kamos]

Capitalism has made the world more civilised than what it was in feudal societies, yes.

[Hit The North]

"Civilise" is a loaded word and highly dependent on perspective. According to Marx, capitalism explodes the bounds of rural idiocy, giving a thrusting dynamic to human interaction and it also provides the basis, for the first time in history, for the "universal man" in the shape of the proletariat. It becomes a universal system through its global reach and provides an ever increasing cosmopolitan character to society. Furthermore, it greatly expands the means of production and makes technological development an imperative. In these respects it widens our hermeneutic horizon and increases the sum knowledge of the species and makes that knowledge more widespread.

At the same time, there are severe limitations to this process that can only be overcome with the supercession of capitalism by socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Difficult question to answer scholarly, in terms of actually definining civilisation, and especially more difficult with the OPs reference to S. Asia, which is not feudal in its economic relations.

The question can only be answered in generalisations. Though it would appear that, country by country, there is some sort of correlation between economic development and 'civilisation', there are a couple of difficulties:

1) We can only generalise based on personal prejudices. Somebody born and raised in a high-rise in Merthyr Tydfil would probably repudiate such a hypothesis, whereas somebody born into a middle class family in West London would probably reach a different conclusion.

2) A related point is that, whilst we can generalise about countries, that is to ignore the uneven intra-country economic development that is the hallmark of Capitalism.

In any case, the question of civilisation is not a case-by-case one, it is not a question whereby the main parameter (civilisation) could ever be easily defined and for these reasons, it is difficult to turn general correlations into specific, explained causation.

Because of this, one could argue that civilisation is in fact a worldwide phenomenon, and that because of uneven intra- and inter-country, continent and world economic development, we (the human race) are only as civilised as our weakest link. Thus, using such a barometer, one could actually say that Capitalism has not, on the whole, advanced the civilisation of the human race, only parts thereof.

[Ocean Seal]

Nope capitalism is what is keeping those feudalistic nations feudal. Because if they develop then it would cut into the profits of the capitalists of the first world nations.

[Skooma Addict]

What I mean is: are people who're exposed to capitalism more civilized than others who aren't? For instance, South Asia is essentially feudalistic, and people's mentality will reflect that - small-minded, casteist, xenophobic, violent, and so on.

Or, even in western countries, places which are thoroughly exposed to industrial capitalism (NY or London, for instance) are more civilized (meaning less racist, more open-minded, multi-cultural, humanistic etc.) than small towns in the same country.

Would it be fair to conclude that capitalism, for all its flaws, has at least civilized people (because its global nature gets people from different backgrounds working together and therefore becoming more tolerant and liberal)?

Basically yes. Capitalism makes people pay for their discrimination and refusal to cooperate/coexist.

[danyboy27]

You mean compared to feudal Europe? That was not truly capitalist.
After Europe became capitalist the rate of progress increased exponentially.

So which non-capitalist tribes were better than capitalist (not feudal) europe?
pizaro and columbus where coming from the renaissance era if my memory is correct.

Europe was still struggling with hygiene issues at this time, mainly due to the lack of Quality food and good infrastructure.

the south american civilisation where far from perfect but they achieved great strides in mathematics, engineering and infrastructures.

Sadly we cant say how their civilisation would have evolved, our ''civilized'' encestor killed them all and destroyed their cities.

[redhotpoker]

Capitalism was a great progressive and revolutionary force in the world until the epoch of imperialism.

[Bud Struggle]

What does civilized even mean?Around here? Being restricted.

[Ele'ill]

Around here? Being restricted.

The martini lunches have told you to post this- ignore them.

[Bud Struggle]

:D

Oh come on Mari3L. You have to admit OI is BY FAR the most interesting and civilized forum on RevLeft. :)

[PhoenixAsh]

What I mean is: are people who're exposed to capitalism more civilized than others who aren't?

No. Their uncivilised behaviour is expressed differently.

Civilised is a social construct. It reflects what is perceived as ideal and more often than not this is a reflection of how society likes to view itself.


For instance, South Asia is essentially feudalistic,No it isn't.


and people's mentality will reflect that - small-minded, casteist, xenophobic, violent, and so on. This is racist dude...pure and simple.

Now lets pick this apart...

Small-minded: Tea-party, religious right, conservatives, BNP, PVV

Xenophobic: Basically see above

Violent: more wars have been started by capitalist nations or to gain freedom from imperialism than anything else in the last century.

NONE of these things are in fact countered or adressed by capitalism.


Or, even in western countries, places which are thoroughly exposed to industrial capitalism (NY or London, for instance) are more civilized (meaning less racist, more open-minded, multi-cultural, humanistic etc.) than small towns in the same country.

Untrue. New York and London are breeding grounds for intolerance towards others. High concentrations of civilians in limited space in fact breeds uninterest, shallowness, callousness and egocentrism. Its a human defence mechanism. People in large towns are less likely to care for the larger society and are more likely to care for themselves first and foremost at the expense of others.

It is also completely untrue that they are less racist. What is your evidence for that statement? Simply because there is more ethnic diversity? Because more ethnic diversity does not make people less racist.


Would it be fair to conclude that capitalism, for all its flaws, has at least civilized people (because its global nature gets people from different backgrounds working together and therefore becoming more tolerant and liberal)?No. It would be a complete fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of what is happening to do so.

[Rusty Shackleford]

If by 'civilized' you mean 'made bourgeois' then yes.

even in the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that the cheapness of commodities produced by capitalists would be the cannons that break down the great wall of China (paraphrasing).

once capitalism became a global force, the rest of the world was forced into submission. we all know what globalization is. that started in the 1800s though. bourgeois culture, specifically European bourgeois culture, spread with empire. Even then, there was also a growth of a japanese bourgeoisie that had a regional impact.


in short. its not that capitalism has 'civilized' the world. Capitalism has just made a world in its own image. a world predominantly divided by working people and propertied people.

[black_tar_heroin]

What I mean is: are people who're exposed to capitalism more civilized than others who aren't? For instance, South Asia is essentially feudalistic, and people's mentality will reflect that - small-minded, casteist, xenophobic, violent, and so on. Yes, those oriental barbarians stuck in the 15th century. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Certainly Capitalism has civilized the world. Imperfectly of course, it inacted laws against descrimination against blacks and Gays, (the Castro dynasty. is following like lambs in the wake) it gave poliical equality to everyone (in theory at least). It decided that all people are equal (in theory at least)

And Communism? Oh yea, it never actually existed.

