all 52 comments

[–]Bud223 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

It's not very surprising that changing the exploiters from the capitalists to the communist party itself did not improve the lifes of the working class. That takes away any opportunity to improve your situation in life. Then replaces it with a system that is proven over and over again to lead to a steady decline in the fortunes of all but the government leaders themselves.

[–]Soloninja 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The workers end up becoming poorer than before

[–]Horrux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Whereas socialism, in the true and absolutely anti-communist definition of the term, is the tilting back of the balance of unbridled capitalism from the oligarchs, back to well SOCIety, which is where the term socialism comes from. Having the super rich contribute significantly to society is a bad thing how?

It's only a bad thing if you accept the COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA started by Marx that went like "Communism is socialism done right". What a bunch of shite.

The pre-Marx socialists were anarchists and libertarians. That's how far opposite communism the origins of socialism are. But because of this COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA psyop brainwashing campaign, we have an Orwellian Newspeak definition of the term, which conflates it with communism, rendering people unable to think the ideas that used to be represented by the word "socialism". As such, all the English-speaking world has become mentally handicapped from a good chunk of socioeconomic thought.

No wonder the USA is falling apart. It has been engineered, in good part through language (and therefore thought) destruction.

[–]JuliusCaesar225 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Marxism in it true form is a democratic anti-state philosophy that seeks an anarchist society.

[–]Horrux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It posits class opposition, and as such, seeks a classless society. But this is extremely destructive. It's still the worst idea ever.

[–]JuliusCaesar225 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not saying it is good. Some people think Marxism advocates for a totalitarian state but it doesn't. It happens due to the falseness of its dogma.

[–]Horrux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed! :-)

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Marx literally openly opposed anarchists in his life time.

[–]JuliusCaesar225 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Communism is an anarchist society. He opposed anarchists because they had different views on how to achieve communist society. Both seek a stateless communist society. Marx wanted the proletariate to take control of the state to develop communism, anarchists wanted the state abolished in the revolution.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. It's nothing to do with the super rich paying more taxes, checks on capitalism or more public services, those things exist in all kinds of societies. PreMarx socialists were more like cooperative members now, they meant for the actual workers to own the company they worked in not some state owning everything no matter the set up. The trouble is the majority of people don't want to work in cooperatives because they want to concentrate on their own job without the worry of being partly responsible for the whole business. They simply don't want to own the means of production in a big company, they actively want someone else to do that job.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But it doesn't change the exploiters. The entire idea is to remove them. Capitalists take profit out of companies, which comes directly off the backs of the workers. Remove the capitalists, and the profits go away. These (abundant) monies are now available to be redistributed among the workers.

[–]Narrator 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So just have normal capitalism and a progressive tax rate. You don't need a communist revolution.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But...power to the people!

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Capitalists take profit out of companies,

Yes but the build and run the companies, with out them there is no wealth to take.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)


    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]BigFatRetard 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Absolutely true, all of it.

      The people who I hear calling for communism don't want to work at all and expect that under it they won't have to work. Meanwhile, people have to go out and make sacrifice -- There's people who live at a remote site for months at a time to make sure the world has metals. There's people who have to live on a farm and work their asses off all the time to grow the food we eat. There's people who need to work in stinky, hot, gross processing plants and factories to make the stuff we like. There's people who have to be away from their families for weeks at a time on the road transporting goods either across oceans, or across landmasses.

      In my opinion, the people who are begging for communism would like to make all those people slaves so someone else can work and they can just have the fruits of all that sacrifice given to them. It doesn't work that way for all the reasons.

      [–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Thomas Sowell likes to cherry pick his facts.

      After the communist purges and massacres the living standards went up in Russia and eastern Europe.

      At the end of WW1 (~1919) these regions were agrarian pheasant societies, which had not been industrialized.

      They were functionally caught up to western Europe by WW2. Somewhat lagging, but were undeniably technically capable societies.

      A countries cannot become a fully industrialized society without tremendous improvements in the living standards of workers.
      These were modern industrial societies.

      "Getting rid of capitalist 'exploiters' in Communist countries did not raise the living standards of workers, even to levels common in many capitalist countries, where workers were presumably still being exploited, as Marxists conceived the term."

