Liberal doomerism based on imaginary restrictions, how new.
it’s not just imaginary, humans thrived of mutual cooperation for tens of thousands of years while capitalism has only existed for a few hundred, but somehow that it’s became the default position of everyone.
Definitions of “capitalism” are variable but I think it’s totally inaccurate to say that it’s only existed for a few hundred years. You look at ancient Roman/Greek society, they have privately owned businesses with shareholder type structures. One of the key influences on Western legal systems today (something hinted at by half our legal terms being in Latin). Something similar about the economic structure can be said about many historical empires, older than a few hundred years. Where does the line get drawn on what’s “capitalism” or “capitalism-like” vs. what’s not. The basic idea of monopolizing control over production etc. in order to privately benefit, is not particularly hard for people to arrive at. Heck, it goes hand in hand with “empire”, because when you have a structure based on elevating a huge number of people against a huge number of other people, it’s not a stretch to have the same structure occurring within the society, because you already have one type of inequality normalized.
that’s very true. capitalism has changed throughout the centuries and the version that we have now is significantly different than how it existed in the past.
when i use the words like capitalism or liberalism i’m referring to their present day incarnations because that’s how the world uses them; but there’s definitely a disconnect between westerners and the rest of the world. the western world (americans in particular) use the centuries old definitions of both words that conflates capitalism and liberalism together; but the present day situation is very different and those old definitions are incapable of lending themselves to political analysis of the modern day world because of these old definitions.
in other words: liberalism was the leftist movement that could “liberate” the world from its monarchical hegemony and capitalism was its most dominant political theory. liberalism slowly became the world’s hegemony, but now it’s become neoliberalism and leftism now stands in opposition to neoliberal hegemony.
“thriving on mutual cooperation” speaks to time long before the ancient greeks or romans. recognizable modern humanity (ie toolmaking, painting, sculptures, religion, trade, etc.) has existed for roughly 70 thousand years and the existence of the greeks, romans, or even capitalism is roughly less than 6,000 years old. in other words capitalism has existed for roughly less than 8% of humanity’s history and even then, the version of capitalism practiced back then was very different than the version we practice now.
😂😂😂
Speaking of not reading books… holy shit where did you go to school, Florida?
I’ll leave you with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
Few hundred years 😂😂
and it’s clear that you went to school at trump university or prager u you since you’re responding with a very maga talking point that tries to conflate ordinary slavery with the american slave trade.
on the off chance that you’re genuinely ignore of it; i would recommend googling or asking chatgpt why the transatlantic slave trade was different that ordinary slavery.
Wow that’s an interesting leap. So before we continue can we clarify: are you defending slavery (pre-triangle)? Are you saying it’s actually a good thing? I really need to know.
If so, your opinion no longer is relevant to any conversation.
If not, why are you bringing up the British/dutch slave system? It doesn’t particularly matter that stomach cancer is worse than colon cancer.
I wouldn’t call pre-capitalist society “thriving on mutual cooperation” and neither would Marx. It was different, yeah, but ultimately still exploitative for most people. Consider that Tsarist Russia was still largely pre-capitalist (in the transition to being a capitalist economy) and that this fact led to a lot of debate among socialist and communist thinkers during the leadup to the Russian Revolution because Marx himself believed that Capitalism was a necessary stepping stone to Communism. But yet, people still felt conditions were bad enough that they revolted, killed everyone in charge, and instituted socialism. Even going back to the bronze age shit was pretty brutal. Read about how kings dealt with disobedience back then and it would make anyone today seem like a saint.
mutual cooperation for tens of thousands of years speaks to the human prehistory; long before tsarist russia was a thing.
also the type of capitalism that existed during feudalism/serfdom is not the same as the one we have now; it wasn’t the dominant hegemony at the time.
I mean, the bronze age took place during class society, and it wasn’t even that long ago compared to the time anatomical humans have existed. As for whether past cruelty would make modern people look like saints. If we’re talking about Joe right across the street or something, sure, why not. But we have had non stop bombings, coups, invasions, sanctions and so on for a while, I consider modern capitalists to be more cruel as a class than many kings of old.