[Revolution starts with U]

Anthropologically speaking, civilized really only means having cities and shit. So, in that sense, Cap has civ'ed some of the world, others were civilized long before Cap. And others still are not civ'ed.

[Rafiq]

Anyone who was against the development of Capitalism and Bourgeois culture at the grave of Feudalism is a reactionary

[black_tar_heroin]

Australian Aboriginals may not have built the ipod, they might not be runnin' round with a BB, but they managed to coexist with Earth with next to zero environmental impact. How can we say that a system which is raping our planet's environment and letting it rot is in anyway more civilized than one which would support our perpetual existence?

If that's civilization, then let it burn.

[Nox]

Primitive Communism civilized the world
Then Slavery turned it into a shithole
Then Feudalism civilized it some more
Then Capitalism civilized it some more
Socialism will civilize it some more
Communism will civilize it some more

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Australian Aboriginals may not have built the ipod, they might not be runnin' round with a BB, but they managed to coexist with Earth with next to zero environmental impact. How can we say that a system which is raping our planet's environment and letting it rot is in anyway more civilized than one which would support our perpetual existence?

If that's civilization, then let it burn.

If Capitalism never existed, our 'civilisation' would run no further than catching food with spears or clever hand-made traps, or tending our masters' fields as their legal slaves.

Whatever its negative environmental impact, Capitalism has clearly been the greatest revolutionary force that has existed worldwide hitherto. Of that there is no doubt. The problem is that, as Marxists, we can see that economic and political power are still unevenly distributed, unfairly so. The proletariat are the 'lowest' economic class (as they were in Feudal endtimes/nascent Capitalism), and it doesn't look like that will ever change. Thus, the proletariat are the only revolutionary class left in society. Once proletarian-led Socialism has been induced, there will be nothing - from a class point of view - that cannot be achieved in terms of civilisation.

[black_tar_heroin]

Anyone who was against the development of Capitalism and Bourgeois culture at the grave of Feudalism is a reactionaryI'm sure what remains of their skeletons will protest most emphatically. :blink:

[Rafiq]

I'm sure what remains of their skeletons will protest most emphatically. :blink:

So you say humanity would have been better off under Shitty Fuedalism? Are you an idiot?

Do you deny the technological and social gains capitalism has achieved 200 years ago?

[ColonelCossack]

'Course it has- or had. Any new economic system is more efficient than all previous ones, at least whilst in its infancy.

Just read the communist manifesto.

Now, however, capitalism has ceased to be progressive- and a new system, socialism, is required.

Remember- "civilising" something may often be used as an excuse for being imperialistic towards it, bit they are hardly the same thing. Many aspects of the western world (which, during the life of capitalism, has been doing most of the "civilising"), are not very civilised at all.

[ColonelCossack]

Australian Aboriginals may not have built the ipod, they might not be runnin' round with a BB, but they managed to coexist with Earth with next to zero environmental impact. How can we say that a system which is raping our planet's environment and letting it rot is in anyway more civilized than one which would support our perpetual existence?

If that's civilization, then let it burn.

...that sounds like primitivism...


What you propose would result in the death of the majority of people on Earth, because there is no way primal society can support very many people, in terms of production. That- along with the surplus created by the new invention, farming- is what caused society to leave primal communism and move to slavery.

I myself think that hospitals, medicine, education, electricity and FOOD etc. are quite important to society, and a communist society will function all the more efficiently with them. Infact, communist society on a global scale would not be able to function if we had such a society as you suggest.

If you hate technology so much, get off your computer!

[black_tar_heroin]

So you say humanity would have been better off under Shitty Fuedalism?

I merely found your little rant against the "defenders of feudalism" amusing. Of course, I'll let them defend their views..

...its just unfortunate that they've been dead for several hundred years.

But why stop at the "defenders of feudalism" being reactionary? Hell, fuck those who opposed the forced slavery of indigenous peoples; after all, it led to social and technological gains, right?


Do you deny the technological and social gains capitalism has achieved 200 years ago?

No, but I deny them any special motive or intent. What has been revolutionized has been done so with a dollar in mind, what social gains have been made have been by our blood.

[black_tar_heroin]

...that sounds like primitivism...

If you wish to categorize a populations way of life as primitive then I suggest that only shows your underlying racist views. Please show some respect. As Hindsight said, the term 'civlization' reflects what is perceived as ideal and more often than not this is a reflection of how society likes to view itself.


What you propose would result in the death of the majority of people on Earth, because there is no way primal society can support very many people, in terms of production. That- along with the surplus created by the new invention, farming- is what caused society to leave primal communism and move to slavery.I didn't propose it..

I contrasted two differing socities and challenged the view that capitalism and civilization can be put in the same sentence. I view capitalism as a barbaric and disgusting system. I have no tolerance for someone who slags off indigenous people as barbaric or uncivilized because of the connotations associated with those words.


If you hate technology so much, get off your computer!If I had a dollar...

Anyway, I don't "hate technology." But I don't see technology in the abstract. Technology is something developed within a certain economic system.

It is the system which determines what is developed and how it is employed.

[PhoenixAsh]

Human social development have been a constant in human existance. It has only been, relatively, briefly interjected by geographically limited periods of decline.

This human social en technological development was the prerequisite and precursor which made capitalism possible. Capitalism could only have come into existance because of the technological advancements in the previous era´s which made a radical change in the mode of production possible. As such capitalism even existing is evidence that it is not the cause of social development but in itself a result from it.

What is considered civilised and what is and is not seen as civilised behavior is and always will be a social construct. The culturally developed civilisations in every era will alsways be regarded as the beacon of civilisation and their culturally accepted forms of social interaction and rules of behaviour are considered to be good manners. I really do not see much difference between the Roman Empire and todays society when it come to human brutality and the veneer with which we conduct ourselves.

Anybody who claims capitalism is responsible for a decline in racism...basically is not familiar with human history and may have overlooked the rampant racism in todays, capitalist, society....or the counterindicating episodes in modern history: race riots, anti-muslim sentiments, LGBTQ rights movement, the continuous fight for sex equality, and offcourse the ever present anti-semitism...to name but a few.

Humanism, which was mentioned in OP, originates in the Renaisance. Btw.

