Capitalism is not a part of Human Nature.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Many Right Wingers/Capitalists seem to act and talk like and believe that Economic Classes/Private Property/Money/Wealth has/have always existed since Humans have been on here on Earth but this is false right ? Since in Hunter Gatherer Societies there was still Personal Property but there was no Private Property there were no Economic Classes while there might of been Chiefs of the Tribes or Priests there was no Rich and Poor these Tribes still exist to this day if Humans lived without Economic Classes years ago why can't we do it again can any Capitalist answer me ? In my opinion Capitalism is not a part of Human Nature.

From primitive communism to class society

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/from_primitive_communism_to.php

[Bardo]

There could be no such thing at landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue.- Thomas Paine

[hatzel]

Capitalism is a part of human nature. If it weren't, there wouldn't be capitalism. Or what, did a bunch of aliens come down and foist some totally foreign inhuman system upon us? Or was it lions and tigers who did it? Or how else did it happen?

[RedRevolution1938]

Capitalism is a part of human nature. If it weren't, there wouldn't be capitalism. Or what, did a bunch of aliens come down and foist some totally foreign inhuman system upon us? Or was it lions and tigers who did it? Or how else did it happen?

What he means to say, is that the capitalist mode of production is not specific to human nature. Many reactionaries employ the rhetoric that human nature ensured that capitalist-like property relations have existed throughout the ages.

We can see this is most certainly not the case, and that human nature is not confined to one mode of production. There may have been classes of priests, warriors, and chieftains but the distribution of wealth was much more equal among them and ownership of the "means of production" (like bows and spears for hunting) were shared as community property. You wouldn't have one man employing people to make spears, while competing in selling spears against another man of his own tribe.

[Void]

Capitalism is a part of human nature. If it weren't, there wouldn't be capitalism. Or what, did a bunch of aliens come down and foist some totally foreign inhuman system upon us? Or was it lions and tigers who did it? Or how else did it happen?

Chill down mate nobody is attacking you.

Capitalism evolved naturally yes but this does not obligatorily mean that it was always a part of human nature (as if God created human with a constant nature which includes capitalism).

I read it from Montaigne if I do recall correctly. He wrote something like this:

Some missionaries bring native people from Africa to Europe in seventeenth century. These Africans have never been outside Africa. They were brought to a King or a Mayor's palace. They are shocked by the scenes they see in King's palace:

Strong men are holding halberds and standing up near the King in order to protect the king. The king seems weak to them and Africans ask why the strong men who hold the weapons bow to this weak man even he does not have any weapon and why do the strong men do what does the weak man command to them.

You get it.

This story and many others tell how easily humans can adopt to something and behave differently according to political/economic structure. These men are there to protect to king even if they don't need to actually because of an established human structure which is completely seen unnatural by those Africans but for us who live in this completely ridiculous society, anything is natural, including law, private property and the economic system. But actually capitalism is ridiculous and what the native Africans say is much more true...

Since the Africans did not experience alienation in feudalism (or capitalism...) they see the obvious much easier and they are also from a primitive communal tribe where there is no private property protected by law.

The term "human nature" itself is a misleading term which gives the meaning of a stable condition however humans are more dynamic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Capitalism IS human nature, humans were just completely unnatural for the first couple 100,000 years of their existence.

[Queercommie Girl]

There is no such thing as "human nature" in this kind of abstract and essentialist sense. The Marxist idea of "human nature" is not a reductionist one, returning to some kind of "pristine uncorrupted state" before class society emerged like some romanticists think, it's a progressive and historical materialist concept, a "nature" that constantly changes and doesn't exist as a "static state" but as a continuous process of re-creation through labour and culture.

[hatzel]

What he means to say, is that the capitalist mode of production is not specific to human nature.

