Society

[TheRedAnarchist23]

In this thread I will write what I think about society, what I beleive society is about, and what I think should happen.

First of all, if we analyse our current society we see many things that are, simply, unnatural. No other animal has to sit in a chair looking at a screen and pushing keys to survive. Anxiety is something animals feel when they are not doing what they are supposed to do, in other words, they are in an unnatural environment.There are many people today with anxiety disorders or depression, this is influenced by one's personality, and the environment in which he is inserted.

If we analyse further we will notice we are nothing more than people playing a game, like the games children play with one another. This game is the one we call society.
This game evolved slowly and begun being taken seriously after much time. This is how the first societies were formed.
We have been born in an order created in the human mind, but not the order fit for humans.

In primitive times humans were free, they were only bound by hunger and the need for survival. We can end hunger, and we can garantee people's survival, freedom was what was taken to give us those.
Today (in my country) all children have access to school, everyone has access to learning, yet they are forced to learn.
It seems this is how things work in every society, they give you benefits, but in return they take away freedom.

Freedom is something everyone should have the right to have. This does not mean that we should trade our benefits in exchange for freedom, which is what the primitivists would have us do. We can take back the freedom we once, in times before recorded history, had.

This is what I think is the goal of anarchism, get back the freedom we once had.
To have freedom we must make sure society does not take away our freedom. For that we must destroy what controls society, we must destroy the state.

You speak of class consciousness, but you should be speaking of society consciousness

[Prometeo liberado]

You speak of class consciousness, but you should be speaking of society consciousness

Rather than go through this line by line I'll just sum up my response with a critique of your last line. The working class does not make up all of society. The overwhelming majority? Yes. But we are not in the business, for lack of a better term, of raising the consciousness of the Bourgeois. We are not advocating a new form of "Flower Power". The history of organized society is that of one class supplanting another under the guise of universal freedom. We at least tell the truth in that we agitate for our class only. Therefore we advocate the DOTP. Then the withering away of the state. One can not be realized before the other.

And yes, I understand you are an anarchist, but even anarchists understand the need for class struggle at this point. Our class that is.

[Positivist]

This assessment successfully accounts for the decline in freedom in sync with the development of a progressively complex division of labor (and the benefits this provided) but it fails to acknowledge the cause of this decline. Freedom has declined with the development of the productive forces because such has been carried out and accompanied by the development of classes. Now, the productive forces have developed to the point that classes are no longer necessary and the largest class, the proletariat, has an objective interest in their abolition.

[Rugged Collectivist]

In this thread I will write what I think about society, what I beleive society is about, and what I think should happen.

Okay.


First of all, if we analyse our current society we see many things that are, simply, unnatural.

How could anything possibly be unnatural? There's no framework to the universe other than it's natural laws. Since it is impossible for us to violate these laws, nothing can ever be unnatural. Our current condition isn't a deviation from a plan because there is no plan.


No other animal has to sit in a chair looking at a screen and pushing keys to survive.

Humans are extraordinary animals. We're the only ones that could sit in a chair and push keys to survive.


Anxiety is something animals feel when they are not doing what they are supposed to do, in other words, they are in an unnatural environment.There are many people today with anxiety disorders or depression, this is influenced by one's personality, and the environment in which he is inserted.

Anxiety isn't some punishment for wrong behavior. Anxiety is something an animal feels when it is threatened and it's a completely natural phenomenon. You could argue that humans ought to live in an environment without danger, but you can hardly argue that it's their default state or something and feeling anxiety means you're deviating from it.


If we analyse further we will notice we are nothing more than people playing a game, like the games children play with one another. This game is the one we call society.

I don't really see how living in a class society is any more of a game than living in a hunter gatherer society would be.



This game evolved slowly and begun being taken seriously after much time. This is how the first societies were formed.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.


In primitive times humans were free, they were only bound by hunger and the need for survival. We can end hunger, and we can garantee people's survival, freedom was what was taken to give us those.

Well obviously we can't. People are still dying of starvation to this day.


Today (in my country) all children have access to school, everyone has access to learning, yet they are forced to learn.
It seems this is how things work in every society, they give you benefits, but in return they take away freedom.

Okay, true. Everything given to us by the ruling class comes at a price.


Freedom is something everyone should have the right to have. This does not mean that we should trade our benefits in exchange for freedom, which is what the primitivists would have us do. We can take back the freedom we once, in times before recorded history, had.