[Bud Struggle]

Human social development have been a constant in human existance. It has only been, relatively, briefly interjected by geographically limited periods of decline. Er no. Besides for a brief moments in history the entireity of human civilization has been brutal and short. Only the last 1% or so of human life on earth seems to have been even vaguly progressive--and that certainly has to be tembered with WWII, the Atomic bomb, Death Camps and Gulags Pol pot and Hitler. Over all I really don't see the progress.


This human social en technological development was the prerequisite and precursor which made capitalism possible. Capitalism could only have come into existance because of the technological advancements in the previous era´s which made a radical change in the mode of production possible. As such capitalism even existing is evidence that it is not the cause of social development but in itself a result from it. Well, OK.


What is considered civilised and what is and is not seen as civilised behavior is and always will be a social construct. The culturally developed civilisations in every era will alsways be regarded as the beacon of civilisation and their culturally accepted forms of social interaction and rules of behaviour are considered to be good manners. I really do not see much difference between the Roman Empire and todays society when it come to human brutality and the veneer with which we conduct ourselves.] I think it all has to do with the length of time it take of time it takes to cook food (the invention of fire) than it does proto Marxists (though both Neanderathal Marxists and Soviet Marxists do share the same uni-brow look.)


Anybody who claims capitalism is responsible for a decline in racism...basically is not familiar with human history and may have overlooked the rampant racism in todays, capitalist, society....or the counterindicating episodes in modern history: race riots, anti-muslim sentiments, LGBTQ rights movement, the continuous fight for sex equality, and offcourse the ever present anti-semitism...to name but a few.

Yes there are indvidual pockets of all sorts of stuff--but the general trend of Capitalism is egalitarianism--at least socially. Capitalists freed the slaves, capitalists rode on Freedom Rides. America, South Africa never were moved to egalitarianism by Communists. No Revolutions occured. And when Revolutions happen like in Egypt and Libya and Tunisia--there isn't a thought about Socialism. It's like there never was such a thing.

On the other hand you have to admit the trend for Anarchism (when it did occur by happenstance in the distant past) was extinction. So I guess there is little choice.

[ColonelCossack]

If you wish to categorize a populations way of life as primitive then I suggest that only shows your underlying racist views. Please show some respect. As Hindsight said, the term 'civlization' reflects what is perceived as ideal and more often than not this is a reflection of how society likes to view itself.


Err, no.

What you want is called anarcho-primitivism, and anyone that ascribes to that "ideology" is, to the best of my knowledge, restricted on Revleft because of the reasons I have mentioned.


I didn't propose it..

You appeared to be advocating introducing it into society- even though it's a few millenea out of date.


I contrasted two differing socities and challenged the view that capitalism and civilization can be put in the same sentence. I view capitalism as a barbaric and disgusting system. I have no tolerance for someone who slags off indigenous people as barbaric or uncivilized because of the connotations associated with those words.


I do not dispute that capitalism is a horrible, horrible thing that needs to be gotten rid of ASAP. Nor did I attempt to justify xenophobia against indeginous peoples on the grounds that we are somehow "more civilised" than them.

I merely asserted that their system of production would not be able to sustain a global population of billions- which is true, and it's why farming came about, and it's why, over history, production has continued to change.

I would also rather be sitting here, warm on my central-heated bedroom on my laptop, than sitting in an improvised animal skin shelter. I think my quality of life is better under the indifference of capitalism than it would be under the harshness of primitive society, or the brutality of slavery or feudalism. Communism, however, would be an unimaginably huge improvement on capitalism.


If I had a dollar...


Yeah, sorry about that, I bet it's the most cliched argument you get. :P

[Drosophila]

It's done exactly the opposite for the countries that it's exploited (China, India, etc.).

[black_tar_heroin]

*repeating the same shit*

You appeared to be advocating introducing it into society- even though it's a few millenea out of date.

Nah, I'm not.

Nowhere have I advocated returning to some sort of pre-agricultural society. Which kinda invalidates your whole ramblings.

I'm not really interested in repeating my points (scroll above) or arguing over each others heads.

So whatev. If you wanna strawman someone please don't expect me to reply.


I think my quality of life is better under the indifference of capitalism than it would be under the harshness of primitive society, or the brutality of slavery or feudalism. Of course, you're lucky enough to say this. But I seriously doubt whether the 'indifference of capitalism' has improved the quality of life of Australian indigenous people; their forced removal from their land (and hence, sources of food), the government's attempt of wiping them out by selected breeding, the removal of children from their families, the effects of alcohol and drug use, appalling standards of living, very low health standards, the destruction of their cultural and spiritual traditions.

Frankly, I don't think you have any right to tell these people what is and what isn't better for them.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Marx spoke on this.

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. "

It forces what it refers to as "civilization" on to the world. Definition of "civilization" changes as time progresses. Either way it has brought more problems with it than solutions.

[ColonelCossack]

Nah, I'm not.

Nowhere have I advocated returning to some sort of pre-agricultural society. Which kinda invalidates your whole ramblings.

I'm not really interested in repeating my points (scroll above) or arguing over each others heads.

So whatev. If you wanna strawman someone please don't expect me to reply.

Of course, you're lucky enough to say this. But I seriously doubt whether the 'indifference of capitalism' has improved the quality of life of Australian indigenous people; their forced removal from their land (and hence, sources of food), the government's attempt of wiping them out by selected breeding, the removal of children from their families, the effects of alcohol and drug use, appalling standards of living, very low health standards, the destruction of their cultural and spiritual traditions.

Frankly, I don't think you have any right to tell these people what is and what isn't better for them.

a) You seemed to be implying to me that we should revert back to primitive, tribal society. Maybe your real ideas were lost in translation among your own ramblings...

b) As I hope you appreciate, that kind of mode of production wouldn't be able to sustain the Earth's population...

c) I never told anyone how to live their lives- I was talking about myself. Honestly, I am disgusted by
the attrocities commited against indigenous peoples- like the native Tazmanians, native Americans, etc., and think they are just a product of disgusting imperialist capitalism. Make no mistake, I hate capitalism; I just think that it's better than anything we've had before, and (though i am loathe to repeat myself so many times), It is the only system so far that could support the Earth's current population.

Naturally, it goes without saying that comminism would be infinitely better.

d) Anarcho-prims get restricted for that reason...

e) I don't even know what a strawman argument is. However, if by that you mean a weak or unsubstantiated argument, then I don't think that that applies to what I was saying because I think I provided some material points in favour of my view.