Even though I know what you meant to say, I feel you've worded it wrong (much like the OP, which is the point I'm actually getting at here; it's important to be careful with one's words). Capitalism is specific to human nature, inasmuch as it doesn't feature in hippo nature or dog nature or oak tree nature or whatever. Or, as far as we're aware. We can assume that humans are the only known beings to have engaged in capitalism or anything even approaching it, so capitalism is specific to human nature. In its great multifacetedness. But of course the capitalist 'way' cannot claim a monopoly on 'natural' human behaviour, which is why this claim was never made. And I don't think even right-wingers make that claim, just that capitalism is the system which best suits what they conceive of as human nature (competition between groups, hierarchies to keep people in line etc. etc.), or at least is a system which suits it rather well, and perhaps redirects these urges that were previous manifested in various other ways to something productive. Or whatever. I generally don't remember what other people have to say about things...

The point is that anybody who says that capitalism is unnatural or against human nature or anything like that is silly as. Capitalism is a part of human nature, it's natural for humans to engage in capitalism. But then there are hundreds or thousands or more non-capitalist options which are also a part of human nature, and equally natural for humans (speaking as a collective, humanity as a conglomeration of almost 7 billion distinct natures) to engage in. It would be foolish to claim that there is no human nature (because we wouldn't even do anything if we didn't have a nature), but it's equally foolish to claim that we can actually contravene human nature. Which would suggest that human nature is pretty much just...anything any person who has ever lived would ever do...

[Robert]

And I don't think even right-wingers make that claim, just that capitalism is the system which best suits what they conceive of as human nature (competition between groups, hierarchies to keep people in line

The best ... so far. The conservatives who post here are open to the possibility that something better may develop.

I either don't understand or don't agree with "hierarchies to keep people in line" claim. Bernie Madoff was at the top of the capitalist hierarchy and is doing a life term right now for stealing ... from banks, from charities, and from working stiffs.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877414,00.html

[Comrade Hill]

Capitalism is a part of human nature. If it weren't, there wouldn't be capitalism. Or what, did a bunch of aliens come down and foist some totally foreign inhuman system upon us? Or was it lions and tigers who did it? Or how else did it happen?

There is no such thing as "human nature." Humans, like other animals, evolve and change at a slow pace.

The reason why things like violence and greed exist is because of external, environmental factors. People aren't "born" with violent and greedy tendencies.

Capitalism evolved as a result of a bourgeois revolution against the fuedalists. There is nothing "natural" about having to constantly sell your labor to a wealthy class of elites.

[OHumanista]

I feel lazy right now so I'll just agree to what Jimmy said.

[Ballyfornia]

Isn't human nature just the reaction humans have the material conditions of the world?

[Queercommie Girl]

Isn't human nature just the reaction humans have the material conditions of the world?

Partly true. It's not just "reaction" because humans are also an active agent and we can transform the world around us, rather than merely passively adapting to it like animals do, due to our power of labour. The power of labour is central to the Marxist understanding of "human nature". We are human because we can engage in labour.

[durhamleft]

Many Right Wingers/Capitalists seem to act and talk like and believe that Economic Classes/Private Property/Money/Wealth has/have always existed since Humans have been on here on Earth but this is false right ? Since in Hunter Gatherer Societies there was still Personal Property but there was no Private Property there were no Economic Classes while there might of been Chiefs of the Tribes or Priests there was no Rich and Poor these Tribes still exist to this day if Humans lived without Economic Classes years ago why can't we do it again can any Capitalist answer me ? In my opinion Capitalism is not a part of Human Nature.

From primitive communism to class society

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/from_primitive_communism_to.php


Capitalism is the inevitable face if human nature. Imposing government redistribution of wealth just goes against it. However it is needed to a certain extent.

[Thirsty Crow]

Capitalism is the inevitable face if human nature. Imposing government redistribution of wealth just goes against it. However it is needed to a certain extent.
Okay, demonstarte just how capitalism is the "inevitable face of human nature" (and not the inevitable historical outcome of centuries of social development and the development of the productive forces of humankind).

And you fall into a blatant contradiction in the last two of your sentences. How can going against human nature be needed to a certain extent if capitalism in an inevitable face of it? How can one even go against human nature?