      It is obvious that Thomas Sowell is factually incorrect in this assessment.

      In fact, in the early 90's Western European corporations openly discussed in business journals their excitement about the opening of the labor markets in eastern countries.

      They were excited, because they could move their factories to the east and take advantage of highly educated cheap technical expertise and labor.

      The additional benefit to this was it would also undermine "the privileged and overpaid western workers". Us.

      The same was done to the US by the cheap labor and educated workers in China, because it would also undermine "the privileged and overpaid western workers".
      And we all now agree that it did.

      Now I'm not a "socialist" or "communist, or whatever passes for "capitalism" in the west (it isn't capitalism).

      Both "Communist" countries and "Capitalist" countries exploit their working class.

      These propagandists will cherry pick specific examples to suit their interests.
      Unfortunately, most people don't know the actual history to recognize the falsehoods.

      The reality is the BANKSTERS own both sides of the "Communist" vs. "Capitalist" dialectic.

      The middle ground does exist, and it can benefit the average person if they understand how the system has been used against them.

      The Banks owned the Soviet Union. The Banks own NATO.

      We are being played.

      The main point I'm making is we need to recognize propaganda when we see it.
      This is divide and conquer propaganda.
      It's a threat that suggests that you've never had it so good and that things can only get worse.

      I agree that things will get worse.

      But not because of "communism" or whatever, but because TPTB are in the beginning stages of "The Great Economic Reset" per the World Economic Forum.

      They're in the early stages of destroying the global economy/society and have detailed plans to rebuild it to suit their interests; under the guise of "COVID-19".
      This is happening right now.


      [–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)


      A+++ !!!

      [–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Thanks bro. ;-)

      [–]SaidOverRed 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Sowell is a great man. Nothing makes a man become an ex-communist than by trying to prove communistic economic theory.

      [–]Djfjfjdbffj 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      It needs a decentralised decision making tool. Sounds like money.

      [–]TheAmeliaMay 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

      One cannot achieve freedom by trading one master for another. If the people are to ever truly achieve freedom, they must themselves seize power, overthrowing the corrupted systems of Capitalism and Socialism, which both serve an ultra-rich elite, and establish a third-positionist Democracy, in which all people, and classes of people, shall have an equal and proportionate say in the running of the country. Capitalism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin, and the flipping of that coin does not change the fact that it is a coin.

      [–]Horrux 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

      You're using the wrong words. You mean capitalism and communism. Socialism is inherently capitalist and anti-communist.

      What you are using is the Orwellian Newspeak definition of the term, taught and reinforced through COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA, so basically you are repeating that same propaganda while saying you are anti-communist, and reinforcing the commies' hold on your thought processes.

      It's bad.

      [–]TheAmeliaMay 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Socialism is just diet Communism.

      [–]Horrux 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      So you must be a communist, because that idea started with them. You are literally repeating COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA by saying that.

      Did you know that the first socialists were libertarians and anarchists? Obviously not! Ignorance is NOT a virtue!

      [–]TheAmeliaMay 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I'm a syncretist, but okay. Since you quite obviously violated the Pyramid of Debate, I shall cease further replies.

      [–]Horrux 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      How did I violate it? I just wrote that you are using communist propaganda as "truth", and that therefore you must be a communist. That is called inference, and it is part of logica and reasoning, both fairly high on the pyramid of debate. Should I edit and put a question mark instead of a period? Will that appease your hurties?

      [–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

      We'll start with Thomas Sowell. US Marine Corp, fought against communists in Korean War with PhD from Chicago. The infamous Chicago Boys who helped Pinochet with extreme capitalism that required a brutal military dictatorship to give away resources to elites and multinationals. Branded by neolibs as the Chilean Miracle, "the regime left over 3,000 dead or missing, tortured tens of thousands of prisoners, and drove an estimated 200,000 Chileans into exile."

      One could say the ussr was successful, compared to life under the tsar, this was a come up. China is obviously doing big things, but they are more fascist state capitalists than communist. Cuba has survived, despite being under the boot of the US. Vietnam is doing fine for the last 40 years.

