You must not have been much of an Austrian if you didn't even grasp the basic point that individualism has nothing to do with isolationism. Also, it's a simple correlation-causation fallacy to claim that rainforest tribes are not advancing because they are anarchistic.
I wrote nothing about isolationism. I wrote: An 'individualist' life is possible within a collectivist, materialist society only. Beyond the collectivist society, within the stateless community, there is no individualism. Self-sufficient rainforest tribes are not advancing and producing surpluses within 1 million years, because they are not forced to produce surpluses (for the church and state mafia). To be forced is the only evident causal reason to produce surpluses. No state = no economy, no business. Utterly ridiculous. People produce extra because it's in their interest to do so, so they can exchange it for other wanted goods or invest it, etc. The nation-state actually circumvents this by siphoning off the extra production, reducing incentive to produce extra, since you won't get to enjoy it nearly as much, since they take it from you. You are story-telling. Go out and check. A socialist US-Citizen produces hundred fold the amount of that, what a stateless tribalist does. A stateless tribalist is not growing economically, because he is not as stupid as the collectivist capitalist, who is producing rampant growing surpluses like mad. |
|
|
|
Yes it does. They are definitely not mutually exclusive. Please look up what the terms mean.
Capitalism involves, among other things, the private ownership of the means of production and private property (and accumulation thereof). Whereas this is not the case with Socialism, strictly speaking.
As you may be aware the USA has a very strong history when it comes to protecting private property rights, likely stronger than any other country on this planet. It's absurd to call the uSA a socialist society, as much as it is to call Cuba, for example, a capitalist society.
The USA was once a great example of capitalism, but that is no longer the case. Private property is being confiscated, taxed, and redistributed. Businesses are highly regulated and purchasing power is being stolen from the people by a banking system created by the politicians. What we have now is a great example of socialism. Karl Marx would be very pleased with the way things are in the USA now. Anyone who thinks that the USA is still a capitalist country is completely clueless. Capitalism and Socialism is Collectivism. It's the same Bullshit. Private property is always sub-property, which is guaranteed by the state, because with this private sub-property, the tax payer is able to generate taxed surpluses. Without a state, there is no such thing as a private property.This has never been true and is an example one of the great falsities the leftist-anarchs believe. Not only does property exist without the state, animals act as if they own things, themselves, their herds of female, and territories even. There've been done some interesting studies on property ownership in the animal kingdom. Some primitive tribes do live collectively, but in that case they live as if the tribe owns everything, not as if there were no property at all, which belies your point, since they are stateless. Some tribes do live collectively? All tribes do live collectively, within Dunbar's Number! The capitalist and socialist collectivists live hypercollectively. Collectively living tribes do produce no surpluses, because beyond the governed society there is no need to produce growing surpluses, as it is the case in collectivist societies exclusively, where you are forced to pay protection money to the ever growing state mafia. Tribes beyond the state do produce about the same amount as they did 100'000 years ago. No growth, no economy, no market, but self-sufficiency. This is fact, and your stories are science fiction. That's the difference. Dream on! |
|
|
|
Yes it does. They are definitely not mutually exclusive. Please look up what the terms mean.
Capitalism involves, among other things, the private ownership of the means of production and private property (and accumulation thereof). Whereas this is not the case with Socialism, strictly speaking.
As you may be aware the USA has a very strong history when it comes to protecting private property rights, likely stronger than any other country on this planet. It's absurd to call the uSA a socialist society, as much as it is to call Cuba, for example, a capitalist society.
The USA was once a great example of capitalism, but that is no longer the case. Private property is being confiscated, taxed, and redistributed. Businesses are highly regulated and purchasing power is being stolen from the people by a banking system created by the politicians. What we have now is a great example of socialism. Karl Marx would be very pleased with the way things are in the USA now. Anyone who thinks that the USA is still a capitalist country is completely clueless. Capitalism and Socialism is Collectivism. It's the same Bullshit. Private property is always sub-property, which is guaranteed by the state, because with this private sub-property, the tax payer is able to generate taxed surpluses. Without a state, there is no such thing as a private property. |
|
|
|
Those tribes that evolved in close proximity like our ancestors evolved to be a new meme species, and we are on the precipice of revolving again.