Kapeesh?

[o well this is ok I guess]

a) You seemed to be implying to me that we should revert back to primitive, tribal society. Maybe your real ideas were lost in translation among your own ramblings... He's not.

Can't a person question technological progression without being accused of being an outright Luddite?

[ColonelCossack]

He's not.

Can't a person question technological progression without being accused of being an outright Luddite?

It appeared to me that they were implying that we should have a society based on that of the indigenous populations of Australia, etc.- which appears to me to be quite tribal.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes there are indvidual pockets of all sorts of stuff--but the general trend of Capitalism is egalitarianism--at least socially. Capitalists freed the slaves,
Abolitionists freed the slaves. They may have recieved help from capitalists, in the states. But that was more of an ideological battle, than any kind of moral crusade.

capitalists rode on Freedom Rides.
Im willing to bet the majority of freedom riders did not ascribe ideologically to capitalism.

America, South Africa never were moved to egalitarianism by Communists.
Nor by capitalists.

No Revolutions occured. And when Revolutions happen like in Egypt and Libya and Tunisia--there isn't a thought about Socialism. It's like there never was such a thing.
Didn't the Egyptian movement start with a labor union? I could be wrong on this one, but I thought I remembered hearing that it all started with a labor union.


On the other hand you have to admit the trend for Anarchism (when it did occur by happenstance in the distant past) was extinction. So I guess there is little choice.
200k years of anarchy vs 4k years of statism... what are you going on about?

[o well this is ok I guess]

It appeared to me that they were implying that we should have a society based on that of the indigenous populations of Australia, etc.- which appears to me to be quite tribal. Which you decided on from this post


Australian Aboriginals may not have built the ipod, they might not be runnin' round with a BB, but they managed to coexist with Earth with next to zero environmental impact. How can we say that a system which is raping our planet's environment and letting it rot is in anyway more civilized than one which would support our perpetual existence?

If that's civilization, then let it burn. A critique of civilized society and some cheap sloganeering you might hear off any run of the mill insurrectionist or left communist (whom I guess are actually primitivists) and all of a sudden it means he wants to jump into the forest and become a hunter-gatherer.

That's absurd by any measure of the word.

[PhoenixAsh]

Er no. Besides for a brief moments in history the entireity of human civilization has been brutal and short. Only the last 1% or so of human life on earth seems to have been even vaguly progressive

The only time period we have had in which society regressed to an earlier state of development were the "dark ages"....in which there still was a tremendous amount of scientific progress and societal development by the way.

Human existance has always been progessive.

Civilised is defined by: social and technological advances and state of development and refined taste and manners. Those elements make up the definitions of different aspects of civilised...and they are pretty much different per time period.



--and that certainly has to be tembered with WWII, the Atomic bomb, Death Camps and Gulags Pol pot and Hitler. Over all I really don't see the progress.

Exactly...civilised has very little to do with progress. You have completely failed to understand my post ;)



Well, OK.



] I think it all has to do with the length of time it take of time it takes to cook food (the invention of fire) than it does proto Marxists (though both Neanderathal Marxists and Soviet Marxists do share the same uni-brow look.)

...




Yes there are indvidual pockets of all sorts of stuff--but the general trend of Capitalism is egalitarianism--at least socially. Capitalists freed the slaves, capitalists rode on Freedom Rides. America, South Africa never were moved to egalitarianism by Communists. No Revolutions occured. And when Revolutions happen like in Egypt and Libya and Tunisia--there isn't a thought about Socialism. It's like there never was such a thing.


No..it definately is not egalitarianism. Egalitarian meansthat all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status. Certainly NOT the case in capitalism.

Capitalism has been forced to accept certain egalitarian ideas because of decades of socialist struggle for exactly these things. It is not and will never be that off itself because egalitarianism does not favor the class society and the interests of the burgeoisie.



On the other hand you have to admit the trend for Anarchism (when it did occur by happenstance in the distant past) was extinction. So I guess there is little choice.

There is always choice.

[Summerspeaker]

The spread of capitalism goes hand in hand with European and Euro-American colonialism. I refuse to characterize colonialism and its devastation of communities of color as positive. We radicals should treat the progress narrative with extreme suspicion, as it serves to support the status quo. I'm not convinced that we in industrial civilization live better lives than our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Who can say whether material comfort and a longer lifespan compensate for the horrors of hierarchy and discipline? I've no desire whatsoever to return to the woods, but I'm not going to wave any pompoms for this nightmare I walk through daily.

[Bud Struggle]

The only time period we have had in which society regressed to an earlier state of development were the "dark ages"....in which there still was a tremendous amount of scientific progress and societal development by the way.

Human existance has always been progessive. Not in the least. And there was nothinregressive about the dark ages. Is was merely a continuation of how thing had alwys bee before the age of Greece and Rome. For most of it's what? million years on earth human beings have been fairly satic. It's only in brief periods like we are in now--for the past 2000 years has anythiing remotely interesting going on. And if there is progress--it is only technological. People are the same creatures as they were when they were cave men.


Civilised is defined by: social and technological advances and state of development and refined taste and manners. Those elements make up the definitions of different aspects of civilised...and they are pretty much different per time period. Civilization is social--not technical.


Exactly...civilised has very little to do with progress. You have completely failed to understand my post ;) No, that is wat I was saying.


No..it definately is not egalitarianism. Egalitarian meansthat all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status. Certainly NOT the case in capitalism. All people in {most} Capitalist societies are equal under the law--that idea developed under Capitalism.


Capitalism has been forced to accept certain egalitarian ideas because of decades of socialist struggle for exactly these things. It is not and will never be that off itself because egalitarianism does not favor the class society and the interests of the burgeoisie. You are dreaming. Those were forces in capitalistic society. There is and was no "outside" Socialistic forces. Socialism is just the more progressive side of Capitalism.

There is no world of Communism or Socialism or anarchism outside of Capitalism. Even when there was "Communism" in the world it wasn't really Communist. If Communism was for real something would have eventually evolved into Communism--but it didn't. Even what once proported to be Communism disappeared.

Communism is a chimera.


There is always a choice. The only choice is Capitalism--there are different degrees of Capitalism, but nothing other than Capitalism.