      El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela had communist governments that all felt the wrath of the us either through coup or embargo and are actively prevented from functioning outside the communist sphere of influence.

      I'd say that considering the venom and propaganda against communists, they've done ok. The issue, as always, is that the elites have the wealth and the guns. Communism threatens the elites. I'm surprised more people aren't supportive of the working man and would rather imagine they can get rich too.

      [–]cybitch 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

      The USSR was a fucking shithole for anyone who wasn't Russian. An imperialistic, genocidal tyranny full of greedy bureaucrats. Tankies are the worst scum on this planet, as bad as nazis if not worse because nazis are a thing of the past, but commie BS is taking over the west at the moment.

      The issue here is that unfortunately human beings are unable to work in harmony without leaders. Hierarchies will form naturally. So the utopia of everyone being equal that's supposed to follow the big slaughtering of the rich will never happen, instead new elites rise to the top while spewing BS propaganda about being for the people or whatever. Meanwhile the people have less power than ever, nepotism, censorship and slave camps for wrongthinkers thrive.

      [–]sproketboy[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The USSR was a fucking shithole. FTFA

      [–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (18 children)

      And yet for almost all of human history, people practiced social equality. The need for heirarchy is a myth.

      "Christopher Boehm, having explored data from 48 societies spread across the globe, ranging from small hunting and gathering bands to more sedentary chiefdoms, suggested that with the advent of anatomically modern humans who continued to live in small groups and had not yet domesticated plants and animals (hunter-gatherer), it is very likely that all human societies practised egalitarianism and that most of the time they did so very successfully."

      "The term egalitarianism has two distinct definitions in modern English, either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social and civil rights, or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people, economic egalitarianism, or the decentralization of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as equality reflecting the natural state of humanity."

      [–]GConly 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      The need for heirarchy is a myth.

      These HG tribes do have an internal heirarchy, usually the elders have higher status and make decisions.


      What you need to realise is these tribes are extended family, not random people. Normally topping out at about fifty members, although you can get up to 100 (uncommon). Any bigger than that and they split (look up Dunbar number).

      The elders are the grandparents and grand aunts and uncles and of course everything is shared in a fairly egalitarian way. It's what you do with your family.

      They could also see if someone was slacking for no good reason, and the slackers would soon get reprimanded until they pulled their weight.

      There's also the issue of what the hell is a hunter gatherer going to hoard? They are almost always semi nomadic, they keep any gear they carry down to a bare minimum. They don't collect wealth in any way. Excess crap isn't desirable, it's a hindrance.

      It's why nomadic people have such over decorated clothes and gear. They can't drag purely decorative objects around with them.

      Any group larger than fifty is going to end up with a non egalitarian structure because it is not possible to be 'close' to enough of the group for everyone to be familiar with each other. Fifty is also the size at which on line groups become unmanageable without a formal power structure.

      [–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Seems more like large groups provide the opportunity to exploit others. Referring to the natural state of humans counters the 'greed is good' mantra of predatory capitalism.

      That's all I see, especially with ostentatious displays of wealth: arrogance and greed. The folks who swear allegiance to concentrating wealth and enriching the few have me shaking my head.

      It's why people hate royalty, nepotism and corruption. Unearned benefits taken off the backs of the working man. Exploitation. This doesn't happen in small tribes cuz if you grab my food off my plate, you'd get KTFO.

      [–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)


      Basically in small tribes everyone is family. There's a strong biological impetus to share food and assist because the people you are with are parents, siblings, grandparents, cousins, childhood friends and mates. Everyone knows everyone else, there's no space for parasites to hide behind societal anonymity. There's a biological impetus to assist in their survival. You loose this in large groups.

      you grab my food off my plate, you'd get KTFO.

      There would have to be a major famine for an HG tribe to kick out a family member for stealing food or they'd have to do something pretty heinous or do it consistently to the point where it threatens their survival. Remember these are family, not strangers. There is no anonymous crime here.

      Exploitation does happen in a limited extent in HG settings, but its usually sex slavery of women abducted from neighbouring tribes.

