Stateless, classless societies have existed longer than organized states.
We don't really know about prehistory cause it's prehistory.

Our closest primate cousins have a pecking order w a permanent underclass that is permanently denied sexual access.

Even if our ancestors were sugar, spice and everything nice they still were eventually displaced by empire. And they were like 100 people per 1000 acres w pristine and abundant biodiverse landscape to eat off of. Whatever worked for them is unlikely to work in some massive urban hellscape (and communism's experiment w everyone back to land hasn't worked out too well either)

How many many people are secure in capitalist societies that aren't already rich or born into wealth and privilege?
No1 really. Even the rich have to deal w what the world will be like for their grandchildren or else live in denial.

I'm not defending modern industrial capitalism, I'm saying communist fantasies as a solution are just that.

If your contention is that anything resembling socialism sucks
Nowhere have I said thats my contention

then you best be prepared to defend why people are having to work multiple jobs and STILL can't break even in capitalism at this point
IF =/ so THEN does not apply
 
Last edited:
Both

EDIT. I'll save you the trouble

This is more than just a theory of prehistory. It’s the modern, scientific origin myth. Yes, we live in mega-societies with property and slavery and inequality but, at heart, we are mobile, egalitarian hunter-gatherers, wired for small groups and sharing. According to the evolutionary social scientist Peter Turchin, this view is ‘so standard that it is rarely formulated in explicit terms’. The archaeologist David Wengrow and the late anthropologist David Graeber described it as ‘the foundation of all contemporary debate on inequality’. This view serves as a narrative of human nature, a symbol of our capacity to establish good societies, and a reminder of just how far we have strayed in the past 10,000 years.

It’s also probably wrong.
 
Last edited:

It will take some time to dig through the mess that is online research of scholarly articles, so that will have to suffice for now.
 
Guess Wikipedia needs some revisions

EDIT: see the prehistoric peoples in the Wikipedia article. The assumptions are based on Robert L. Carneiro 1978
 
Last edited:
Most people felt more secure in the Soviet Union than they do now in the post-Soviet states.

I'm not sure this works, or at least with how you've framed it. Maybe a better request would be for a minimum amount of security achieved plus a trendline of improvement. The fact that things can be worse doesn't suggest that the system is good enough. And that's without the pedantic "given what happened, their sense of security was misplaced".

I know most people don't agree, but I really do think that net migration is at least a reasonable proxy for relative success. At least, one useful metric.

Socialists need a real success story regarding the more severe changes they wish to make. But, because the entire discussion seems to eventually collapse into extremist interpretations of the terms 'capitalist' and 'socialist', the peanut gallery always talks about how such-and-such isn't a representative version. Reality cares about what's attainable, sustainable (or defendable), and whether there's a good trendline that rewards ongoing efforts.
 
I'd say that's one of my major concerns. We were chatting in the Overpopulation thread about how it is maybe not possible to do that without actually reducing overall Quality of Life for the majority of the people on these boards.

I'm confident that there are many partial solutions within the leftists space. When I say "need a success story", it's not a mocking. It's an observation.
 
I'd say that's one of my major concerns. We were chatting in the Overpopulation thread about how it is maybe not possible to do that without actually reducing overall Quality of Life for the majority of the people on these boards.

I'm confident that there are many partial solutions within the leftists space. When I say "need a success story", it's not a mocking. It's an observation.

You can't even bring yourself to oppose the system that is effectively dooming the planet and your own immediate family to destruction; capitalism. So how, in genuinely good faith, can you possibly offer any solutions that aren't intensely compromised liberal centrist apologetics

Working within the system will not save you, your family, the countless other people, or the planet
 
Last edited:
Yes, and an atheist cannot have any Insight when discussing morals with the fundamentalist Christian, they say.

Like two cancer patients discussing at-home remedies, what the conversation really needs is actual evidence.

You're disagreeing? That an actual success would be useful?
 
Last edited:
Guess Wikipedia needs some revisions

EDIT: see the prehistoric peoples in the Wikipedia article. The assumptions are based on Robert L. Carneiro 1978
I went back for the scholarly sources and am now trapped in the PDF dimension with no way of escape. Send Help.
 
I went back for the scholarly sources and am now trapped in the PDF dimension with no way of escape. Send Help.
Yikes!!!!....sending interdimensional rescue vehicle :eekdance:
 
Last edited:
Both

EDIT. I'll save you the trouble

This is more than just a theory of prehistory. It’s the modern, scientific origin myth. Yes, we live in mega-societies with property and slavery and inequality but, at heart, we are mobile, egalitarian hunter-gatherers, wired for small groups and sharing. According to the evolutionary social scientist Peter Turchin, this view is ‘so standard that it is rarely formulated in explicit terms’. The archaeologist David Wengrow and the late anthropologist David Graeber described it as ‘the foundation of all contemporary debate on inequality’. This view serves as a narrative of human nature, a symbol of our capacity to establish good societies, and a reminder of just how far we have strayed in the past 10,000 years.

It’s also probably wrong.

Peter Turchin is a charlatan.


You're disagreeing? That an actual success would be useful?

There are plenty of "successes" of people coming together to organize to accomplish some goal involving the distribution of resources based on some principle or principles other than ability to pay.


I'm not sure this works, or at least with how you've framed it.

It works exactly as I framed it. Whether it's true or not most people in the former Soviet countries believe the Soviet Union had a higher quality of life and the standard of living was higher almost across the board in the Soviet Union than after it fell. The exception is the Baltic countries.