I know what you've turned out as an apologist for the current system. But this is just ridiculuous myth peddling,

[hatzel]

There is no such thing as "human nature." Humans, like other animals, evolve and change at a slow pace.

I can only assume that you realise these two sentences are totally unrelated, right? 'Cheese is tasty. I saw a mouse today.' Yeah, okay, great...but nobody said human nature had to be unchanging and unchangeable, so...


The reason why things like violence and greed exist is because of external, environmental factors. People aren't "born" with violent and greedy tendencies.

That would be flagrant reductionism. Even if we ignore the fact that claim was never made.


There is nothing "natural" about having to constantly sell your labor to a wealthy class of elites.

There is nothing unnatural about it.

[Bardo]

Capitalism is the inevitable face if human nature. Imposing government redistribution of wealth just goes against it. However it is needed to a certain extent.

Individualism is a relatively new construct. Human nature (behavior?) indeed shows great levels of greed and desire for control, which is exactly why we shouldn't reward such behavior. Human nature is also inherently violent, can you imagine if we rewarded violence in the same way that we reward greed? Every time I want to rape or kill someone Big Government steps in and threatens me with punishment :closedeyes:

Man is also an altruistic animal. Always has been, always will be. As soon as we can stop thinking of ourselves as a member of a company, of a nation, of a race, and start thinking of ourselves as members of humanity we will start to make the same kinds of sacrifices we make for our company, nation, race etc. for humanity as a whole. We shouldn't be putting up more walls throughout society, we should be breaking them down.

How do you see the world hundreds of years into the future? Do you see 15 billion property owners competing with one another, or maybe 1 billion wealthy property owners with 14 billion slaves? Or do you see 15 billion people utilizing commonly owned resources and working towards a better world?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Capitalism is as human as feudalism, primitive communism, and socialism.

[Maslo]

Tribal-like egalitarian societies are impossible to exist beyond some population size threshold and specialisation threshold. Why do you think all broke down and turned into feudalism / primitive capitalism when they grew past certain point? Its because for egalitarian society, all members must have cca the same abilities / expertise, and all must know each other and have stable social relations with each other. And there is a hard-wired natural limit on how many people can our brain form stable social relations with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

So yes, I would say that it is human nature to abandon tribal egalitarian societies in favor of feudalism / capitalism when they grow past certain point and attain certain specialisation and technology. And unless you want to artificially limit sizes of human settlements to few hundred people who can all know each other well (and limit human specialisation and technology), egalitarian societies wont return. They may return again only after the technological singularity brings about abundance (if its possible).

[Revolution starts with U]

Well seeing as how the Dunbar number is 150, and yet there were tribes of over 2000... I'm going to have to say Dunbarist social grooming is not a necessary facet of egalitarianism.

Basically what you just said Maslo is: "humans are egalitarian in small groups. But once they pass this arbitrary number, someone must dominate everyone else... it's human nature!" Do you not see the ridiculousness and fallacy of your hypothesis?

Oh and Rabbi and Robert... you two obviously haven't spent a lot of time amongst the Misesians, who actually do believe that capitalism is human nature, not just a part of it.

[hatzel]

Oh and Rabbi and Robert... you two obviously haven't spent a lot of time amongst the Misesians

This is indeed the case. Through no small effort on my part, I must admit.

[Robert]

Oh and Rabbi and Robert... you two obviously haven't spent a lot of time amongst the Misesians, who actually do believe that capitalism is human nature, not just a part of it.

The only Miseans I ever run into are all on Revleft, and those few usually leave right after the warm welcome they get from the "in crowd." :(

[Jimmie Higgins]

Tribal-like egalitarian societies are impossible to exist beyond some population size threshold and specialisation threshold. Why do you think all broke down and turned into feudalism / primitive capitalism when they grew past certain point? Its because for egalitarian society, all members must have cca the same abilities / expertise, and all must know each other and have stable social relations with each other. And there is a hard-wired natural limit on how many people can our brain form stable social relations with.The limit on tribal societies was not set by biological or psychological constraints, it was set by the modes of production they had - i.e. hunting and gathering.