[ColonelCossack]

Which you decided on from this post

A critique of civilized society and some cheap sloganeering you might hear off any run of the mill insurrectionist or left communist (whom I guess are actually primitivists) and all of a sudden it means he wants to jump into the forest and become a hunter-gatherer.

That's absurd by any measure of the word.

Fair Do's.

But then what do primitivists want if not to go back to hunter-gatherer society?

I was under the impression that tribal societies constituted tribal means of production and that primitivists want to revert to that...

Maybe I misunderstood what this person was saying. A critique of civilised society infringing on indigenous tribal populations is fair- what isn't good is wanting the whole of society to go back to primitive society.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Fair Do's.

But then what do primitivists want if not to go back to hunter-gatherer society?

I was under the impression that tribal societies constituted tribal means of production and that primitivists want to revert to that...

Maybe I misunderstood what this person was saying. A critique of civilised society infringing on indigenous tribal populations is fair- what isn't good is wanting the whole of society to go back to primitive society. Primitivists do want to return to tribal society. However, it doesn't take a primitivist to say that it's dishonesty to say that industrial society is by all means a complete improvement over tribal society. In the same way that every advance in technology means an advancement somewhere in the military-industrial complex or a radical movement giving rise to a reactionary movement, progress is often paired with regress. To infinitely progress in the same way is therefore to infinitely regress, as well.

However, this does not imply I wish to regress fully back into the jungle and hunt moose. Such is a wild connection to make. None of us here are primitivists, we'd just like one technological concept to find application wholly outside of our domination, rather than partly in and partly out.

[#FF0000]

nah

[PhoenixAsh]

Not in the least. And there was nothinregressive about the dark ages. Is was merely a continuation of how thing had alwys bee before the age of Greece and Rome.

It was nothing like that.



For most of it's what? million years on earth human beings have been fairly satic. It's only in brief periods like we are in now--for the past 2000 years has anythiing remotely interesting going on. And if there is progress--it is only technological. People are the same creatures as they were when they were cave men.Bud, you need to make distinctions in what you are saying and what you are saying it about. Because I simply can not follow you.

Development has always been part of human live. The discovery of fire, brain surgery, concrete, atomic theory etc...almost all of these inventions were made centuries ago and some even in the BC era.





Civilization is social--not technical.Nope.

Adj. 1.civilised - having a high state of culture and development both social and technological; "terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world"civilized (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilized)
educated (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/educated) - possessing an education (especially having more than average knowledge)
refined (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refined) - (used of persons and their behavior) cultivated and genteel; "she was delicate and refined and unused to hardship"; "refined people with refined taste"

2. civilised - marked by refinement in taste and manners; "cultivated speech"; "cultured Bostonians"; "cultured tastes"; "a genteel old lady"; "polite society"cultured (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cultured), genteel (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/genteel), polite (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polite), civilized (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilized), cultivated (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cultivated)
refined (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refined) - (used of persons and their behavior) cultivated and genteel; "she was delicate and refined and unused to hardship"; "refined people with refined taste"




No, that is wat I was saying.Hence why I stated that you completely failed to understand my post.



All people in {most} Capitalist societies are equal under the law--that idea developed under Capitalism.

ONLY because socialism pushed for it or because it was intrejected by pre-dating capitalism philosophy.

And you know laws are bullshit as an indicator for what you want them to be. Laws are interpreted and applied..and they way they are interpreted and applied expresses the racism and different ways in which we treat and measure humans inherrited in the capitalist system and society.



You are dreaming. Those were forces in capitalistic society. There is and was no "outside" Socialistic forces. Socialism is just the more progressive side of Capitalism. Bullshit. Socialism is an anti-capitalist force. It developed as a reaction to the excesses of your glorified capitalist system which in fact pushed many people into the death bed. Perhaps you should look up Bismarck. And understand WHY social reforms were enacted....out of fear for socialists and socialism. I'll save you the trouble.

In fact after the fall of the USSR many egalitarian laws have been reversed and the division in societies have become greater than ever. Your whole system is practically thriving on division between people and actively stimulates it...just look at the villification of Muslims, Mexican immigrants, illegal immigrants

So no...your capitalism is not egalitarian. In fact capitalism is anti-egalitarian.




There is no world of Communism or Socialism or anarchism outside of Capitalism. Even when there was "Communism" in the world it wasn't really Communist. If Communism was for real something would have eventually evolved into Communism--but it didn't. Even what once proported to be Communism disappeared.

Communism is a chimera.

The only choice is Capitalism--there are different degrees of Capitalism, but nothing other than Capitalism.Bullshit.

[Rusty Shackleford]

THIS TURNED OUT WAY LONGER THAN I THOUGHT IT WOULD. I SPENT ABOUT AN HOUR JUST THINKING AND TRYING TO TYPE THIS AS COHERENTLY AS POSSIBLE IN ONE GO. THERE ARE PROBABLY LOADS OF SELF-CONTRADICTIONS AND INACCURACIES. HAVE AT IT. THIS SUBJECT JUST INTRIGUES ME.



The terms employed by even marx and engels on social development (Savagery Barbarism and Civilized) are definitely abrasive to our modern ears.

But, we cannot deny this:
The first division of labor in human society (in different locations at different times, it was not uniform... obviously) was a major advancement from primitive communism. But, it was the beginning of a new society.

it developed out of a communal society that was still divided by sex to an extent. but it was not a class issue. no owners and no non-owners. once domestication happened, class division was born and an acute division of labor was also born. This was also the time of the overthrow of the matriarchy by the male sex. it was the men who generally did the hunting. that was what ultimately led to male accumulation of wealth and then a division of males into herders tool makers and what not.

Though it was a defeat for womanhood, historically, it was beneficial for humanity in other areas. (no, im not defending patriarchy or advocating it) because with the division of labor, and the birth of class society, wealth could be accumulated. labor could be directed more freely as food was less and less of an issue.

our of this grew slavery. most of the times, slaves (at least in early european history) were tied to the land they worked and bought and sold with land. it was also the first occurrence of debt and a concept of wealth being owed in such a manner. wealth was also accumulated through war and conquest.

out of that grew feudalism. which was superior to the old slave system which gave rise to a merchant class and the genesis of the bourgeoisie (the middle class between serfs and aristocrats) wealth was accumulated through war and conquest as well and also through trade. slowly the bourgeoisie were able to accumulate wealth at a more and more rapid rate. this led to the bourgeoisie becoming, ultimately, more powerful than the aristocrats. The french debt incurred in the series of costly wars in the 1700s basically brought down the aristocrasy and lead to the French revolution.