I don't mean this as a defense of the Soviet system but, like, hello? The main reason for Putin's rise to power was the collapse in the standard of living in Russia in the 1990s. One of the major reasons behind pro-Russian separatism in Ukraine is the sense that life was better under the Soviet state. None of this should be particularly controversial; whether life really was better under the Soviet Union is a different question.
 
I'm not defending modern industrial capitalism, I'm saying communist fantasies as a solution are just that.

Not merely fantasies. Some of them materialised in the form of USSR and modern China. The former was first in the world to put a man into space 15 years after the country was devastated by a world war. The latter grew from obscurity into world leading economy (or thereabouts) in 30 years. In both these stories there’s one important, unifying aspect, which enabled rapid growth. The means of production were centralised, finances were centralised. Everything was under control of a rather small group. Hence, Value didn’t flee country, constantly looking for better profitability. It didn’t lie uselessly in offshore accounts of oligarchs. Wasn’t invested in yachts. It stayed in circulation. Was forced to, by the mandate. And worked for everyone’s benefit, enabling some of the fastest examples of economic growth at scale in history. Fast industrialisation, roads, trains, space, you name it. When all the ‘cash’ is on the table, suddenly things start moving quickly.

I think most of us, those who want to stay relevant economically, will be eventually forced to extract that public ownership aspect from mentioned societies and use it in our societies for our own benefit. Forced by market competition coming our way from Asia. Can we learn from mistakes of the past? First major socialist experiments had entire world opposing them on ideological-economic grounds. (iron curtain, US-China standoff) And yet these systems shown incredible resilience and made their way to the top, despite barrages on every front and from every angle. Of course, one can’t win by fighting the entire world, so some of those systems collapsed. And likely will keep collapsing in coming centuries. But not because they’re economically inefficient. People asking for actual evidence of socialist success, I invite you to have a look at economical record and achievements of socialist systems while under extreme stress of constant sanctions.
 
I'm not disputing things got worse, but I mean it's not answering the underlying question. That something can get worse is not evidence that it's good enough. Unless you're arguing that they felt sufficiently secure (or at least an acceptable majority did). I'd accept that as an answer. They were still wrong about that sense of security, though.

There are plenty of "successes" of people coming together to organize to accomplish some goal involving the distribution of resources based on some principle or principles other than ability to pay.

What is a country that currently exists that is both a place you would move to and is sufficiently communist to meet your definition of acceptably far down the path? When I say a success, I mean a real breakout success overall. Which country would say is closest?

But don't get me wrong about intent, I was bumping into a discussion where the definitions were more severe of what 'communist success' was, so that is what my observation was about. Canada has nearly universal education, nearly universal healthcare, and nearly UBI for seniors. But I wouldn't call us a socialist country in the way that the previous discussion seemed to be defining it as.
 
Last edited:
Not merely fantasies. Some of them materialised in the form of USSR and modern China. The former was first in the world to put a man into space 15 years after the country was devastated by a world war. The latter grew from obscurity into world leading economy (or thereabouts) in 30 years. In both these stories there’s one important, unifying aspect, which enabled rapid growth. The means of production were centralised, finances were centralised. Everything was under control of a rather small group. Hence, Value didn’t flee country, constantly looking for better profitability. It didn’t lie uselessly in offshore accounts of oligarchs. Wasn’t invested in yachts. It stayed in circulation. Was forced to, by the mandate. And worked for everyone’s benefit, enabling some of the fastest examples of economic growth at scale in history. Fast industrialisation, roads, trains, space, you name it. When all the ‘cash’ is on the table, suddenly things start moving quickly.

I think most of us, those who want to stay relevant economically, will be eventually forced to extract that public ownership aspect from mentioned societies and use it in our societies for our own benefit. Forced by market competition coming our way from Asia. Can we learn from mistakes of the past? First major socialist experiments had entire world opposing them on ideological-economic grounds. (iron curtain, US-China standoff) And yet these systems shown incredible resilience and made their way to the top, despite barrages on every front and from every angle. Of course, one can’t win by fighting the entire world, so some of those systems collapsed. And likely will keep collapsing in coming centuries. But not because they’re economically inefficient. People asking for actual evidence of socialist success, I invite you to have a look at economical record and achievements of socialist systems while under extreme stress of constant sanctions.
China's success after Mao was heavily if not completely built upon exporting goods to western Capitalist countries. The US and Europe fed money into China to allow its economic success. Without that inflow China would look very different today. Even today China is dependent upon exporting as it tries to grow its own consumer economy. The CCP made it easy for the country to stay focused on growing exports and bring a backward nation into the 21st c. It has been and still is a monumental task. A task that was only possible because capitalism keeps looking for low cost labor and higher profits. They could never have made such progress without capitalist partners. China wants to break away from its old model and is struggling. We'll have to see how they do. Keeping a billion people satisfied is difficult.
 
China's success after Mao was heavily if not completely built upon exporting goods to western Capitalist countries. The US and Europe fed money into China to allow its economic success. Without that inflow China would look very different today. Even today China is dependent upon exporting as it tries to grow its own consumer economy. The CCP made it easy for the country to stay focused on growing exports and bring a backward nation into the 21st c. It has been and still is a monumental task. A task that was only possible because capitalism keeps looking for low cost labor and higher profits. They could never have made such progress without capitalist partners. China wants to break away from its old model and is struggling. We'll have to see how they do. Keeping a billion people satisfied is difficult.

They also made the Chinese poor to begin with.

I think if Russia had maintenanced it's Tsar era growth rate short term and then a more modest 2-3% over the next century they would be a lot closer to Western Europe than the Soviets or Putin achieved.

Once again they made the Russian people poorer initially.
 
Top Bottom