Feudalism actually was based on farming and feudal communities were smaller and more scattered than the classical urban societies of the older slave societies. Capitalism has large cities because labor is concentrated and there is a larger surplus to sustain larger populations.


So yes, I would say that it is human nature to abandon tribal egalitarian societies in favor of feudalism / capitalism when they grow past certain point and attain certain specialisation and technology. And unless you want to artificially limit sizes of human settlements to few hundred people who can all know each other well (and limit human specialisation and technology), egalitarian societies wont return. They may return again only after the technological singularity brings about abundance (if its possible).Yes, abundance, or surplus, is the key and capitalism has created the potential for enough surplus for all humans to feed themselves and then some, but the organization of capitalism prevents this potential.

If it was true that population size determines the organization of production, then Nebraska would be feudal and California would be capitalist. This is not the case. It also doesn't explain how small hunter-gather bands were brought into the capitalist system while remaining small in numbers during the colonial era. Did the population of India suddenly increase and that's what caused it to go from feudalism to capitalism? No, in fact, when the british took over it led to some decreases in the population. In the Americas, the same thing happened: large populations were killed off by disease before capitalist relations were introduced.

[Drosophila]

Whenever someone points to a theory or something similar as "human nature" they are bullshitting. Human nature is anything that we do that we can't control. Like eating, drinking, breathing, etc. Capitalism is an economic theory and therefore doesn't have to exist.

[Agent Equality]

For all of you since there are still some capitalists on here that feel the need to still say that capitalism is linked to human nature or is even natural:

u6XAPnuFjJc



l7AWnfFRc7g

Both of these videos show that the profit motive is pretty much unnatural and that we are practically meant for communism.

[Rafiq]

Define what you mean by "Human Nature".

The assumption that humans are actually born as capitalists from birth and are inherently capitalist is laughable. I mean, tell that to the rest of Human existence. Did it really take us a million years to adjust ourselves into the society and mode of production that best addresses our behavior? Of course not. And the same could be said about the so-called theory of Humans being naturally communist. They are not. Humans will act and behave within the constraints of their society. And the society is determined by unintentional human history (who would have expected capitalism would come after Feudalism? It almost happened by accident!).

Now, if you want to be difficult and off-topic yes, you could say that Capitalism is a part of the Nature of Humans, like La Sombra did. Of course, everything we are and do is natural. We are animals, Nature itself is not some balanced and all-pure force that is different from the constructs and inventions made by Humans. It is natural for Humans to organize themselves in a system, yes.

However such posts present themselves as useless to the OP's original statement. La Sombra you knew before hand that tradeunionsupporter was referring to human nature as what we are naturally born with and the behaviors that come about from it, yet you still deviated from the question and decided to be a smart-ass.

[Rafiq]

Both of these videos show that the profit motive is pretty much unnatural and that we are practically meant for communism.

So if we are meant for communism, like you stated, where is the communism? Surly if humans were "meant" for communism, we would have already organized ourselves in such a system, naturally, right?

Or do you mean do say that the whole existence of humanity was just a barrier to achieving a future communist society?

The matter is that we aren't "meant for communism" or naturally communist. We are all motivated by self interest and are a very violent and irrational type of animal, like our Chimpanzee friends. However that doesn't mean we can't organize ourselves to address these traits in a more efficient manner than we do under the capitalist mode of production.

[Agent Equality]

So if we are meant for communism, like you stated, where is the communism? Surly if humans were "meant" for communism, we would have already organized ourselves in such a system, naturally, right?

Or do you mean do say that the whole existence of humanity was just a barrier to achieving a future communist society?

The matter is that we aren't "meant for communism" or naturally communist. We are all motivated by self interest and are a very violent and irrational type of animal, like our Chimpanzee friends. However that doesn't mean we can't organize ourselves to address these traits in a more efficient manner than we do under the capitalist mode of production.