How?


This is what I think is the goal of anarchism, get back the freedom we once had.

ok


To have freedom we must make sure society does not take away our freedom. For that we must destroy what controls society, we must destroy the state.

How?


You speak of class consciousness, but you should be speaking of society consciousness

You tell us to abandon class consciousness, but class consciousness and communism give us a plan for the destruction of the state and what comes after. What do you propose?

While I disagree with your assessment, I think it's admirable that you took the time to think all of this out and share it with us. Thank you.

[campesino]

@ TheRedAnarchist23
good writing, but what is your definition of freedom? if we know what freedom is, we get a clearer vision and motivation for our goals.

I say this because some reactionaries believe we have perfect freedom. Hitler wanted to liberate man from conscious and intellect.

[Positivist]

I say this because some reactionaries believe we have perfect freedom. Hitler wanted to liberate man from conscious and intellect.

Pretty sure that Hitler had deep anxiety over the abuse he received as a child and as a consequence was imparted a powerful desire to affirm his dominance through the exercise of social power, so he aligned with the ideology which most clearly met his sensibilities and that presented the best opportunity to do so. Pretty sure.

But if we are addressing the actual ideology that Hitler subsrcribed to, fascism, than this assessment still remains inaccurate. The goal of fascism is not to liberate man from conscience and intellect, its goal is the preservation of capital through the enforcement of state ideology, elimination of dissent and scapegoat of minorities. Even from a rhetorical standpoint, fascism only appealed to popular desire for order and national rejuvenation, and adjusted itself to the reactionary sentiments of each respective region. The concept of liberation through elimination of conscience and intellect is only partially present at the deepest level of fascists ideology in the philosophy of action without reflection, but even this concedes the necessity of intellect.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Rather than go through this line by line I'll just sum up my response with a critique of your last line. The working class does not make up all of society. The overwhelming majority? Yes. But we are not in the business, for lack of a better term, of raising the consciousness of the Bourgeois. We are not advocating a new form of "Flower Power". The history of organized society is that of one class supplanting another under the guise of universal freedom. We at least tell the truth in that we agitate for our class only. Therefore we advocate the DOTP. Then the withering away of the state. One can not be realized before the other.

And yes, I understand you are an anarchist, but even anarchists understand the need for class struggle at this point. Our class that is.

I don't understand your point.
I am advocating class struggle to achieve freedom.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

This assessment successfully accounts for the decline in freedom in sync with the development of a progressively complex division of labor (and the benefits this provided) but it fails to acknowledge the cause of this decline. Freedom has declined with the development of the productive forces because such has been carried out and accompanied by the development of classes. Now, the productive forces have developed to the point that classes are no longer necessary and the largest class, the proletariat, has an objective interest in their abolition.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with it.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The quote function broke for me.


How could anything possibly be unnatural? There's no framework to the universe other than it's natural laws. Since it is impossible for us to violate these laws, nothing can ever be unnatural. Our current condition isn't a deviation from a plan because there is no plan.

Nobody here spoke of any plan except you.
I am sure humans did not evolve to sit in a desk in order to get food, so it is unnatural. There are 2 solutions for this, either you wait millions of years until we evolve around this system, or you destroy it.

"Humans are extraordinary animals. We're the only ones that could sit in a chair and push keys to survive."

Yet does pushing those keys actualy do anything for you directly? Working today brings you indirect benefits, no other animal spends energy for indirect benefit.

"Anxiety isn't some punishment for wrong behavior."

Again, the only person who mentioned punishment was you.

"Anxiety is something an animal feels when it is threatened and it's a completely natural phenomenon."

Exactly, but is an anxiety disorder something natural other animals feel?
You can see anxiety in a dog (according to Cesar Milan) when it is living in an evironment without a pack leader. The dog is living in an unnatural environment if it does not have a pack leader, because dogs evolved to have that social structure. So, logicaly, humans suffer from anxiety disorders because they are living in an unnatural social structure.

Y"ou could argue that humans ought to live in an environment without danger, but you can hardly argue that it's their default state or something and feeling anxiety means you're deviating from it."

I never said anythining about living without danger. All animals evolved to handle danger.

"I don't really see how living in a class society is any more of a game than living in a hunter gatherer society would be."

In a hunter gatherer society there is no game. If there are not any rules, there is no game. If you lose or refuse to play the game you are punished.