The captain said excuse me ma'am This species has amused itself to death Amused itself to death Amused itself to death We watched the tragedy unfold We did as we were told We bought and sold It was the greatest show on earth But then it was over We ohhed and aahed We drove our racing cars We ate our last few jars of caviar And somewhere out there in the stars A keen-eyed look-out Spied a flickering light Our last hurrah And when they found our shadows Grouped 'round the TV sets They ran down every lead They repeated every test They checked out all the data on their lists And then the alien anthropologists Admitted they were still perplexed But on eliminating every other reason For our sad demise They logged the only explanation left This species has amused itself to death No tears to cry No feelings left This species has Amused itself to death http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsspXqCe4kI |
|
|
|
The only economic philosophy that respects the right of people to transact bitcoins without interference is capitalism.
Capitalism is an invenion of the state. Without bureaucracy and state sanctioning, capitalism is not possble. The very idea of a free capitalism is oxymoronic, because it relies on protection of claims on private property. Maybe... if you assume that all protection must be only from state, and that more people are wicked than not. But these assumptions seem extreme, and depressingly pessimistic. It's not extreme. It's empiric history instead of science fiction, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
You must not have been much of an Austrian if you didn't even grasp the basic point that individualism has nothing to do with isolationism. Also, it's a simple correlation-causation fallacy to claim that rainforest tribes are not advancing because they are anarchistic.
I wrote nothing about isolationism. I wrote: An 'individualist' life is possible within a collectivist, materialist society only. Beyond the collectivist society, within the stateless community, there is no individualism. Self-sufficient rainforest tribes are not advancing and producing surpluses within 1 million years, because they are not forced to produce surpluses (for the church and state mafia). To be forced is the only evident causal reason to produce surpluses. No state = no economy, no business. |
|
|
|
You obviously don't have an accurate understanding as to what actually went wrong with that reactor in Japan. That reactor was designed with a multiplely redundant emergency cooling system.
I'm impressed! It was specificly designed to suffer an earthquake of a power of 9.0 on the Riecther scale within 20 miles or so of the epicenter. Designed! It was desgned to suffer through a tsunami. It was designed to suffer though a complete failure of grid power support, as well as total failure of all of the AC water pumps. What was never considered was the incredible odds that all of these things would happen in the same day. Yes, I know: to collectivised Engineers the odds seem incredible. That the pools are still hanging around high above the ground must seem incredible to them as well. It was a harsh lesson learned, and many heroic engineers and techs working for a private company lost some or all of their remaining lifespans in concerted efforts to save public lives. Lesson learned? Hihiiiii! The nuclear industry is nothing private. It was military driven from the beginning. No private insurance company would ever insure this madness.  They learned nothing. In France, 80 % of the electric power comes from nuclear reactors. A black out of the hyper-fragile power grid (sun storm, revolution etc.) will be followed by armageddon. Nobody will cool the reactors and the fuel pools anymore, since the reactors need the power of each other to cool them, and in a revolution (question of when, but not of if) never ever. Therefore, your heroic collectivist dreams rely on the functionality of the globalized hypercollective. I knew it: your are a collectivist hero by heart and soul. It sucks to be that tech, when that crap happens at your plant; but just like joining the military, they knew what they signed up for. If you don't thik that there are equally heroic corporate employees of every other nuclear powerhouse in the world, then you don't really understand why these men and woman get paid the salaries that they do. But know that the nuclear industry knows that such a one in ten thousand odds event can happen, ... Oh, a one in ten thousand odds event! 