Lol did you even watch the fucking videos? You're so stubbornly narrow minded its amazing how you can even read opinions other than your own without exploding - wait.....nvm continue as you were.

[Rafiq]

Lol did you even watch the fucking videos? You're so stubbornly narrow minded its amazing how you can even read opinions other than your own without exploding - wait.....nvm continue as you were.



I've watched those videos before you even have, you're not the first user to post them. And how was that post even hostile and grounds for you to be an asshole? You didn't even attempt to refute what I said so until then shut your mouth and fuck off

[Rafiq]

Please point out where in that post I 'exploded'? It appears you don't know how to refute what I said so you're dismissing it as "narrow mindedness" (ironic?).

[RGacky3]

The matter is that we aren't "meant for communism" or naturally communist. We are all motivated by self interest and are a very violent and irrational type of animal, like our Chimpanzee friends. However that doesn't mean we can't organize ourselves to address these traits in a more efficient manner than we do under the capitalist mode of production.

You totally ignored all the evidence pointed out in the videos.


I've watched those videos before you even have, you're not the first user to post them. And how was that post even hostile and grounds for you to be an asshole? You didn't even attempt to refute what I said so until then shut your mouth and fuck off

He did refute what you said, with the scientific evidence presented in those videos.

[Rafiq]

You totally ignored all the evidence pointed out in the videos.



He did refute what you said, with the scientific evidence presented in those videos.



The 'evidence' you presented also said that common industrial jobs do better with the profit motive. There was no concrete evidence in the videos regarding why humans are naturally communist

If we are, where is the communism in the past 20,000 years?

[RGacky3]

There was no concrete evidence in the videos regarding why humans are naturally communist


Naturally communist??? No but they did destroy the idea that humans are naturally selfish.


If we are, where is the communism in the past 20,000 years?

Primitive communism lasted pretty damn long.

[tir1944]

Primitive communism
However that's not Communism,and we really shouldn't use it as an example of what a communist society would look like.

[RGacky3]

depends on how you define communism ... And no its not an example ... but so what?

[Rafiq]

Naturally communist??? No but they did destroy the idea that humans are naturally selfish.



Primitive communism lasted pretty damn long.



Define 'selfish'. Humans are naturally motivated by self interest, yes, but sometimes self interest is the interest many.

Primitive communism is no where near as efficient as Capitalism or even Feudalism. Agriculture was not discovered ergo our only method of survival was hunting and picking berries.

The only reason primitive communism existed was because agricultural methods did not exist. Not because we were naturally altruistic or communal.

And, communism is not "going back to our roots". It is organizing ourselves in a more efficient manner than we do under the capitalist mode of production. If anything it is cutting our roots with nature even more, which is good, as nature is chaotic and unpredictable (more zizek, sorry if I come off as a try hard or something).

[RGacky3]

Define 'selfish'. Humans are naturally motivated by self interest, yes, but sometimes self interest is the interest many.


Just watch the videos, people have done studies on this we don't need to speculate.


Primitive communism is no where near as efficient as Capitalism or even Feudalism. Agriculture was not discovered ergo our only method of survival was hunting and picking berries.

The only reason primitive communism existed was because agricultural methods did not exist. Not because we were naturally altruistic or communal.


... We arn't naturally anything, we "naturally" adapt.


And, communism is not "going back to our roots". It is organizing ourselves in a more efficient manner than we do under the capitalist mode of production.

Neer said it was cutting our roots.


If anything it is cutting our roots with nature even more, which is good, as nature is chaotic and unpredictable (more zizek, sorry if I come off as a try hard or something).

It has nothing to do with our Roots imo, its how we organize production, nothing more nothing less.

[Rafiq]

Just watch the videos, people have done studies on this we don't need to speculate.

Actually we do.



... We arn't naturally anything, we "naturally" adapt.

I don't recall disagreeing with this.