"I really don't know what you're trying to say here."

You see how even in accient civilizations there were laws. I believe those laws are mere rules of a game. Changing the rules will do nothing. We must destroy the game, for that we must destroy what compells us to play the game. We must destroy the state (and some other things).

"Well obviously we can't. People are still dying of starvation to this day."

You, as a marxist, should know that it is not the ammount of food that makes starvation, it is the way that food is destributed.

"How?"

Again, as a marxist, you should know this. We can do it through revolution.

"How?"

Only the combined power of many people can destroy what makes the game continue to work. Revolution is what is needed.

"You tell us to abandon class consciousness, but class consciousness and communism give us a plan for the destruction of the state and what comes after. What do you propose?"

I do not tell you to abandon class consciousness, I tell you to teach more than it. The more enlightented the people is, the better chances you have for a real socialist revolution.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Good writing, but what is your definition of freedom? if we know what freedom is, we get a clearer vision and motivation for our goals.

I believe freedom is to be free from all you are forced to do. In a free society only you can choose what you shall do.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Nobody here spoke of any plan except you.

Saying something is unnatural means that it's a deviation from nature. Nature refers to the physical world and the laws that govern it. Since nothing can violate natural laws, nothing can be unnatural, yet you claim that certain behaviors are unnatural. This could only be true if there was some plan that could be violated.


I am sure humans did not evolve to sit in a desk in order to get food, so it is unnatural. There are 2 solutions for this, either you wait millions of years until we evolve around this system, or you destroy it.

Fair enough.


Yet does pushing those keys actualy do anything for you directly?
Working today brings you indirect benefits, no other animal spends energy for indirect benefit.

Yes. You push keys, your boss gives you money, you use the money to purchase things you need for survival. This seems pretty direct to me.



Exactly, but is an anxiety disorder something natural other animals feel?

You can see anxiety in a dog (according to Cesar Milan) when it is living in an evironment without a pack leader. The dog is living in an unnatural environment if it does not have a pack leader, because dogs evolved to have that social structure. So, logicaly, humans suffer from anxiety disorders because they are living in an unnatural social structure.

I think this is a semantics argument. If you replace the word natural with ideal, I would agree with you.


I never said anythining about living without danger. All animals evolved to handle danger.

I was mistaken. Never mind this.


In a hunter gatherer society there is no game. If there are not any rules, there is no game. If you lose or refuse to play the game you are punished.

You think there were no rules in hunter gatherer societies?


You see how even in accient civilizations there were laws. I believe those laws are mere rules of a game. Changing the rules will do nothing. We must destroy the game, for that we must destroy what compells us to play the game. We must destroy the state (and some other things).

I'm pretty sure there would be laws in a stateless society.


You, as a marxist, should know that it is not the ammount of food that makes starvation, it is the way that food is destributed.


Yeah, but you said we traded our freedom for survival when we accepted the yoke of the state. I'm saying we aren't even guaranteed survival by the state.


I do not tell you to abandon class consciousness, I tell you to teach more than it. The more enlightented the people is, the better chances you have for a real socialist revolution.

You said, and I quote, "You speak of class consciousness, but you should be speaking of society consciousness". Implying that class consciousness is flawed or inadequate and that we must turn to "society consciousness" to understand and overcome our oppression.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But if we are addressing the actual ideology that Hitler subsrcribed to, fascism, than this assessment still remains inaccurate. The goal of fascism is not to liberate man from conscience and intellect, its goal is the preservation of capital through the enforcement of state ideology, elimination of dissent and scapegoat of minorities. Even from a rhetorical standpoint, fascism only appealed to popular desire for order and national rejuvenation, and adjusted itself to the reactionary sentiments of each respective region. The concept of liberation through elimination of conscience and intellect is only partially present at the deepest level of fascists ideology in the philosophy of action without reflection, but even this concedes the necessity of intellect.Good and valid point, but I think the overall point being made was simply that "freedom" is context-based when it comes to society.

I agree that some of the terms in the OP are applied abstractly in this way, but I also want to thank RA23 for their poetic discription of some of the basic contradictions of class society.