10'000 divided by 500 reactors worldwide = a one in 20 event. Therefore, we are enjoying such events every 20 years. Yeah, Chernobyl and now some 20 years later Fukushima, and between the 2 events some almost-disasters. I'm impressed by the incredible intelligence of these engineers. ...they are already reconsidering their own emergency cooling plans because reglatory agencies require them to and because they don't ever want to be the next set of guys to have to die to save humanity. Regulatory agencies...., really funny. For that matter, the complete breakdown of civil society is one of the most common emergency scenarios that nuke plant disaster planners have long considered, and one of the easiest for them to plan for. Yes, planning is easy, but surviving is impossible with such planners. In a revolution, it is crystal clear that nobody will be able to maintain these 500 reactors worldwide anymore. It's way harder to plan for a 35 foot high tsunami wave. Fukushima power plant had diesel powered pumps that could run underwater, and generators that could survive an earthquake; but not both at the same time. And not one of the great sun eruptions at another time, which will destroy the communications systems, the transformers and the grid systems, and nobody will be able to restart it. And furthermore, none of those failues would have mattered at all, had Fukushima not been involved in their once in a three year refueling cycle when the bovine fecal matter made contact with the rotating cooling device. The other reactors were all automaticly in emergency shutdown stage 60 seconds after the earthquake was detected, and never caused any problems; but that one (number 4, IIRC) was not set for automatic shutdown due to being involved in a fuel rod exchange that very week. If and if and if and if .... Fresh, hot fuel rods were waiting in the storage pool, Now they are still waiting in hanging pools high above the ground in a building, which won't survive the next earthquake. ...while engineers and tech were running all over a damaged and dangerous reactor trying to get the emergency neutron sheild down into the remaining core, and everyone managed to forget about the storage pool. The water in the storage pool evaporated enough that the tops of the fuel rods were exposed to air, and then they caught on fire due to their own internal heat. Incredible, these one in 20 years events. It was not really a 'mealtdown' in any practical sense, but radioactive smoke is no small thing. To the best of my knowledge, Fukushima could still be in operation today, if the populist government had not halted all nuclear power in the nation, as teh damage to the reactor itself was not really significant. Nothing like Chernobel for example, or even Three Mile Island (which didn't actually release any radiation BTW, but did damage the reactor)
And they all lived happily ever after ... |
|
|
|
To myself, and in this context, 'stable' would mean that the natural 'forces' that result in the business cycle be left alone, so that the magnitude of those oscillations don't have the chance to compound.
And that is what I mean by the 'right' economy.
You will find 'natural forces' beyond the state in stateless communities in the rain forest, but you'll find no business cycle there, because there is no state. Business cycles are artificial, unnatural forces in an unnatural environment (civilization/domestication/citizenship). |
|
|
|
The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.
I don't want a progressively increasing economy. I want the right economy. OK, let's have a quick look at what that might entail. Say you want a 'stable' economy, it would probably need: population headcount change = 0 people's changing 'needs' = 0 land or industry encroachment on other economies = 0 net non-renewable resource depletion = 0 net inflation = 0 Therefore, (unless I've missed some other factors for stability) any profit is probably either inaccurate accounting or a transfer of wealth from the loser to the winner. One example of a profitable activity might be to innovate a new machine that produces widgets more efficiently than the machines all the other widget-makers use. Despite rejecting "intellectual property" (I guess that's off-topic and maybe a good candidate for another thread) you guys seem strongly in favour of doing these innovations for the sake of competition (no arguments there). However, the reward for innovation seems to be the same as the reward for resource depletion, inflation, banning contraceptives, and all that other stuff. I.e.: because profit. With all those other opportunities, why choose innovation? Without intelligent oversight, to me it seems you'll eventually get your stable economy, but only after numerous resources have been depleted, and various bubbles (including population bubbles) have burst. It's a doomsday scenario. Secondly, even if things manage to stabilise, there's still a big question mark over how the current (or a future) level of technology would be sustained without all that extra energy being pumped in. The whole world's basically running on oil, gas, coal, nuclear fission, and cheap labour. +1 "Essentially, the economy is an engine that transforms resources into waste." (Ugo Bardi) http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5528 |
|
|
|
The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.
I don't want a progressively increasing economy. I want the right economy. The best way to have that is to take a 'hands off' approach, because politicos really don't know as much as they think they do.
They deny that stateless communities beyond the state (rain forest) don't increase production. They produce the same amount as they did thousands of years ago, because they are not enforced to produce ever increasing surpluses. That's enforced and needed in collectivist societies exclusively.