Neer said it was cutting our roots.


I assume you mean "going back to our roots". But you must think about it. I know it would be all nice if we already carried the seeds of communism inside of us from birth but this is at best unscientific.


It has nothing to do with our Roots imo, its how we organize production, nothing more nothing less.


It has everything to do with our roots. Look at Capitalism, thanks to it we are now a Geological factor on planet Earth. The more we advance, the more we are cutting our ties with nature, and to be quite frank, I think that this is a good thing.

I don't see communism as us going back to anything, none the less primitive communism. I see it as, if ever going to exist, something entirely different from anything we have seen so far.

[Judicator]

For all of you since there are still some capitalists on here that feel the need to still say that capitalism is linked to human nature or is even natural:

u6XAPnuFjJc

Both of these videos show that the profit motive is pretty much unnatural and that we are practically meant for communism.

It's exactly the profit motive that will drive firms to implement these pay policies informed by behavioral econ. Also, the idea of "paying people enough to take the issue of money off the table" can mean paying them quote a lot a lot in certain labor markets (computer engineers, for example).




l7AWnfFRc7g

Both of these videos show that the profit motive is pretty much unnatural and that we are practically meant for communism.

This video doesn't make any comments about profit. He makes the unfounded assumption that the empathy we feel for family members is somehow the same in quality or degree as the empathy we feel for countrymen or members of the same religion or whatever. To the extent that this is necessary for communism, he's just begging the question.

I love how he tries to get around this by responding to people who say "I can't imagine that" at 6:05 by saying "well I think we're fucked...so shutup."

[RGacky3]

It's exactly the profit motive that will drive firms to implement these pay policies informed by behavioral econ. Also, the idea of "paying people enough to take the issue of money off the table" can mean paying them quote a lot a lot in certain labor markets (computer engineers, for example).



Except it does'nt ....


This video doesn't make any comments about profit. He makes the unfounded assumption that the empathy we feel for family members is somehow the same in quality or degree as the empathy we feel for countrymen or members of the same religion or whatever. To the extent that this is necessary for communism, he's just begging the question.

I love how he tries to get around this by responding to people who say "I can't imagine that" at 6:05 by saying "well I think we're fucked...so shutup."

It does'nt, but waht it does get rid of is the notion that humans are naturally selfish.


Actually we do.


THERE ARE MANY STUDIES ON THE SUBJECT. Or do you not believe in science ...?


I don't recall disagreeing with this.


You said humans are naturally selfish ....


I assume you mean "going back to our roots". But you must think about it. I know it would be all nice if we already carried the seeds of communism inside of us from birth but this is at best unscientific.


I never said we all carried the seeds of communism inside us from birth .... Who are you arguing with???


I don't see communism as us going back to anything, none the less primitive communism. I see it as, if ever going to exist, something entirely different from anything we have seen so far.

ok. I brought up primative communism to say that class society is no more part of human nature than a classless society.

[graffic]

Last time I checked one of the many reasons there is an upper class is that rich people actually like being rich and exercising power. Obviously there are many people that are clever and do not love wealth and some people who hate wealth and some people who want to become moderately wealthy and some psychopaths who want to become millionares and some people who don't care. The last category i think is often overlooked and makes up a large amount of the population. Is it also human nature not to care about ideology or wealth when a "capitalist" government gives the majority a job and a home? Like religion, plenty of people are perhaps not atheists or libertarians but they just don't give a shit about it in the slightest. Thats why it will be a very long time before socialism replaces capitalism unless something dramatic happens. And Marx never actually claimed to know what "human nature" is and I don't see why its relevant.

[Robert]

Thats why it will be a very long time before socialism replaces capitalism unless something dramatic happens.Income and wealth inequality is an issue in every society. I don't see perfect wealth equality as possible absent despotism, and that just makes things worse. And this "each according to his needs" refrain is the silliest thing ever written.

What to do? Liberals can regain full power and heavily tax not only the rich but also the upper middle class, which includes small biz onwers. That approach disfavors job creation, and so I oppose it.