Now, out of feudalism grew our modern capitalist society. no more aristocrats, no more serfs. labor is 'free' in the sense that it is not tied to land, but tied to wage. production becomes socialized but capital is accumulated privately.

out of that grew Socialism with the October revolution. the contradiction within capitalism was resolved and therefore socialist society is superior to capitalist society. labor is socialized and capital is socialized.

but social development is not a steady even process. revolutions and counter revolutions occur. France vacillated between being a monarchy and a republic a few times before 1870. (though when a monarchy, feudalism was never re-established. the power of capital was too strong)

================================================== ==

Now, what about colonialism? the Greeks colonized parts of africa, middle east, and the caucus. wealth was accumulated. but not in a centralized manner.

the Romans conquered large swathes of land and wealth was accumulated in a relatively centralized manner. but socially, it was not capable of handling it. (someone else would have to talk about this only because i dont know much about roman history).

then came feudal conquest. two of the largest 'families' the Habsburgs and the Valois rueld over the Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Spain and then France, lowlands and other assorted areas respectively. also at the same time, europeans began to plunder other continents introducing a whole lotta money into europe.

Was it progress though in the Americas? No. whole societies were annihilated by Europe. societies, for various material reasons, were behind Europe in development. (Guns Germs and Steel helps to explain this VERY WELL).

The colonies operated differently than the European mainland though. A perfect example would be the Virginia colony. If i recall correctly, the Virginia colony was governed by a House of Burgesses. since English colonialism was chartered and company affairs under the crown, they governed as sort of the first bourgeois societies. It wasn't really capitalist though in that production and wealth accumulation relied very heavily on chattel slavery. The northern colonies were a bit different but im starting to go off on a major tangent.

All colonies had Governors though, but colonies did not operate like the "homelands." in general even the Latin colonies relied on chattel slavery. They were probably more centrally managed than the English colonies though.

==================================================

Was it progressive for colonized peoples' societies? No. it annihilated their societies. at whatever stage of development they were at, it was wiped away and replaced with rule by an occupier.

Where does the progress come from then? In Latin America, progress began to come about when the Bolivarian revolutions happened in the mid 1800s. Spain lost its grip on Latin America. The countries became relatively autonomous. (though soon to be plundered by the US) Real bourgeois society began to develop. though the borders are rather arbitrary, a new society emerged that was beyond feudalism.

How about Africa? Like Latin America untold millions were killed by colonialism and their societies ended. With the wave of self-liberations and grants of independence Post WWII Africa made progress.

==================================================

So, did capitalism 'civilize' the world?

Feudal imperialism and then capitalist imperialism annihilated every other society. so in a sense, it did 'civilize' the world in their view. when it annihilated those societies, it planted its own in place and the only direction could be forward. forces were to strong to prevent the opposite.

if civilization is made synonymous with advanced then yes. capitalism 'advanced the world' or 'civilized the world.' at the cost of billions of humans and the death of every unique culture and society to be replaced with a fundamentally different one. one of the bourgeoisie. though each country may have its own culture, the prevailing mode of production in almost all countries is capitalism.

/rant

[ColonelCossack]

Primitivists do want to return to tribal society. However, it doesn't take a primitivist to say that it's dishonesty to say that industrial society is by all means a complete improvement over tribal society. In the same way that every advance in technology means an advancement somewhere in the military-industrial complex or a radical movement giving rise to a reactionary movement, progress is often paired with regress. To infinitely progress in the same way is therefore to infinitely regress, as well.

However, this does not imply I wish to regress fully back into the jungle and hunt moose. Such is a wild connection to make. None of us here are primitivists, we'd just like one technological concept to find application wholly outside of our domination, rather than partly in and partly out.

Like I said- Fair Do's.

I think you're right. I never actually justified every single piece of progress, and i certainly don't advocate any imperialism against indigenous populations.

I just don't think we should go back to tribalism; But, because no-one else does either, and because no-one was advocating it, it doesn't really matter, does it. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

It was nothing like that. People have been around for a million years or so--and in just the last 2009 years all this came about. It all came from an invention of Plato--the thesis, anti thesis, synthesis. It was a tool that let people go beyone any particular person's ideas.


Development has always been part of human live. The discovery of fire, brain surgery, concrete, atomic theory etc...almost all of these inventions were made centuries ago and some even in the BC era. You are Romantically idealistic.



Adj.
1.civilised - having a high state of culture and development both social and technological; "terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world"civilized (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilized)
educated (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/educated) - possessing an education (especially having more than average knowledge)
refined (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refined) - (used of persons and their behavior) cultivated and genteel; "she was delicate and refined and unused to hardship"; "refined people with refined taste"

2. civilised - marked by refinement in taste and manners; "cultivated speech"; "cultured Bostonians"; "cultured tastes"; "a genteel old lady"; "polite society"cultured (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cultured), genteel (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/genteel), polite (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polite), civilized (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilized), cultivated (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cultivated)
refined (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refined) - (used of persons and their behavior) cultivated and genteel; "she was delicate and refined and unused to hardship"; "refined people with refined taste"
The problem with your definition is that the Nazis were technologically quite proficient--but one could hardly call them civilized.



Hence why I stated that you completely failed to understand my post. I think you fail to understand what it is to be civilized.


ONLY because socialism pushed for it or because it was intrejected by pre-dating capitalism philosophy.

And you know laws are bullshit as an indicator for what you want them to be. Laws are interpreted and applied..and they way they are interpreted and applied expresses the racism and different ways in which we treat and measure humans inherrited in the capitalist system and society. Laws are a reflection of what a society tries to be--but that doesn't always mean that the laws reflect the complete reality of what a country is. It is only logical to assume that if the Declaration of Independence says ALL men are created equal then they are. It takes a while for those ideas to be understood by everyone--but racial desegrigation and gay rights was already in the Comstitution of the United States right from the beginning. It just too a while for those ideas to fufilled in actual life.


Bullshit. Socialism is an anti-capitalist force. It developed as a reaction to the excesses of your glorified capitalist system which in fact pushed many people into the death bed. Perhaps you should look up Bismarck. And understand WHY social reforms were enacted....out of fear for socialists and socialism. I'll save you the trouble. Socialism in the REAL WORLD doesn't exist. There are no Socialist countries and these never have been. There are countries that are more or less Capitalistic. But every time Socialism is tries--it fails and become another form of Capitalism or goes off on Feudalistic tangent like DRNK.