      As I said, there's zero reason for HGs to exploit the labour if others because a mobile life dies not allow crap to accrue that cannot carry itself around (women and kids are an exception).

      You shouldn't romanticise HGs, they are just as nasty as everyone else.

      Unearned benefits taken off the backs of the working man.

      Working man doesn't work unless someone organises the complex system to provide him with a job. He'll either be sitting on his ass and starving, or he'll end up as a subsistence farmer.

      The people who run large companies typically only make a slight per hour profit off each workers labour as well. It's usually less than ten percent of what is paid to the worker, the boss makes his living by collecting 1-10% off lots of employees. If you give the employers cut to the staff it would make very little difference to the income and lifestyle of the worker.

      For example; say I run a cleaning company. I charge clients £12 ph give the cleaners £10.

      Out of that £2 that's mine, I pay for advertising and office staff. My net is about £1 per hour.

      I can't charge more (clients won't pay it). So that's the reason the pay is £10 ph. The amount if difference my cut makes per week is about £15 per cleaner, of about £300 she makes.

      My usuable income comes from employing about twenty cleaners. It's why companies tend to grow. It's about £1 per HR X 35 X whatever staff you have... Then take away the tax.

      In the food industry the profit margin is about 1%. It's why any increase in minimum wage shuts cafes.

      why people hate royalty, nepotism and corruption.

      Nepotism is the default setting for humans.

      [–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Firstly, I assert that families don't exploit others because you are accountable if you don't milk the cows and I do your share. It's obvious. Skimming all of our salaries adds up to a big chunk of change and is not exploitive if I voluntarily contribute for specific benefits as in a union. But that's not what you are saying. What you are saying is that it's not obvious when corporations do it. I disagree.

      Your claim that the five levels of managers on top of me at evil Corp deserve half my pay, not 10%, for organizing doesn't wash. You shouldn't romanticize exploitation.

      This is the same argument used to justify contractors vs. employees. Inserting a middle man is capitalism in a nutshell but adds no value other than driving down the cost of my labor. This is the entire justification for the us healthcare industry that delivers less health value for far greater costs. It's an organized system, but not in the way you are claiming. It's not about efficient health outcomes, it's about concentrating wealth. That's all Capitalism is about.

      Increasing minimum wage does not lead to shuttered cafes. Many states have min wage greater than the federal level and the actualuzed min wage is at historic lows. Per economic policy institute: "As stressed in the Card and Krueger book cited above, these studies...solidly reject the conventional hypothesis that any increase in the minimum wage leads to job losses among affected workers."

      Just because you use a lot of words doesn't mean you are making sense.

      [–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Where to start:

      I assert that families don't exploit others because you are accountable if you don't milk the cows and I do your share. It's obvious.

      Yes, I said that myself. There's no anonymous crime or welfare dependency in small groups.

      Biological drive to support your relatives is a thing, btw. Look up kin preference.

      Skimming all of our salaries adds up to a big chunk of change and is not exploitive if I voluntarily contribute for specific benefits as in a union. But that's not what you are saying. What you are saying is that it's not obvious when corporations do it. I disagree.

      Yes but it's not a big chunk of change from you. It's about ten percent or less of your income. If you don't like it set up your own company or be self employed. Plenty of people do this. It's only exploitative if the company is owning your ass like a slave. If you choose to work for them, it's voluntary to give them that 10% for organising your labour.

      claim that the five levels of managers on top of me at evil Corp deserve half my pay, not 10%, for organizing doesn't wash.

      Never said that. You're imagining it.

      The rest of the rant about contractors etc was non relevant.

      easing minimum wage does not lead to shuttered cafes.

      Yes it does. It specifically causes small family businesses to shut down and be replaced by chains.

      Fast food restaurants are more likely to shut down (exit) and open up (enter) after a minimum wage hike. The rise in entry is higher among chains, which use less labour.

      Other relevant data.


      The commission found that a £1 increase in the minimum wage lead to a 0.24 and 0.15 per cent decline in the share of jobs which could be automated or offshored respectively, which meant 45,000 people in total could be affected.