I like the "natural" angle because "the natural order" is the one most used ideologically to justify capitalism and has played this role since the begining. Ititally this is progressive in a sense because it is more materially-based: rights don't come from god, the order of society is not fixed from birth, etc. But the flip side and the way that class rule "fetters" a more universal understanding is that when the system had established itself, "nature" becomes a deterministic prison rather than a liberating ideal and we get "biology" and "psycology" and "genetics" (the quotes are for the application of these sciences, not the science itself :D)
justifying every crime of capitalism: social-darwinism, eugenics, racism/sexism, etc.

But just looking at labor is done in capitalism revelas how "unnatural" i.e. constructed our days are. I mean no hunter-gatherers or pesants needed a wistle or bell to tell them when to start and stop working. There was no "busy-work" because if harvest was done, then what was there to do? No children ever leared "naturally" according to a rather abrbitrary age-based schedule of mastering skills.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The quote function does not seem to be working right now, so:

@Rugged Collectivist

"Saying something is unnatural means that it's a deviation from nature. Nature refers to the physical world and the laws that govern it. Since nothing can violate natural laws, nothing can be unnatural, yet you claim that certain behaviors are unnatural. This could only be true if there was some plan that could be violated."

Did humans evolve to sit on a desk hitting keys for survival?

"Yes. You push keys, your boss gives you money, you use the money to purchase things you need for survival. This seems pretty direct to me."

It would be direct if you were out in the wild hunting you food, or in a field tending to your crops.

"I think this is a semantics argument. If you replace the word natural with ideal, I would agree with you."

I prefer the use of the expression "natural", since what I am refering to are the conditions we evolved to survive in.

"You think there were no rules in hunter gatherer societies?"

If you are with a group and you all need to survive, what is the first thing you do? Surely it will not be writing laws.
Humans are prepared to live in groups, and to stay together to survive, that is how we evolved.

"I'm pretty sure there would be laws in a stateless society."

Surely there would be rules, but those would be determined by common sense.

"Yeah, but you said we traded our freedom for survival when we accepted the yoke of the state. I'm saying we aren't even guaranteed survival by the state."

I see what you mean.

"You said, and I quote, "You speak of class consciousness, but you should be speaking of society consciousness". Implying that class consciousness is flawed or inadequate and that we must turn to "society consciousness" to understand and overcome our oppression."

It does not mean that class conciousness is flawed, what it means is if we understand the society we live in, we end up more enlightened than by just becoming class conscious.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Did humans evolve to sit on a desk hitting keys for survival?

Not yet.


It would be direct if you were out in the wild hunting you food, or in a field tending to your crops.

I'd rather buy the food honestly.


I prefer the use of the expression "natural", since what I am refering to are the conditions we evolved to survive in.

Yeah but evolution is a constant process. Sooner or later living the way we do now will be "natural". And besides, Seriously, I would fucking die if I had to go live in the woods gathering berries. If I had to choose between living a "natural" life and having penicillin and computers, I think I would choose the latter. For all your talk of not being a primitivist you sound like you want us to return to hunting and gathering.


If you are with a group and you all need to survive, what is the first thing you do? Surely it will not be writing laws.
Humans are prepared to live in groups, and to stay together to survive, that is how we evolved.

I'm sure there were informal laws.


Surely there would be rules, but those would be determined by common sense.

Common sense isn't a basis for law though. What most people think is "common sense" would probably horrify us.


It does not mean that class conciousness is flawed, what it means is if we understand the society we live in, we end up more enlightened than by just becoming class conscious.

I kind of see what you're saying, but the society we live in is built around class, so understanding the class makeup of society, and our interests as proletarians should be enough to understand society.

[Prometeo liberado]

I don't understand your point.
I am advocating class struggle to achieve freedom.


You speak of class consciousness, but you should be speaking of society consciousness

This, to me, does not sound like class struggle, in fact this sentence betrays class struggle for some sort of hippie idealism.

[Kenco Smooth]

I am sure humans did not evolve to sit in a desk in order to get food, so it is unnatural. There are 2 solutions for this, either you wait millions of years until we evolve around this system, or you destroy it.

We didn't evolve 'in order' to do anything. We acquired numerous traits which were appropriate for the environments in which we lived. There is no essential or primordial link between these characteristics and the particular environment we happened to evolve them in. Sight has evolved independently in multiple occasions in very different circumstances across species. Which one of these is sight's natural environment? None, it's a tool to be used as it befits the animal. If it evolves in one environment but is equally useful in another than an evolutionary trait is evolutionarily adaptive in the new environment.



Yet does pushing those keys actualy do anything for you directly? Working today brings you indirect benefits, no other animal spends energy for indirect benefit.