I don't deny this either. I don't know anyone who has besides your claims that someone has. I just don't find such a society to be ideal. If you do, why are you still here? There certainly are groups within the US and elsewhere that prefer the kind of "natural" lifestyle you think is appropriate, and some of them will even accept you. You just have to find them. Or create your own. 1) Too late for me, but not for all. In my former life I believed in Science Fiction (Anarchocapitalism, technological progress etc.) 2) Self-sufficient communities are forbidden in my native land; brainwashing of the children is compulsory (compulsory admission) 3) I would never resettle to the ultrafascist USA. If I would resettle, then to the southern part of the Planet (no nuclear reactors there, yet) 4) there is no possibility to relocate with my relatives that are rooted here 5) The human race won't be saved, if some people relocate 6) The human race will be saved as soon as the state and the citizen will be history. This will be the case, as soon as the citizen realise, that citizenship is inhuman and that a citizen is not a human. |
|
|
|
We seem to have a problem deciding on how it will happen. But at least we can all agree that we have hopelessly screwed up the world.  Yes, and the collectivised, civilised dreamers in the society still believe that 'engineers' - collectivised within a globalised hypercollective - will solve collectively those problems which they generate! The problem of collectivised humans (society instead of self-sufficient communities) was never solved by even more debt and more complexity. That's an ahistoric, ridiculous vision, but it is the vision of the mainstream. Tainter's law prove(d) them wrong. Tainter's and Nature's law is at work and 'problem solving societies' disappear by an abrupt loss of complexity. The higher they climb, the deeper they fall. I tend to agree to most of the part (and your pretty pesimistic point of view) but have to take a stand against you on the "engineers" part. The only colectivised in this world is the people who control the money flow. Engineers (and scientists in general) just produce. I really wanted to say this from the beginning; the question that tinkers my mind all this time is "what can we do to keep the progress going?" The answer came some time ago; I believe it was Alvin Toffler who stated it first: We need to expand our society to a hyper society. First we need to make a colony to another planet. Then to all the planets of our solar system. A hyper society will come forth when we will have the technology to control our star's energy. You see; seing black is like observing the mud of a car which runs through a wet field. Yes; there is mud that leaves behind; but also there's a road ahead... Just my 0.00000002 BTC  I think these are hybris fantasies. Society will collapse before leaving the Earth. And I think, not only the rulers (who controle the money flow) are collectivised. The voters in total are also ruling the collectivist society. There is a symbiosis between the rulers and the conquered. It's like a tumor. It proliferates until the host dies. |
|
|
|
So you imagine the future with a radically different sociopolitical structure, but you imagine everything in it will be the same as things are now? Why not:
- Public transportation replaced with suspended rails going through the city and country, with pods, that you can rent, automatically traveling under them to preset destinations (patented idea, replaces road maintenance with something much cheaper).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTranLolz. Another freeloader project sucking misguided government grants  "Unimodal hired a NASA subcontractor to build simulations of the vehicle and dynamics using funding from a US DOT grant." --your wikip link. Subscriptions to road areas in the same way that you can buy a London metro ticket that gives you free ride within limited areas.
Lolz. Wholly owned by Transport for London (TfL), which "is the local government body..." Another ugly statist institution. http://www.septa.org/fares/pass/independence.htmlLolz. Another statist conglomerate "Originally SEPTA's function was to coordinate government subsidies to the railroads and transit companies, absorbing PSIC and SEPACT in 1965, and by 1966 all commuter lines were operated by the PRR and RDG under contract with SEPTA. Inevitably negotiations led to the purchase of the assets..."BTW, roads were never public land or publicly maintained before the foundation of the USPS, which provided funds and legal status for the public development of "postal roads". Today, all roads are postal roads. Makes one wonder how we ever had roads before the USPS.
 Thank goodness for USPS, another statist institution?  [...more stuff] My point is this, we can and often do these very public things privately today. Yes, we can, some things, and certainly not often. Whether or not these privately owned public spaces accept public funds today or not, they aren't dependent on the support, or likley even the existance, of the state.