      A good deal of evidence indicates that the wage gains from minimum wage increases are offset, for some workers, by fewer jobs. Furthermore, the evidence on distributional effects, though limited, does not point to favorable outcomes from minimum wage hikes, although some groups may benefit. Other mechanisms, such as earned income tax credits, appear more effective at helping low-income families.

      The CBO analysis lists some positives such as a wage boost for 17 million workers and the number of people living below the poverty threshold falling by 1.3 million. It could prove a poisoned chalice however, with the chance 1.3 million workers will lose their jobs.

      Socialists tend to have a blind eye to the negative outcomes of minimum wage increases.

      Minimum Wages and Employment: A Review of Evidence from the New Minimum Wage Research

      Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.

      And finally:

      As stressed in the Card and Krueger book cited above, these studies...solidly reject the conventional hypothesis that any increase in the minimum wage leads to job losses among affected workers

      No, Krueger Didn’t ‘Prove that Raising the Minimum Wage Doesn't Increase Unemployment

      Why The Card And Krueger Paper On Minimum Wage Rises And Unemployment Is Wrong

      The Crippling Flaws in the Card and Krueger New Jersey Fast Food Study

      The results, compiled by independent economists, are not surprising: there was significant job loss stemming from New Jersey's decision to increase the state's minimum wage in 1992.

      Just because you've read all the socialist propaganda doesn't mean you are well informed in economics or anthropology.

      [–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Firstly, I read everything you sent and respect the fact that you make an argument instead of throwing snark and running away. So while this is my final rebuttal on this thread, I'm looking fwd to the next topic we discuss.

      I'm seeing three issues: 1. H/G Equality 2. Recent Income Inequality 3. Minimum Wage

      1. H/G Equality No argument that people share more equitably in small groups. You claim kinship, I claim accountability and transparency. Doesn't matter for argument that people are socially wired to share.

      SC 1 GC 0

      1. Recent Income Inequality You ducked this issue of contractors and US health care. Clearly, capitalism concentrates wealth leading to inequality which leads to exploitation. You basically said to start your own business, which is laughable when we see how Walmart both crushes local small business and forces their own suppliers to offshore business. Concentrating wealth and power kills innovation, diversity and equitable, sustainable opportunities for people.

      "Most of Walmart’s 1.5 million US employees don’t earn anything close to that, of course, and its stores are famous for their deleterious impact on small towns. One study shows the opening of a big-box retailer results in as many as 14 local stores closing, while another argues towns in Iowa lost 47% of their retail sales after a decade of a Wal-Mart opening. The harm to small towns was multiplied when Walmart closed 154 stores, leaving some towns without any options for groceries"

      I prefer how graphs really illustrate the impacts of inequality over the last 50 years. We are on a runaway gravy train for big business and the 1% as shown below.

      "The median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000"

      SC 2 GC 0

      Minimum Wage Keep in mind that data produced by Daniel Aaronson, Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, may be biased towards elites, especially considering his conclusions regarding offshoring and automation in the face of raising the minimum wage:

      "The key mechanism behind the model – that more labour-intensive establishments are replaced by more capital-intensive ones – is supported by evidence"

      But this is more clearly enunciated here:

      "I take a radical position: I not only think the minimum wage should not be raised, but it should be abolished and Congress should use its power under the commerce clause to prohibit state and local minimum wage laws...society is better off having lots and lots of entry-level jobs" Thomas A. Firey, Cato Institute

      These arguments from diehard neocons basically assume that financial opportunity >> people's welfare and do not consider social equality in any way shape or form. They want more inequality and a more ruthless system than we already have. Ugh

      This discussion started with humans being equitable by nature and here we are discussing the lowest amount companies can legally pay a person. I disagree with the values expressed here and will leave you with a more balanced source that reflects the values we were originally discussing:

      "A minimum wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly remuneration employers legally have to pay to workers. The main purpose of the legislation is to ensure employers, who usually have higher bargaining power in the labor market, do not exploit their workers and that workers earn a fair living wage."

      "Distributive justice is achieved when there is fair distribution of benefits and burdens by the state, so that everyone receives their due."

      SC 3 GC 0

      In the future I'll play nice if you play nice. Respectfully.