Even a 5 year olds understanding of biology shows this is wrong. Is the payoff from a beavers damn direct? Do long term kin bonds formed in innumerable animals pay off in a direct way? Hell even the energy expended on growth does not pay off directly in animals who's youth is spent under a protective parent/social group.



Exactly, but is an anxiety disorder something natural other animals feel?
You can see anxiety in a dog (according to Cesar Milan) when it is living in an evironment without a pack leader. The dog is living in an unnatural environment if it does not have a pack leader, because dogs evolved to have that social structure. So, logicaly, humans suffer from anxiety disorders because they are living in an unnatural social structure.

Not logically at all. Animals don't suffer anxiety because of evolution. This confuses proximate and ultimate causes. They suffer anxiety because something in their neural hard wiring makes them so. Evolution doesn;t need to be evoked at all and certainly not the extremely confused notion of 'natural environment' you're falling over.



You see how even in accient civilizations there were laws. I believe those laws are mere rules of a game. Changing the rules will do nothing. We must destroy the game, for that we must destroy what compells us to play the game. We must destroy the state (and some other things).

Except the basis of human psychology that allows things like laws are in fact evolutionarily selected for so by your own reasoning there is nothing unnatural about laws. Social hierarchies abound throughout the animal kingdom. Know why? Indirect payoff.

[Rafiq]

Lol @ redanarchists Matrix-esque romanticism of revolutionary socialism. This is why we have Marxists. Goddamnit... I'm almost disgusted. "Yo guys its the circle of life its all a big conspiracy nevermind the unequivocally different class, and social composition of ancient egypt, it's just different rules man."


"WHAT DOES ROME AND AMEURICA HAS IN COMMON?"

"uh... People drank water in both civilizations?"

"EXACTLY. Water. Such is the cause of our enslavement, the obstacle blockinf our freedom! EVERY state, people drank water. ALL OF THEM. The problem is water, folks, and we can't just change the brand... We gotta get rid of what compells us to drink: Some shit on our bodies which I don't know about."



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[citizen of industry]

Rafiq, is there some setting you can set to prevent your posts from saying, "Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2."? Because its there I'm forced to glance at it and comprehend it. It's like a final period to all your posts. "That's fucking bullshit!: Sent from my SPH-D710 Using Tapatalk 2"

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Not yet.

Exactly, it would take millions of years for that. Either we wait millions of years, or we change it to suit us, like we did with many other things.



I'd rather buy the food honestly.

That is not the point in question.



Yeah but evolution is a constant process. Sooner or later living the way we do now will be "natural". And besides, Seriously, I would fucking die if I had to go live in the woods gathering berries. If I had to choose between living a "natural" life and having penicillin and computers, I think I would choose the latter. For all your talk of not being a primitivist you sound like you want us to return to hunting and gathering.And for all you talk, you have a really hard time trying to undrestand what I am saying, you are always looking for things to accuse me of.

First of all, I am a big supportant of technological development. To throw away all our technology would be stupid. We should change the system to suit all humans, we have the technology for that.


I'm sure there were informal laws.You know what is good, and what is bad, right? Humans before us knew this too, not because they debated and thought about what was good and bad, but because they felt it. That being said, laws originated from making principles guided simply by what is good, and what is bad, oficial.


Common sense isn't a basis for law though. What most people think is "common sense" would probably horrify us.Why do you think there were so many stupid laws over the years.


I kind of see what you're saying, but the society we live in is built around class, so understanding the class makeup of society, and our interests as proletarians should be enough to understand society.Understanding classes, without understanding individuals?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

This, to me, does not sound like class struggle, in fact this sentence betrays class struggle for some sort of hippie idealism.

I could argue that you betray struggle for freedom with your dogma.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

We didn't evolve 'in order' to do anything. We acquired numerous traits which were appropriate for the environments in which we lived.

When did I say we evolved for something?
Your argument actually adds to mine, the way we evolved makes us function better in certain conditions.


There is no essential or primordial link between these characteristics and the particular environment we happened to evolve them in.

When did I say there was something like that. You are inventing things.


Sight has evolved independently in multiple occasions in very different circumstances across species. Which one of these is sight's natural environment? None, it's a tool to be used as it befits the animal. If it evolves in one environment but is equally useful in another than an evolutionary trait is evolutionarily adaptive in the new environment.