An absurd & unfounded assumption. If non-statist societies are as successful as you believe them to be, they should be commonplace. Sadly, they're nonexistent. Remember, you're not trying to simply show these (thus far undefined by their proponents -- tighten up, guys!) stateless societies are metaphysically possible to create, you must show them to thrive, defend themselves against & encroach on existent states. 11. Unless you plan to start your stateless society in outer space, unclaimed & of no interest to modern states, it will have to encroach on existent states. The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy. They deny that stateless communities beyond the state (rain forest) don't increase production. They produce the same amount as they did thousands of years ago, because they are not enforced to produce ever increasing surpluses. That's enforced and needed in collectivist societies exclusively. |
|
|
|
We seem to have a problem deciding on how it will happen. But at least we can all agree that we have hopelessly screwed up the world. Yes, and the collectivised, civilised dreamers in the society still believe that 'engineers' - collectivised within a globalised hypercollective - will solve collectively those problems which they generate! The problem of collectivised humans (society instead of self-sufficient communities) was never solved by even more debt and more complexity. That's an ahistoric, ridiculous vision, but it is the vision of the mainstream. Tainter's law prove(d) them wrong. Tainter's and Nature's law is at work and 'problem solving societies' disappear by an abrupt loss of complexity. The higher they climb, the deeper they fall. |
|
|
|
It will end as all civilised societies ended: with a collapse. I call it Tainter's Law. It ends by the diminishing return on additional investment in additional complexity. The difference to earlier collapses is the fact, that today 500 nuclear reactors will blow its nuclear inventory around the northern part of the planet as soon as nobody will cool them anymore. This is a rediculous idea. Again, nuclear power industry accidents across all of the history of the world do not exceed the amount of radioactive material that is launched into the atmostphere by the worlds coal plants in a single year, and we have been burning coal for almost 200 years, and seriously powering industry with it for over 100 years. Modern nuke plants don't really 'blow', and even if 100 of them had leakage accidents similar to what happened in Japan (very, very unlikely) we still wouldn't exceed what humanity has already dosed our environment with over the past 100+ years. That plant had a quadruple redundant emergency cooling system, which we now know isn't quite good enough for a 1:10K year tsumami wave. It's certainly more than enough for a global economic breakdown, Dream on! (your ridiculous dreams). Fukushima blew out a significant part of its inventory. In case of a black out of the whole power grid, which is a question of when but not of if (sun storm, economic collapse and panic/revolution etc.), it would have blown out its inventory totally, and so would have all the other reactors. Power grids become more and more fragile to maintain the 50 Hertz, totally depending on the computerised, hypercollectivised communication system. Societies collapse, because societies are problem solving societies (Tainter). Each solved problem increases the complexity in the system, and increased complexity generates diminishing returns until the end (bifurcation point), when additional investion in additional complexity generates negative returns. Forget at least the northern part of this planet if this society will not end the nuclear industry. Probably it won't, because society means collective stupidity, which until today always ended collapsing. This society will also end abruptly in a worldwide, globalised panic with worldwide bank 'holidays' and nobody will go to work anymore; not to the banks and not to cool the nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors need each other to cool them, but after a black out you'll have to cool all of them. The collective stupidity will not be able to do this. |
|
|
|
...
You are a dreamer. This is science fiction, written by austrian aristocrats. I know these theories very well, and in my former life I was an Austrian as well, until I realised that it is ahistoric science fiction. Real stateless communities in the rain forests 'produce' about the same amount as they did 10'000 years ago. Governed, collectivist societies produce about hundred fold the amount which was generated only 100 years ago. That's the difference, which the dreamers suppress.
The trouble is they also waste 99 times the amount. Mostly its to support a system that's become the victim of it's own success and had to invent new ways of wasting time and energy just to create employment. We're only in the equivalent of the steam age of robotics and automation, that productivity's going to go up another hundred fold and it will probably take less than 100 years. By that time the current system will be broken beyond repair, bureaucracy's already reached the point where its having to oppose and contradict its self to keep growing. God only knows what can replace it though, it's nice to think we can all be happy and free and hug trees all day but some greedy bastard will just end up with a monopoly on trees. It will end as all civilised societies ended: with a collapse. I call it Tainter's Law. It ends by the diminishing return on additional investment in additional complexity. The difference to earlier collapses is the fact, that today 500 nuclear reactors will blow its nuclear inventory around the northern part of the planet as soon as nobody will cool them anymore. |
|
|
|
I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.