And further Revolutions don't mean squat when it comes to bring about Socialism. Do you think Egypt is any different after their Revolution? Do you think Libya will be any different?


In fact after the fall of the USSR many egalitarian laws have been reversed and the division in societies have become greater than ever. Your whole system is practically thriving on division between people and actively stimulates it...just look at the villification of Muslims, Mexican immigrants, illegal immigrants What has that to do with Capitalism? No place is more Xenophobic than North Korea. So WAS China before Capitalsim took aver.


Bullshit. Nope, Socialism doesn't exist. There are just different forms of Capitalism.


Edit: You don't actually believe that on the future there will be some sort of world "Revolution" where the workers of the world will rise up and Capitalism will be overthrown and everyone will be financially independent and equal, do you?

That's a fairy tale.

[PhoenixAsh]

People have been around for a million years or so--and in just the last 2009 years all this came about.

You mean....about 200.000 for homo spaines sapiens and 500.000 years for homo sapiens. But yes...thats close to a million. :P

Now...I am pretty sure humans were discovering things all the time....you know. Fire and how to make it was pretty nifty and stuff. I think clothing, even rudimentary, was a big thing back then. And I am definately sure some peopel were going berserk over tool use....you know...spears might have been all the craze those days....arrows even more so. And I quite imagine he graffiti artists of the time were especially happy they no longer needed shit and mud when they discovered dye and pigments.

Now...granted...that is perhaps a bit far from blue 1. But you have no idea how hard it is to do a chess computer with just sticks and stones.



It all came from an invention of Plato--the thesis, anti thesis, synthesis. It was a tool that let people go beyone any particular person's ideas.

Awww...really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis

Plato was the student of Socrates....and I am pretty sure Plato lived in a time which was considered then...extremely civilised...and used a lot of things that were invented before his time.

You know...like how to make bronze stuff, work stone, make buildings and stuff....even writing. Not to mention the huge advances in medicine and such. I am sure there were other things...like agriculture which were also pretty important. All those things came about before Plato...

But Plato is most famous for his teachings on ideas....which is all nice and well and hearing what you ascribe to Plato and the importance you place on him...one has to wonder how the fuck they even managed to do incredibly complicated calculations to build the pyramids in the first place...or how they even managed to evolve in societies where they,...untill this century...never even heard of Plato.

But...the most important thing is...Plato was NOT a capitalist. And none of that progress before or after Plato came about because of capitalism.



You are Romantically idealistic.

Really? because here I was thinking that basing yourself on historic fact makes me quite a bit or a realist. :)



[B]
The problem with your definition is that the Nazis were technologically quite proficient--but one could hardly call them civilized.

Offcourse you can. That was my whole point about the definition in the first place!



I think you fail to understand what it is to be civilized.

I think you fail to understand that that is extremely subjective.



Laws are a reflection of what a society tries to be--but that doesn't always mean that the laws reflect the complete reality of what a country is. It is only logical to assume that if the Declaration of Independence says ALL men are created equal then they are.

What about women? And how do yhou explain the constitution was drawn up by slaveholders who did NOT free their slaves...so basically they wrote shit down that they didn't understand themselves. Which means their intention and the whole idea is based on a flawed concept of what THEY actuallly thought was man.


It takes a while for those ideas to be understood by everyone--but racial desegrigation and gay rights was already in the Comstitution of the United States right from the beginning. It just too a while for those ideas to fufilled in actual life.

Right...like....o...say 300 years and going


Socialism in the REAL WORLD doesn't exist. There are no Socialist countries and these never have been. There are countries that are more or less Capitalistic. But every time Socialism is tries--it fails and become another form of Capitalism or goes off on Feudalistic tangent like DRNK.

Yes...but what you fail to understand is that economic models change over time...like they always have and always will. Just like that happened....capitalism will disappear to.



And further Revolutions don't mean squat when it comes to bring about Socialism. Do you think Egypt is any different after their Revolution? Do you think Libya will be any different?

Do you think all revolutions are socialist??



What has that to do with Capitalism? No place is more Xenophobic than North Korea. So WAS China before Capitalsim took aver.

Nope, Socialism doesn't exist. There are just different forms of Capitalism.


It goes to show that you little ideal about capitalism is complete and utter bullshit :)

[Geiseric]

I think if it were up to the capitalists, we'd regress back into tribes so we could be exploited easier.

[Red Rabbit]

I think if it were up to the capitalists, we'd regress back into tribes so we could be exploited easier.

Actually, it would be the opposite. Capitalism wouldn't exist in a tribal society.

If we take tribal Europeans (Such as the Germanic tribes before the Roman invasions) for example, the chieftains were all democratically elected and everyone worked together to help better the tribe and each other.

There was also no currency, no bourgeois exploiting the workers, and literally no form of Capitalism at all. They were pretty much primitive Communists.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

More likely it has tortured and killed millions of people.

[Bud Struggle]

You mean....about 200.000 for homo spaines sapiens and 500.000 years for homo sapiens. But yes...thats close to a million. :P Yea, I'm sure you accuratel measured it.


Now...I am pretty sure humans were discovering things all the time....you know. Fire and how to make it was pretty nifty and stuff. I think clothing, even rudimentary, was a big thing back then. And I am definately sure some peopel were going berserk over tool use....you know...spears might have been all the craze those days....arrows even more so. And I quite imagine he graffiti artists of the time were especially happy they no longer needed shit and mud when they discovered dye and pigments. Sure, half million years to discover fire. Aztecs never quite caught on to the wheel. Etc. Nothing REALLY happened till Plato, as I said.


Awww...really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis

Yup really:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato


Plato was the student of Socrates....and I am pretty sure Plato lived in a time which was considered then...extremely civilised...and used a lot of things that were invented before his time.

You know...like how to make bronze stuff, work stone, make buildings and stuff....even writing. Not to mention the huge advances in medicine and such. I am sure there were other things...like agriculture which were also pretty important. All those things came about before Plato...

But Plato is most famous for his teachings on ideas....which is all nice and well and hearing what you ascribe to Plato and the importance you place on him...one has to wonder how the fuck they even managed to do incredibly complicated calculations to build the pyramids in the first place...or how they even managed to evolve in societies where they,...untill this century...never even heard of Plato.

