In that sense, any society is "collectivist", as long as you don't move alone into the mountains and live there sulf-sufficiently.
Correct, any society is by definition collectivist. The opposite of society and collectivism is the self-sufficient community. 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. |
|
|
|
Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.
So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything? You know nothing about anthropology. The absence of monogamous, sexist patriarchy has never been a sexist matriarchy. It was matrilineal anarchy. Ok, I may have misunderstood, but then, could you please explain what the hell "determining decent through the female line" has to do with absolutely anything at all here? Capito? It has to do with the topic, with Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism, which always was archist, which is the opposite of anarchist, which has always been matrilineal. |
|
|
|
All Patriarchy, which is the collectivist opposite of the non-collectivist Anarchy.
Patriarchal, federalist chiefdoms are not stateless.
I wholely reject your absurd distortion of the terms in use. But even then, I can lay one down for you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IroquoisYes they were a matrilineal society (and a matriarchial one, IMHO) and yes they did trade internally and externally. They were stateless, both by the true defintion of the term, and your's as well. Each expression of archy is by definition the opposite of Anarchy. That's an 'absurd' definition to collectivists, I know that. "After becoming united in the League, the Iroquois invaded the Ohio River Valley in present-day Kentucky to seek additional hunting grounds." Being united means being collectivised, governed. |
|
|
|
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. Your reply is a textbook example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Your are telling ahistoric stories. There has never been a capitalist free trade in stateless, self-sufficient communities. Self-sufficient communities are called self-sufficient because there is no need to trade on a market with strangers beyond themselves. So this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_CityAnd this http://mises.org/daily/1121Or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_anarchism#Religious_Jewish_anarchismor this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture#Culture_and_tradeAre not both capitalisitic and stateless socieites? A note on that last one, since it's not widely known. Not much is known about the Hallstatt culture, mostly due to the combined effects there being now known written language associated with the culture and that history, while not really written by them, is heavily edited by the victors. The Hallstatt were not victors. But two thinkgs are known to be hard facts about the Hallstatt culture, 1) they honored no rulers and thus were leaderless, and during the age that also made them stateless by the dominat definition (they respected no king, paid no taxes and fought no wars) and 2) they traded with their neighbors, particularly mined salt. All Patri archy, which is the collectivist opposite of the non-collectivist Anarchy. Patriarchal, federalist chiefdoms are not stateless. Kowloon: Ruled by patriarchalic chiefdoms under chieftains: "From the 1950s to the 1970s, it was controlled by Triads and had high rates of prostitution, gambling, and drug use" Iceland: Ruled by patriarchalic (hierarchic) chiefdoms under chieftains: "Iceland did not have an executive branch of government. Instead of a king they had local chieftains." "Then there was the National Assembly or the Althing. Each quarter was represented by their own Althing. If a dispute was not settled by the private courts, the dispute would go up the ladder to the next highest court until the dispute was resolved." The Jews: (thats the best joke) Ruled by patri archal gods and their patri archal representatives. In contrast of that the anarchist slogan: no gods, no masters!Hallstatt culture: "The material culture of Western Hallstatt culture was apparently sufficient to provide a stable social and economic equilibrium. The founding of Marseille and the penetration by Greek and Etruscan culture after ca 600 BC, resulted in long-range trade relationships up the Rhone valley which triggered social and cultural transformations in the Hallstatt settlements north of the Alps. Powerful local chiefdoms emerged which controlled the redistribution of luxury goods from the Mediterranean world that is characteristic of the La Tène culture." |
|
|
|
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. Your reply is a textbook example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Your are telling ahistoric stories. There has never been a capitalist free trade in stateless, self-sufficient communities. Self-sufficient communities are called self-sufficient because there is no need to trade on a market with strangers beyond themselves. |
|
|
|
Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.
So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything? You know nothing about anthropology. The absence of monogamous, sexist patriarchy has never been a sexist matriarchy. It was matrilineal anarchy. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
The autarky/self-sufficiency seems easy enough, but what the heck has: Matrilineality is a system in which descent is traced through the mother and maternal ancestors.
got to do with anything?! Frankly, I'm not sure. It was something that zarathustra was fond of. (Who has not joined this thread yet so it may not provoke any more of an answer than it already has)
An exercise in contemplating some mythical future, envisioning that community encountering another.
So yes.. it is a simple attempt to reflect back what I read in a different form, in order to better understand what it was all about. I'm one of those weirdly curious folks that when I encounter something different or new, my fist impulse is not always to see if I can break it or poke fun at it. I may not have any use for it, but I surely wouldn't know until I figure it out.
Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable. |
|
|
|
|
The sooner the collapse of the society, the better for the planet. A breakdown of the whole infrastructure today is not the same as it was in ancient Aegypt, Rome or the Maya Culture. A breakdown today means 500-fold Fukushima, with 500 nuclear reactors blowing up its inventory around the northern part of the planet, but without being cooled down with the energy of other power stations.
Anyway, it is still better it will collapse today (500 reactors) than tomorrow (5'000 reactors), which would destroy the southern part of the planet as well.
Survivalists, Gardeners and Praxeologists are dreamers.
Society and Progress - a System that works! Ha ha ...
|
|
|
|
Unless you live deep in the amazon jungle you have to pay taxes, anywhere in the world. Theres no getting away from it.
Yes. She said: What is history? And he said: History is an angel being blown backwards into the future He said: History is a pile of debris And the angel wants to go back and fix things To repair the things that have been broken But there is a storm blowing from Paradise And the storm keeps blowing the angel backwards into the future And this storm, this storm is called Progress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWuNEw0EHMc |
|
|
|
Murder was rare in anarchic paleolithic, pre-patriarchic, pre-state communities. War and organised violence was non-existent. The expression of violence against conspecifics is non-existent on paleolithic art (rock and cave paintings); in post-neololithic, patriarchic, collectivist (socialist, feudalist, capitalist) environment it is the norm. Socialist, feudalist and capitalist collectivists are determined to ignore history. They spread Science Fiction, Religion and an oxymoronic, orwellian vocabulary ("anarcho-capitalism, "communism") instead. They don't understand the difference between archic and anarchic.
You've never heard of territorial animal packs fighting each other for territory? Don't some types of apes that live in pack communities war with each other all the time, including to the point of killing members of the opposing tribe? The patriarchal chimps, yes, they fight sometimes against each other. The closest related species to the homines sapientes, the non-patriarchal pan paniscus, don't. They make love instead of war, all the time. pan paniscus = bonobos Is this the plan for your matrilinear consanguineous campground? You may have something there! Whether it is more communal or capital based, I wouldn't know. It is not a plan. This is the history of the homines sapientes for several hundred thousand years, until this life style had been destroyed 10'000 years ago, as they began to collectivise the animals and then themselves. |
|
|
|
Murder was rare in anarchic paleolithic, pre-patriarchic, pre-state communities. War and organised violence was non-existent. The expression of violence against conspecifics is non-existent on paleolithic art (rock and cave paintings); in post-neololithic, patriarchic, collectivist (socialist, feudalist, capitalist) environment it is the norm. Socialist, feudalist and capitalist collectivists are determined to ignore history. They spread Science Fiction, Religion and an oxymoronic, orwellian vocabulary ("anarcho-capitalism, "communism") instead. They don't understand the difference between archic and anarchic.
You've never heard of territorial animal packs fighting each other for territory? Don't some types of apes that live in pack communities war with each other all the time, including to the point of killing members of the opposing tribe? The patriarchal chimps, yes, they fight sometimes against each other. The closest related species to the homines sapientes, the non-patriarchal pan paniscus, don't. They make love instead of war, all the time. |
|
|
|
To be economically self-sufficient means here nothing more than to be self-sufficient from economic interaction with other economic operators. I cannot remember of a discussion here to be independent from anything. That's the case in nirvana and nowhere else. I admit to being baffled by this. You have strongly stated that to be self sufficient is to be not dependent, but now you do not remember a discussion to be independent from anything.
That this only can mean to be economically self-sufficient should be crystal clear to everybody in this discussion. To be not dependent from everything means to be non-existent (nirvana). Here, we are discussing about human being, but not about non-being. That's another story. So it does seem that what you are proposing is nirvana-like.
No, I don't propose non-being. I simply propose the non-violent, autarchic, self-sufficient life style beyond the so called society, which is violent at an exponentially increasing pace.
It seems so unreal and hard to even imagine. I need some help to imagine it.
What are the other economic operators from which you will be self sufficient? (people, animals, plants, communities, or societies)?
Independent from economic interaction (trade) with people beyond the consanguineal community. That's the difference to the people within a society, who are enforced to trade with strangers to generate surpluses and savings. How will you avoid sharing air, water, land, weather, earth with these other economic operators without a pure isolation?
How will this isolation/sharing be maintained without inter-dependency?
To share and to trade is a completely different story. To share water is no problem. To trade and accumulate water is the problem. Best regards. |
|
|
|
No it isn't.
The humans eat things which are not their own self.
If it were self sufficient, it would not need a forest or tundra. It could live in vacuum.
Forest and tundra (and air and water) may be shared resources, and so there is interdependent economy with the others that may cohabitate.
Since you are absolutist with others, you should be with yourself as well.