Second, Ben Stein and Wayne Rogers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Rogers) can convince power brokers that the answer is to heavily tax the "one percent" rich. Maybe Warren Buffett counts among this group, but he's apolitical from what I can tell. They know it won't do much in terms of deficits or to enrich the poor, because but it will at least help defuse the moral and ideological argument (in normal places, not here) that the rich don't pay their fair share. I support this plan (so it must be right), along with entitlement reform and elimination of corporate subsidies.

Democratizing or nationalizing or syndicalizing the means of production is not catching on anywhere.

Except here, in this society of pissed off Flat Earth-ists. No offense.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/Flat_earth-1.png

[Revolution starts with U]

Income and wealth inequality is an issue in every society. I don't see perfect wealth equality as possible absent despotism, and that just makes things worse. And this "each according to his needs" refrain is the silliest thing ever written.

1) Wealth inequality only has meaning in a pre post-scarcity society.
2) If you see someone starving would you not give them your hard-earned apple for sustenance? That is what is meant by "from each, to each." The idea is to make it into law. Whether or not that is effective is another matter than whether "from each, to each" is a good philosophy.



What to do? Liberals can regain full power and heavily tax not only the rich but also the upper middle class, which includes small biz onwers. That approach disfavors job creation, and so I oppose it.

People keep saying taxes disfavor job creation... I would like to see the end of all involuntary taxation, but I just don't see the evidence favoring this point of view.



Democratizing or nationalizing or syndicalizing the means of production is not catching on anywhere.

Except it, you know, is... :lol:

[Robert]

pre post-scarcity society.We, we're already in a post-pre-post-scarcity society now, and I still can't find my dog. No, I really don't know what you mean.


If you see someone starving would you not give them your hard-earned apple for sustenance? Assuming I were not starving too, yeah, okay.


That is what is meant by "from each, to each." The idea is to make it into law. Whether or not that is effective is another matter than whether "from each, to each" is a good philosophy.Well, if that's what he meant, fine. But I have my doubts. And if you question "whether or not that is effective" (did you mean efficient? or practical maybe), then you aren't a real commie. Which is why you're one of my favorite people.:)

On the "taxes disfavor job creation," we aren't just talking about raising Bill Gates' income tax. We're also talking about people like plumbing & A.C. contractors, restaurant owners, small industrial plants like window makers, chrome plating shops, nursery owners, independent car repair shops, upholsterers. Those kinds of business owners employ a lot of people and their accountants calculate when they can afford to hire more or need to lay off the ones they have. Taxes are an important part of that equation.


Except it, you know, is...

No, I don't know that. There's common feeling that government needs to dial back subsidies and bailouts, yes, but that's as much a Libertarian as a collectivist impulse.

[Revolution starts with U]

We, we're already in a post-pre-post-scarcity society now, and I still can't find my dog. No, I really don't know what you mean.

Im saying, wealth inequality becomes meaningless in a post-scarcity. It only has meaning now.



Assuming I were not starving too, yeah, okay.

You wouldn't cut the apple in half, even were you starving? :crying:



Well, if that's what he meant, fine. But I have my doubts. And if you question "whether or not that is effective" (did you mean efficient? or practical maybe), then you aren't a real commie. Which is why you're one of my favorite people.:)

I think YOU question its effectiveness. ;)



On the "taxes disfavor job creation," we aren't just talking about raising Bill Gates' income tax. We're also talking about people like plumbing & A.C. contractors, restaurant owners, small industrial plants like window makers, chrome plating shops, nursery owners, independent car repair shops, upholsterers. Those kinds of business owners employ a lot of people and their accountants calculate when they can afford to hire more or need to lay off the ones they have. Taxes are an important part of that equation.

I have my doubts. I don't want to see taxes on anybody go up. But I think feeding and housing everyone, giving them control over their lives, and education and health as dependant on the evidence, wherever that leads (within reason).