But...the most important thing is...Plato was NOT a capitalist. And none of that progress before or after Plato came about because of capitalism. You do go on. Plato bought and sold things. He had slaves, women were second class--come to think of it he could have been a Communist! (At least in the Real World.)


Really? because here I was thinking that basing yourself on historic fact makes me quite a bit or a realist. :) You think there is an objective factual hisorical narrative? Foolish you.

I think you fail to understand that that is extremely subjective. As is everything. EVERYTHING.


What about women? And how do yhou explain the constitution was drawn up by slaveholders who did NOT free their slaves...so basically they wrote shit down that they didn't understand themselves. Which means their intention and the whole idea is based on a flawed concept of what THEY actuallly thought was man. Man always meant "mankind." All humans included. IT just a while to get that point. But it was always that way.


Right...like....o...say 300 years and going No time at all after the million or so years of human history. (You keep proving my points.)


Yes...but what you fail to understand is that economic models change over time...like they always have and always will. Just like that happened....capitalism will disappear to. Like Communism alread did? :D


Do you think all revolutions are socialist?? None are these days--that was my point. Communism's moment is over, don't you think? You are the student of history.


It goes to show that you little ideal about capitalism is complete and utter bullshit :)Show me Communism. SHOW ME!!! :)

[PhoenixAsh]

Yea, I'm sure you accuratel measured it.

I did.



Sure, half million years to discover fire. Aztecs never quite caught on to the wheel. Etc. Nothing REALLY happened till Plato, as I said.


Yes because we discovered fire a year ago. :rolleyes:

Aztects had no use for the wheel since they lived in fairly young rocky mountains, Bud. Wheels tend to be a lot less useful there. They did howver perform succesful brainsurgery. :rolleyes:

Right...because the Acropolis, Pyramids, stone masonry, aquaducts, waterworks, agriculture, cloth making, bronze working, jewelry, domestication of animals, writing, reading....yeah...all basically nothing :rolleyes:




Yup really:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato



Show me where he was responsible for the trinity....as you claimed.


You do go on. Plato bought and sold things. He had slaves, women were second class--come to think of it he could have been a Communist! (At least in the Real World.)

Yes...and devlopment did NOT start with Plato, Bud.


You think there is an objective factual hisorical narrative? Foolish you.

No I think there are historic FACTS. Like Humans inventing all kinds of shit and doing all kinds of developing before Plato. Something which you insist on denying.


As is everything. EVERYTHING.

And hence why told you directly that you completely fail to understand my first post...that does not explain why you insist on arguing against well established and documented facts...and getting all your evidence wrong (like ascribing the trinity ot Plato).


Man always meant "mankind." All humans included. IT just a while to get that point. But it was always that way.

Really Bud? Because the founding fathers who wrote that shit OBVIOUSLY didn't think so. WHEN exactly did women get voting rights? universal suffrage was NOT reached untill more than a century AFTER the constitution was drafted...1919 in fact...after it was denied in votes four times in the previous 5 years. So there was quite a lot of what the founding fathers wrote down and did not mean Bud.

Because when you write shit down in a constitution...you do NOT mean that it must be reached in a course of more than a fucking century you wat that NOW. And since women did NOT get that voting right untill 130+ years after the fucking thing was written man meant at that time exactly that.

ust like your slavery abolition...which came about more than a cedntury later too. It takes some time! Really Bud....:rolleyes:


No time at all after the million or so years of human history. (You keep proving my points.)

You do realise that there were societies thousands of years before the US constitution took 300 years to get where it is today...still no totall equality right?

And no Bud, humand do not exist for million or so years. If that is the way you count I hope you have somebody doing your bookkeeping for you and somebody to check that bookkeeper.



Like Communism alread did? :D

you can not have it both ways Bud...either it ever existed and therefore could never have disappeared or it did exist making your entire bullshit argument you made earlier invalid. You get to chose.



None are these days--that was my point. Communism's moment is over, don't you think? You are the student of history.

No Bud, I do not think that moment is over. In fact...I think we will see hat moment come closer the moment capitalism is crumbling down on itself.



Show me Communism. SHOW ME!!! :)

Be patient Bud, you will be in the gulag real soon :)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yea, I'm sure you accuratel measured it.

Sure, half million years to discover fire. Aztecs never quite caught on to the wheel. Etc. Nothing REALLY happened till Plato, as I said.


The Aztecs didn't use wheeled vehicles but they had other ideas and technology (in particular the agricultural methods of the Aztecs, Mayans and Incans were very advanced, producing high yields and great labor efficiency, as well as advanced concepts like the number zero). Thinking that civilization started with Plato is a traditional Eurocentric idea grounded in old philosophies from the 1700s and 1800s but doesn't consider the value of other narratives. The rise of Buddhism in India and Taoism in China are other examples.

Plato probably represents the crystallization of a perspective that has underpinned Western philosophy but he hardly created "civilization"


None are these days--that was my point. Communism's moment is over, don't you think? You are the student of history.


I imagine an observer standing on the ashes of Rome's senate would have said the same about democracy and republicanism. Pretty much every attempt at the creation of a Communist system had structural problems separate from their ideology and represented a particular moment in historical development.

[RGacky3]

Looking through Bud Struggles discussion and hindsight 20/20s discussion, I juts want to point out 1 exchange that sums up Bud Struggles bullshit.

Hindsight 20/20 says


Development has always been part of human live. The discovery of fire, brain surgery, concrete, atomic theory etc...almost all of these inventions were made centuries ago and some even in the BC era.

Then Bud says


You are Romantically idealistic.

Then Hindsight says


Really? because here I was thinking that basing yourself on historic fact makes me quite a bit or a realist. http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-civilized-t161127/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif


You think there is an objective factual hisorical narrative? Foolish you.

Think about the amount of shameless bullshit and idiocy it takes for this exchange to take place.

Basically hindsight provides historical fact, fact that can be supported by evidence after evidence, Bud's responce, instead of accepting the obvious clear concrete evidence, replies essencially "Well historical nerrative is subjective."

Which is as idiotic as responding to "The sky is blue" by saying "color is just subjective."

Bud, if your loosing a discussion, just give it up, if someone presents arguments you don't have an answer to, don't change the subject, set up a strawman, try and bullshit your way out of it, just suck it up, you look really foolish when you do otherwise.