To be economically self-sufficient means here nothing more than to be self-sufficient from economic interaction with other economic operators. I cannot remember of a discussion here to be independent from anything. That's the case in nirvana and nowhere else. |
|
|
|
Sure, but selfsufficiency is an oxymoron for common definitions of self and sufficiency, if you want to be absolutist and not ouroboros.
No oxymoron. A community beyond the society (rain forest/arctic tundra) is selfsufficient and not economically dependent on other communities. |
|
|
|
The State Specializing in: Rape, the explicit support of Capitalism and Murder Contact Info: Don't worry, We'll find you! Bias is in the eyes of the beholder. To the anarchocapitalist, the state seems socialist/communist. To the anarchocommunist, the state seems capitalist. Even if both are anarchs, the division conquers them. Truthfully neither know what a free society would look like today (even if they can imagine what it looked like in forests or long ago). It is just so much theory and hubris to plan this battle at the theoretical end. To me, as a consanguineal anarchocommunist, the state can be feudalist, socialist or capitalist. And again: a 'free society' is an oxymoron. In a society, where selfsufficiency is destroyed and non-existent, you are dependent on savings, pensions and the interaction with strangers. |
|
|
|
......
FTFY  Thanks, am grateful for that since English is not my language. |
|
|
|
Moonshadow said matriarchies.
Again.
Yes, unfortunately, he doesn't listen. And he even can't spell the word matriarchy. He doesn't learn. And he says: "Families are communal by definition, and by nature."He doesn't know that by nature, there are no such things as families and fathers. Famulus = house slave. A familiy (monogamous pairing familiy / harem familiy) is an unnatural, perverted construct, created by the church and state mafia by destroying the community about 10'000 years ago, for the purpose of producing surpluses to be confiscated by the masters and rulers (church and state). Selfsufficient communities don't produce growing surpluses. They produce about the same quantity as 500'000 years ago. Capitalist collectivists are producing the hundredfold quantity of the amount produced 100 years ago. So difficult to see the fundamental difference? "Capitalism may appear harsh from a certain perspecitive, but it's both sustainable and scalable." Where? In Fantasy-Land? "The assertion that it requires some degree of slavery or government force to function is false, and provablely so. The sad fact is that, yes, slavery has historicly been found coincincidntal to capitalsim. It's also been found coincidental to just about every other known form of governance, including those matriachies that certain posters seem so fond of."Again: The absence of Patri archy is matrilineal anarchy. A matriarchy is a feminist fantasy. As matrilineal anarchy has been transformed into patriarchy, the matrilineal organisation disappeared only slowly. So, the first violent principalities under chieftains were still organised matrilineal. It took a long time until that changed and patrilineal monogamy/polygyny (imbecility) was achieved. But it is not sustainable. You can't fool all the people all the time.... |
|
|
|
Can't have crime without the state.
Murder is not a crime, in your opinion? Rape? You require a state to define your mores for you? Murder was rare in anarchic paleolithic, pre-patri archic, pre-state communities. War and organised violence was non-existent. The expression of violence against conspecifics is non-existent on paleolithic art (rock and cave paintings); in post-neololithic, patriarchic, collectivist (socialist, feudalist, capitalist) environment it is the norm. Socialist, feudalist and capitalist collectivists are determined to ignore history. They spread Science Fiction, Religion and an oxymoronic, orwellian vocabulary ("anarcho-capitalism, "communism") instead. They don't understand the difference between archic and anarchic. Again, without violent coersion, "property" reverts back into its natural state.
And what do you claim is it's natural state?
How many times do we have to explain to the collectivised Capitalists, what a natural state of human being is? |
|
|
|
We, as a society, make toilers rich all the time through capitalism. Just look at India ten years ago compared to now. People with degrees were earning almost nothing, living in really horrid conditions. Then those same people started getting menial unskilled jobs, working in factories or phone support. Now those people are able to demand pay 10 to 30 times or more than what they used to get, working in research, software development, and engineering. India is no longer an ideal place to hire toilers, because millions of people were raised from the slums into middle class, not because of government programs, but because of market competition. Same deal with China. 10 years ago, people were working in horrible conditions in factories, toiling day and night for little pay, while barely earning enough to survive. Now, even though a lot of the work itself is similar, the working conditions are vastly improved. They are clean, well lit, with much better housing, resembling that of university campuses, instead of shantytowns. Sure, China has a bit to go still, but there's no argument that their toiler's situation has improved as well. And again, decades of communism and social planning couldn't do a thing to help those people out, but as soon as they allowed capitalism, however restricted, and outside companies to come in and compete for workers, things improved dramatically.
Unbelievable. This is your 'answer' to ktttn's argument, that this 'improved things' are exploitative and therefore not sustainable? Why are selfsufficient, stateless, non-capitalist communities in the rain forests not affected by 'horrible conditions'? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