They said “tens of thousands of years” and you thought that meant two centuries before the Russian Revolution. I think you’ve mistaken dominant narratives of history as a European discipline with what has actually happened in the past. Yes, there are very many accounts of hierarchal violence, but that isn’t descriptive of how human beings behave. Most of what we’ve built has come from cooperation (think about how dependent the internet infrastructure is on free labour and cooperation) and the greatest obstacle we’ve faced as our communities grow is the exploitation that arises from patriarchal hierarchies. Exploitation is the site of those brutalities youre referring to.
Marx also wasn’t a historian, and wasn’t very knowledgeable about societies outside of Europe at all. That isn’t something we can fault him for as though it was his responsibility, but it is something you need to take into account if you’re going to engage with this progressive history model (Hegel didn’t know about’em either).
Kathleen Duval makes an interesting argument in Native Nations that we have evidence that indigenous Americans, in particular those who lived in relation to the Cahokia (Mississippian) civilisation, intentionally altered the trajectory of their social organization in response to this same exploitation. This isn’t to say hierarchy never existed again, though certainly in a less stratified way than the European settlers that arrived a couple centuries later, but it does teach us that humans do not want to live that way, which means they do not have to.
Yes. I am pointing that out. That is the imaginary thing.
“Somehow,” looks behind us at five centuries of European settler-colonialism.
“Everyone,” looks ahead at the millions of people who defy hegemonically enforced constructions of human nature despite the overwhelming power those systems possess.
Capitalism doesn’t work, and it’s for the same reason.
It used to be human nature. Nowadays it’s nothing more than social engineering that teaches us what is up is down and what isn’t, is.
You know that humans lived in communal societies for a long fuckin time before all the bullshit we know today, right?
Human nature is not greed. That’s capitalism.
Humans were constrained by their material conditions. Now that those material conditions have changed, their behaviors have changed to match. This is not a fixed state of affairs. Humans continue to transition between stages just like every other living being.
Greed is as much a part of modern human nature as fear and love. And it is the product of a social condition that rewards growth, punishes disobedience, and requires a larger community to reproduce itself. It is a consequence of social conditioning executed iteratively from parent to child. And a consequence of statistical survival and prosperity played out over populations.
What defines human action is not the basic libidinal impulse, but the interplay between people and their environments over lifetimes and generations. That’s not socialism or capitalism at its root. Socialism and capitalism are simply fruits grown from the post-industrial branches of the tree of human history.
Greed isn’t inescapably “human nature”, but results from it under some basic conditions. The nature of enjoyment and suffering means the pursuit of enjoyment and avoidance of suffering as a biological imperative. Desperation, lack of cultural/learned empathy, cultural normalization of disparity, etc., can quickly allow unchecked greed. The same thing, with different conditions, can be said for… not sure there’s a single word for it, but behavior motivated by empathy promoting equality and sharing and so on. The conditions actually kind of close to being the inverse of those for greed - some combination of not having desperation, having cultural/learned empathy, cultural normalization of economic equality, etc. Both types of thinking are just basically pro-social or anti-social thought with regard to material/economic gain, depending on what influences individual thinking.
And slavery isn’t capitalism? Or is that cooperative because the slaveholder says “I have a knife and will kill you” and the slave says “I don’t want to die” so it’s mutual collaboration where the slave doesn’t die but also is a slave?
Debt and slavery are not the same thing. Debt can be used to functionally enslave as capitalism does enslaving us to our wages so we can afford to exist, but again that is a feature of the coercive nature of capitalism and debt is just the enforcement mechanism in this instance. Debt and capitalism are two independent things that intersect in interesting ways.
Where did I say debt and slavery are the same thing?
I saw a half dozen messages in this thread about how humans used to be good or some bullshit, with no backing. I’m responding to that.
Prove your point with historical data or don’t, but don’t argue about some unrelated topic.