      [–]sproketboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      The need for heirarchy is a myth.

      Evidence? Your anus does not count.

      I left "hierarchy" misspelled.

      [–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      Obviously gotta let the quote do your talking sock puppet boi. Empty hat running on troll fumes. Zzzz

      [–]sproketboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Have I triggered another commie toddler? My work here is done.

      [–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Boring still empty blah blah say something interesting with those two brain cells you have left propaganda sock puppet

      [–]sproketboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)


      [–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Confident know nothing scared to engage with a real mind. Run boy run!

      [–]sproketboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      How am I supposed to answer your original triggered comment? Go educate yourself toddler.

      [–]cybitch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      The need for hierarchy is called evolution. The more resources you gather for yourself, the better the chances your offspring will survive and thrive. Other people's genes are competition, even when there is a need to cooperate with them. This is the case with all primates. There is ALWAYS a hierarchy. There is zero reason human beings would be an exception, aside from wishful thinking. Whatever "noble savage" BS theories some sociologists spew are irrelevant, just look at the actual world as it is and you'll get it.

      [–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Evolution: a process of change in a certain direction

      For 70,000 years humans cooperated in egalitarian ways. We evolved to be social, compassionate and creative.

      Warriors hunted. Shamans healed. Chiefs administrated. Hierarchy is a recent social phenomenon closely linked to religion and patriarchy. Read some sapiens by hariri. But of course, learning from experts is irrelevant.

      [–]cybitch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      learning from experts

      Nope. Historians are not experts on human beings. Have any neuroscience?

      [–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Hierarchy is a recent social phenomenon closely linked to religion and patriarchy.

      Well that's balls.

      Hunter Gatherers are almost always patriarchal. Virtually all able bodied males hunt, you only see them split off into other skills if they get too old to hunt. The chief is usually the grandaddy, maybe his bully son, or they don't have one and they have an elder council.

      You see heirarchy in other primates. It's not even a human only thing

      Also modern humans date back 120k years, and the African origin was almost certainly over 100k ago.

      We evolved to be social, compassionate and creative.

      We also evolved to be violent and selfish. Violence is an acceptable way to acquire women in HG tribes as long as they are from outside you tribe. Genocide was a recurring theme of AMH populations, murdering your neighbors to steal their territory or women was a normal thing. Still is. Most HGs have permanent conflict with their neighbours and higher homicide rates than we see in other cultures.

      Read something more current.

      War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage, by Lawrence H. Keeley

      For a summary.

      HGs ate each other in famines, and still do.

      You are full of romanticised nonsense. It's the idiot hippy ideal of the noble savage all over again.

      [–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      for almost all of human history, people practiced social equality. The need for heirarchy is a myth.

      "Christopher Boehm, having explored data from 48 societies spread across the globe, ranging from small hunting and gathering bands to more sedentary chiefdoms, suggested that with the advent of anatomically modern humans who continued to live in small groups and had not yet domesticated plants and animals (hunter-gatherer), it is very likely that all human societies practised egalitarianism and that most of the time they did so very successfully."

      This is wrong btw.

      Heirarchy is standard in HG tribes, it's just along family lines.

      Hunter Gatherers are also violent as hell, and most of them live in a state of perpetual warfare with their neighbours. Genocide, murder, rape are all more common with HGs than current western populations.

      Keeley says peaceful societies are an exception. About 90-95% of known societies engage in war. Those that did not are almost universally either isolated nomadic groups (for whom flight is an option), groups of defeated refugees, or small enclaves under the protection of a larger modern state. The attrition rate of numerous close-quarter clashes, which characterize warfare in tribal warrior society, produces casualty rates of up to 60%, compared to 1% of the combatants as is typical in modern warfare.

      Boehm has some very outdated hippy views.

      [–]sproketboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


        [–]sproketboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        The small eastern European countries have always been fucked. You get the Nazis or Commies and then later strong armed into the EU. Hungexit dude and get your printing press back.

        [–]Popper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        nomenklatura became elite ruling class

        [–]Popper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        yeah it's true they were all better under communism than since 1991 where oligarchs looted everything communism created