Questions for the surprisingly far right CFC population

[Farm Boy]

Them too! I'm not as good with my hunter-gatherer frames of reference. Those were, I believe, the baboons and crabs. Which I tried to lead with but suffer from the problem that they're at best merely illustrative of humanity rather than as examples thereof.

 

[Lexicus]

Them too!

Well, in their case I think some assumption you're making is wrong somewhere. Because the ethnography I've read of such societies suggest that they put a great deal of thought into ensuring that no one had too much power or prestige relative to everyone else.

 

[Farm Boy]

Okay. Where do you think my posts would imply differently?

Bear in mind I'm still editing my 3rd newest post to try and get it more right. I'm terrible about that.

 

[Lexicus]

Okay. Where do you think my posts would imply differently?

When you seemingly dismissed worries about inequality as a hobby of pretentious idlers?

 

[Farm Boy]

And here I was thinking I was making the point that inequality comes from pretentious idlers.

The implied takeaway being that if you force people into idleness it makes them worse, not better. You've taken something from them that gives them purpose and satiation. This is still vomiting out from the exchange with Sommer about the field shaping the plough as the plough shapes the field.

 

[Lexicus]

Now that is fascinating. Here I was thinking I was making the point that inequality comes from pretentious idlers.

As so often happens, I interpreted your post wrong. *shrugs* such is life on the internet.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Historically, societies on the material margin of survival were not particularly tolerant of individualism (including individual greed).

Ah, but that that highlights the difference between the threatened society versus the threatened individual.

I'd wager that a society that feels threatened will act selfishly vis-a-vis other societies, ie war, isolationism, protectionism etc

 

[Farm Boy]

Wouldn't that require them feeling threatened by the other? People will work cross tribe against the wrath of the weather and those same people will carry handguns in thier purses should thier potential levy builders spook them by showing up unexpected on the sidewalks of thier town.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd wager that a society that feels threatened will act selfishly vis-a-vis other societies, ie war, isolationism, protectionism etc

Well, interestingly, there is very little evidence for the war-as-a-result-of-scarce-resources theory: events like famines do not correlate with the occurrence of wars, at least, that is not what anthropological studies have found.

Still, I would say that you're right insofar as mechanisms to avoid individual inequality seem to constitute a social protection device of sorts.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wouldn't that require them feeling threatened by the other?

Rationally or irrationally?

 

[Farm Boy]

Feeling.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Got it.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, interestingly, there is very little evidence for the war-as-a-result-of-scarce-resources theory: events like famines do not correlate with the occurrence of wars, at least, that is not what anthropological studies have found.

Sure about that? The Nazis envisioned their apocalyptic race war as being motivated by a need for resources. I've read strong arguments the near perpetual state of war in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries were prompted by a series of famines, and that a drought and devastation played a significant role in the breakdown in the Syrian governments authority in the lead up to the Syrian Civil War.

 

[Perfection]

I'm saying that social change rarely occurs because a program has been proposed and we have all agreed upon it, so the lack of such a program is not a defence against criticism. I don't disagree that specific reforms are useful: if nothing else, they provide a shared reference point for social movements. But oppositional movements are not required to solve every problem in advance, are not required to accept that the current way of doing things is automatically justified until proven otherwise- least of all when "proven" means "proven to the satisfaction of those who benefit most from the current way of doing things", which is inevitably the case.

I depend on the current functioning of society for my well-being. I have a lot to lose in terms of safety, available services, and available opportunities. Why should I risk that all on movements (like communism) which has a habit of creating corrupt autocracies? Moreover there appears to be a political ideology (that is a well-regulated capitalist democracy with a robust social safety net) that doesn't require destruction of our current political and economic system and can provide increases to both social welfare and productivity.

I am not trying to protect capitalism or democracy from criticism. But if you're not offering me something that has a realistic shot of being better then why should I support it?

 

[inthesomeday]

Anyone who has faith in capitalism to provide them safety and well-being is clearly on the top of thing 3's hierarchy and will therefore seek to perpetuate their own power unless they are willing to understand the inevitable destruction of human-livable conditions on earth as a result of capitalism leaves them just as <snip> as everyone else.

Moderator Action: Please do not use foul language. FP

 

[Farm Boy]

Depends on if you see market driven innovative science as a savior figure.

Something something about taking up the throne and pride if you want to take it there, but I'm not invested enough in that point to really try and tear a piece off.

 

[bernie14]

perfection is therefore oppressive

 

[Perfection]

Anyone who has faith in capitalism to provide them safety and well-being is clearly on the top of thing 3's hierarchy and will therefore seek to perpetuate their own power unless they are willing to understand the inevitable destruction of human-livable conditions on earth as a result of capitalism leaves them just as f*ed as everyone else.

I am not on the Top of Thing 3's hierarchy.

I have no faith that capitalism itself will provide me safety and security. Nor do I feel particularly safe and secure about the current situation (especially not with the current batch of idiots in charge). However, I don't see any anticapitalist alternative as any bit more viable - indeed I view that my prospects would be markedly worse under an anti-capitalist system. So I am not ready to risk everything off of empty promises that things will be better if I support radical societal upheaval. It seems much more likely that such a revolution would result in a dangerous period of anarchy followed by (if the anticapitalists win) a period of corrupt authoritarianism. Such an outcome does not interest me.

I would feel safest in a system where we had an improved social safety net so that if for some reason I cannot find work, no longer can work, or have a health crises, I am not totally hosed. I believe such a system would be better implemented in a mostly capitalist society because capitalism is a powerful generator of wealth and does not require a dangerous revolution. Moreover I view that a strong private sector is essential for technological growth and can offer a better standard of living for everyone regardless of social status.

 

[Lexicus]

However, I don't see any anticapitalist alternative as any bit more viable - indeed I view that my prospects would be markedly worse under an anti-capitalist system.

How do you define capitalism?

Sure about that? The Nazis envisioned their apocalyptic race war as being motivated by a need for resources. I've read strong arguments the near perpetual state of war in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries were prompted by a series of famines, and that a drought and devastation played a significant role in the breakdown in the Syrian governments authority in the lead up to the Syrian Civil War.

Those are individual cases, though imo attributing all these wars, simplistically, to resource scarcity would be silly. There isn't a strong correlation with larger numbers of cases because it takes more than resource scarcity to cause wars.

 

[Perfection]

How do you define capitalism?

I don't have a particular definition in mind when I use the term but Wikipedia's "Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit." seems like as good a starting point as any.