I don't understand what you are trying to say here, but it is probably the answer to something you did not understand, because you were too woried with getting reasons to accuse me of something.



Even a 5 year olds understanding of biology shows this is wrong. Is the payoff from a beavers damn direct? Do long term kin bonds formed in innumerable animals pay off in a direct way? Hell even the energy expended on growth does not pay off directly in animals who's youth is spent under a protective parent/social group.


What I am saying is humans have not evolved to function correctly in that environment.


Not logically at all. Animals don't suffer anxiety because of evolution. This confuses proximate and ultimate causes. They suffer anxiety because something in their neural hard wiring makes them so. Evolution doesn;t need to be evoked at all and certainly not the extremely confused notion of 'natural environment' you're falling over.


Yet I was the one that was accused of not wanting to learn...


Except the basis of human psychology that allows things like laws are in fact evolutionarily selected for so by your own reasoning there is nothing unnatural about laws. Social hierarchies abound throughout the animal kingdom. Know why? Indirect payoff.

Like I said, you are too busy trying to find reasons to insult me to actually understand what I wrote.

If you think human beings evolved to function in the capitalist system, then we can start discussing it, if not I sugest you go back to wherever you came from, because that is my whole argument: "humans did not evolve to live in the capitalist system".

Some seem to have too big an intelect to understand humans, others have too little intelect to do the same.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Lol @ redanarchists Matrix-esque romanticism of revolutionary socialism. This is why we have Marxists. Goddamnit... I'm almost disgusted. "Yo guys its the circle of life its all a big conspiracy nevermind the unequivocally different class, and social composition of ancient egypt, it's just different rules man."


"WHAT DOES ROME AND AMEURICA HAS IN COMMON?"

"uh... People drank water in both civilizations?"

"EXACTLY. Water. Such is the cause of our enslavement, the obstacle blockinf our freedom! EVERY state, people drank water. ALL OF THEM. The problem is water, folks, and we can't just change the brand... We gotta get rid of what compells us to drink: Some shit on our bodies which I don't know about."



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Unlike you I do not find it funny when people don't understand they are wrong, and I don't insult what they believe in to make them see.
This prevents me from replying with posts like yours.

Did you just come here to show your inability to comprehend written english?
First of all, I would like to make something clear: I am not a marxist, I am an anarchist, I am libertarian.
All that text I wrote was only about proving that humans did not evolve to live in the capitalist system. It would take too much time for us to evolve around it, what is needed is to eliminate it.
The fact that you condemn everything you read, that isn't marxist, as bourgeois-liberal bullshit, only serves to prove that, I can/do learn, it is you who does not learn. This only further feeds my hatred of authoritarianism. Then some go and make threads about "Uniting the left", even though we can't even be united in something we are suposed to agree with.
The diference between authoritarians and libertarians are huge, all of this proves it.

So, why don't you shut the fuck up, throw your dogma out the window, read my text carefully, try to understand my text, and then politely present your criticism of it.

I usualy try to teach people, but when it is about marxists it is useless.


It's like a final period to all your posts. "That's fucking bullshit!

Good description of all his posts, but it should be "that's fucking bourgeois-liberal bullshit!: Sent from my SPH-D710 Using Tapatalk 2".

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Huge double post.

[Kenco Smooth]

When did I say we evolved for something?


Somewhere around the point where you said "humans did not evolve to live in the capitalist system". Which is of course correct, but utterly trivial. It is meaningless, apart as an exercise in the history of human evolution, to draw on the precise environments humans evolved within. What matters now is the evolutionary traits that have been left. If you want to say that certain traits of human's are ill suited to the current general mode of production then fine, go ahead. But every mention you make of evolutionary theory has either been incorrect, irrelevant or meaningless.



When did I say there was something like that. You are inventing things.


Your focus on the particular environments in which modern humans evolved rests on the assumption that there is these particular environments are in some way privileged. If you did not make the link then as said above the reference to evolution is needless and you can build your argument on human traits as they are now.



I don't understand what you are trying to say here, but it is probably the answer to something you did not understand, because you were too worried with getting reasons to accuse me of something.