You can have slavery under global capitalism (we do) and our last few thousands of years have been very bad for a lot of humans, but it seems like we weren’t always oppressing each other and on the contrary we have been egalitarian most of the time anatomical humans existed, hence why the human nature argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
When was this? How good are the records from this time? Seems like for at least the last 12000 years (biblical era) we were for the most part miserable, diseased, and exploitative
Look into anthropology and such, obviously that falls squarely before history and written records.
Mesopotamians tracked agricultural debt on clay tablets in 3000 BC
Per David Graeber in “Debt: The First 5000 Years”, people used to record debt with “Tally Sticks”. You’d notch the debt you owed at the end of a branch. Then you’d bend it in half. Creditor would get one end. Debtor the other. When you wanted to call in your debt, you’d hold the sticks up together to confirm they matched and that’s what was owed. This practice goes back to the Paleolithic Era.
Incidentally, the Tally Stick would often be longer on the creditor’s end. This was the stock of the stick and thus designated its recipient the “stock holder”.
But assignment and collection of debts isn’t the same thing as assignment and collection of rents and interest, which is at the center of the capitalist economic system.
Debt and capitalism are not the same thing if that’s what you’re insinuating. Markets are not a feature of capitalism either, they are simply tools for economic control.
Yeah of course, this meme is meant to be making fun of the idea that “human nature” (whatever that may be lol) in any way disproves communist or anticapitalist theory
You’re right that the best arguments against Marxism are the falsity and over-simplification of economic determinism, and the falsity and over-simplification of the labour theory of value.
But have humans have never had a non-hierarchical large scaled society?
Human nature on its deathbed when it realizes it forgot to account for Karl Marx
It’s in Human Nature to be violent, which I why I’ve made sure to arm my kindergarten class with knives. Because otherwise I would not be accounting for Human Nature.
(note: this is sarcastic, I did not arm a kindergarten class with knives)
you armed them with knives in a gun fight?!
They’re doing the best they can with a teacher’s salary
it bet we’ll get gun equity before we get healthcare, childcare, or educational equity. lol
Oh, you are being sarcastic? Wouldn’t have guessed
In some ancient text I read it talks about how the ancient Greeks had stopped wearing swords all the time for protection, but there were still some primitive areas where they did. Civilization reduces the necessity and the rate of return on individual violence it would seem.
Even if you assume human nature is greed, it’s also human nature to have their babies eaten by wolves but I don’t see anyone suggesting we should center our society on baby tossin’ wolf pits.
Killing people who don’t worship the same Gods as you, taking slaves from the neighboring city state, and having a harem of
sex slaves“wives” are all “human nature” that have all been done since before we had the technology to record them all the way up to today. Should those be tolerated in modern society too? Hell no.Well that’s WHERE youre wrong buddy. Wolf pits are the Last GREAT thang ABOUT this cuntry and I won’t HAVE no liburels Taking them!
Edit: capitalized more words.
Removed by mod
My opinions about it are obviously great actually thanks
Removed by mod
Me when I take all napkins and salt shakers from every restaurant because apparently greed is just human nature
?
Common refrain from capitalism fans is that communism can never work because humans are inherently selfish/greedy as proven by their observation that humans are selfish and greedy in the system that rewards selfishness and greed.
OP is selfish and can’t imagine why people would want to be nice to one another.
Begging you to click on my profile this is meant to be a joke 😭
I think you need to go to HR for an hour long meeting about what jokes are.
I guess it gets understood a little different when it is not posted in explicitly communist spaces :/
even so. it isn’t a joke and more a reflection of what you think. at least that what it sounds like. don’t blame the audience for the way your joke is interpreted
Most people are interpreting it correctly, though.
I just don’t get how saying a statement you believe is wrong without any indication of it as a joke.
Seems more reminiscent to people who say something shitty, then when they get complaints say “it was a joke, bro”.
And I personally have no patience for that. Also, there is no punchline, it is just a BS quote.