I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him. Some monogamous relationships work, most of them fail. A system, in which most of the organisations fail, is a system, which is not working. 100 years ago, the monogamous relationships didn't fail, because the organised violence 'prevented' them from failing. So, are you for completely polygamous relationships, or are just temporary monogamous ones ok? And how do you believe that will affect economics? I'm just explaining the difference (in the real life of the whole history) between anarchy (self-sufficiency of the communities) and patriarchy (paternalised collectivism). Of course they've been monogamous for some weeks or months, but the begetters had no role of a father, because there was no knowledge of the causal relation between sex and reproduction. The father's role belonged to the mother's brother. |
|
|
|
I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.
I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him. Some monogamous relationships work, most of them fail. A system, in which most of the organisations fail, is a system, which is not working. 100 years ago, the monogamous relationships didn't fail, because the organised violence 'prevented' them from failing. |
|
|
|
Capitalism has been the driving mechanism for human society, progress and prosperity in modern history. It is this driving engine that is now about to fail completely. Capitalism, as in free trade and voluntary interaction, is not going to fail. Much of the establishment of corporatist inefficiency will be in turmoil and the collateral damage for everyone may be severe, but eventually the natural order will recover better and stronger than before. Yes, without the state, inefficiency will be eliminated. That means, that nearly nothing will be produced, as it was the case within stateless communities in the whole history of mankind. But that wasn't Capitalism. The austrian anarchocapitalists believe, that we will produce even more without the state. That's the greatest economic joke I ever heard. You have a strange conception of the state's role in production. To be more exact, you're conflating property and rights protection (law and police) and dispute resolution (courts) with the state. But you don't need the state to provide any of those things. Law can be crowd-source or agreement based, ie: polycentric-law. No societal entity needs to have a monopoly on law production, that's just the way things have been largely until now. There's no reason for it to stay that way, and an alternative may (and probably will) be far better. Similarly, courts and police can be privately provided on the market and due to changed incentives of the market will probably be far better. Stateless communities often also had no rights protection, law, or courts. But it's possible to create not a state nor a stateless community, but rather the ideal is a self-governed community, and by that I mean one where each individual rules himself and himself alone. Not a community which uses a collective body to govern the whole--no, I mean a community where each individual has sovereign control of himself and no one else. A truly individualist society. This has never existed because we never had the ideas explicit to try it until modern time. You are a dreamer. This is science fiction, written by austrian aristocrats. I know these theories very well, and in my former life I was an Austrian as well, until I realised that it is ahistoric science fiction. Real stateless communities in the rain forests 'produce' about the same amount as they did 10'000 years ago. Governed, collectivist societies produce about hundred fold the amount which was generated only 100 years ago. That's the difference, which the dreamers suppress. As I explained in another thread already: Any society is by definition collectivist. The opposite of society and collectivism is the self-sufficient community. A self-sufficient community is called self-sufficient, because they do not economically interact with strangers, aliens and foreigners. But the hominidae can not live 'alone'. An 'individualist' life is possible within a collectivist, materialist society only. To live a non-collectivist life, the homines sapientes need the organisation of the non-patriarchal, anarchal, consanguineal community, which was organised non-monogamous, matrilineal (female choice), wherever it existed in the whole history of mankind, and which have been destroyed, slowly starting about 10'000 years ago, by organised violence of a complicity of priests and militarists, which is terrorising the planet until today. |
|
|
|
Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism
Sorry to use that way overused meme, but I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either of those. Just so we don't go around in circles, instead of assuming that the rest of us have any clue as to what you are talking about, can you actually explain what you mean, without using words like "capitalism," "collectivism," and "matrilineal"? How do groups of people behave? All sorts of ways, these are some names for them. It's rather tricky to describe behaviors linked to capitalism without using words that describe how people behave. ...and I guess I have to make myself clearer. lex mercatoria
I'm all against state and bureaucracy and stealing and enforced taxation, but I'm also tired of this typical US Libertarian rhetoric. Socialism vs Market-radicalism is another of these false dichotomies. (...) *standing ovation* Required reading. +1 |
|
|
|
Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism
Sorry to use that way overused meme, but I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either of those. Just so we don't go around in circles, instead of assuming that the rest of us have any clue as to what you are talking about, can you actually explain what you mean, without using words like "capitalism," "collectivism," and "matrilineal"? I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal. As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it. Mater semper certus est - pater semper incertus est. Therefore, because the pater is always incertus, you need to control the sexual life of the woman, and that is organised violence. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