The point is the same one I make throughout the post. If you want to talk about the fit of humanity to the modern state of things then the only relevant thing is the set of traits they currently possess. The fact that "humans did not evolve to live in the capitalist system" is irrelevant and supports no argument. Human's didn't evolve to live in any system which aren't the specific ones in which they did evolve for an extended period of time. Human's could have not evolved to live in capitalism and yet capitalism could be a utopia on earth under which human potential is maximized in every possible way. The first fact in no way leads to a conclusion that isn't the above. That needs to be made on the basis of a current lack of fit between current traits and the currents state of affairs.


What I am saying is humans have not evolved to function correctly in that environment.

Then say it with reference to actual human traits not vague talk of how we don't live in the same way as we used to. That proves nothing.



Yet I was the one that was accused of not wanting to learn...


I can't see what you have to teach me.



Like I said, you are too busy trying to find reasons to insult me to actually understand what I wrote.


Flippant tone aside the only thing that could be misconstrued as an insult is my claim you lack a 5 year olds knowledge of biology, a slight exaggeration but only slight. Don't take criticism so personally.


If you think human beings evolved to function in the capitalist system, then we can start discussing it, if not I sugest you go back to wherever you came from, because that is my whole argument: "humans did not evolve to live in the capitalist system".

And my whole argument is that it is irrelevant and bordering on meaningless in any context but one of pure history to talk about what 'system humans evolved to live in'.


Some seem to have too big an intelect to understand humans, others have too little intelect to do the same.
An inability to receive and engage with criticism of one's ideas is about the most debilitating thing a person of reasonable intellect could suffer from.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

It is meaningless, apart as an exercise in the history of human evolution, to draw on the precise environments humans evolved within.

Then you did not read the text right.
Drawing the environment humans evolved in (both natural and social), is important to proove my theory.


What matters now is the evolutionary traits that have been left.

Those, I believe, are the same as they were in historical period I refer to.


If you want to say that certain traits of human's are ill suited to the current general mode of production then fine, go ahead. But every mention you make of evolutionary theory has either been incorrect, irrelevant or meaningless.

Explain how incorrect/irrelevant/meaningless the mentions I make of evolutionary theory are.


Your focus on the particular environments in which modern humans evolved rests on the assumption that there is these particular environments are in some way privileged. If you did not make the link then as said above the reference to evolution is needless and you can build your argument on human traits as they are now.

The reference to evolution is necessary, since I am trying to say that humans did not evolve in the evironment. My point is not that humans cannot adapt to this system, my point is that it would take millions of years so that our minds could evolve around this system.


The point is the same one I make throughout the post. If you want to talk about the fit of humanity to the modern state of things then the only relevant thing is the set of traits they currently possess.

The set of traits we currently possess are the ones we evolved to possess.


The fact that "humans did not evolve to live in the capitalist system" is irrelevant and supports no argument.

It supports mine.



Human's didn't evolve to live in any system which aren't the specific ones in which they did evolve for an extended period of time.

I did not understand this, I need you to rewrite it.


Human's could have not evolved to live in capitalism and yet capitalism could be a utopia on earth under which human potential is maximized in every possible way.

Are humans adapted to living in a system that they did not evolve to live in?
That is one of the questions I ask in my text.


The first fact in no way leads to a conclusion that isn't the above. That needs to be made on the basis of a current lack of fit between current traits and the currents state of affairs.

I did not understand this either, it is probably connected to the other one I did not understand.


Then say it with reference to actual human traits not vague talk of how we don't live in the same way as we used to. That proves nothing.

The capitalist system is one created by human mind, right?
Does any other animal do this?
The fact that you don't see other animals creating their own political systems is evidence that, human inteligence has ended up putting us where we are now.


I can't see what you have to teach me.

That is why you don't learn.


Flippant tone aside the only thing that could be misconstrued as an insult is my claim you lack a 5 year olds knowledge of biology, a slight exaggeration but only slight. Don't take criticism so personally.

I notice you focus on only one part of the text, ignoring all others. Why is that?


And my whole argument is that it is irrelevant and bordering on meaningless in any context but one of pure history to talk about what 'system humans evolved to live in'.

Did you come into my thread just to say that?


An inability to receive and engage with criticism of one's ideas is about the most debilitating thing a person of reasonable intellect could suffer from.

I'l translate that to "you can't take criticism".
Everything you have said so far was not criticism, it was all you trying to prove the point that I could create the same argumment using only the behaviour humans have today as a reference point.

Don't you know that when you are criticising something you can't just say "this part was awfull" (unless it is food), you have to say what is wrong/right with everything, and justify why you consider it wrong.