Why Socialism Is The Inevitable Social Structure, Anthropological Perspective

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+7 more 
posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Here's what I don't understand about capitalists. It's a profound misunderstanding of history. History stretching back thousands of years. Capitalism is about 300 years old. Humankind is about 200,000 years old.

Humankind has ALWAYS BEEN SOCIALIST! The only way we survived this long is by living cooperatively, sharing resources and labor. Humankind did not survive this long by fighting each other for resources and hoarding resources. We are here today because we followed the hallmarks of socialist-liberal theory.

HERE'S THE POINT: CAPITALISM IS THE ABERRATION, NOT THE STANDARD.

Capitalism is brand new. It's only come along after 200,000 thousand years of socialism. Capitalism stands on the work done by socialism and claims it was doing the work all along. Do you really think competition is a viable long term survival strategy? Try it in your family, no one sharing food or water or helping each other or anything. Doesn't work because it's not how humans are meant to live. It's not how we've ever lived. Until recently. And its not working.

Think about it physically, simply from a flesh and bone standpoint. If humankind were meant for competition, for fighting, we wouldn't be so fragile. Humans HAVE to come together and cooperate because our skulls are thin and fragile and our bones are on the inside. Fights between two humans really mess each other up. We're not like rams or bears who can walk away after a violent battle. If we fall out of a tree, we're broken and mostly likely a goner. We're made for thinking, not competing. Physically, evolutionarily, we had to adhere to socialist values, simply for survival. Capitalism is a luxury we can only afford because of the work done by socialism.

Socialism is so ingrained our our society and our nature that we don't even notice it anymore. Cooperation is a part of every aspect of our society. Would people wait in line if we are ruthless competitors? Would we have NGOs and non profits? Would homeless people keep asking for change if people never gave it? We share. We cooperate.

And our capitalist leaders know it. Why do they fight so hard against leaders displaying ANY tiny speck of socialism. The West sanctions these countries and hurts the people for the actions of the leader. A leader who is just trying something different for his people. Why do Western capitalists fight so hard against socialism? Why do they fight against redistribution of wealth, against paying their fair share?

What are capitalists afraid of?

They know. They know the game is ending. They know capitalism and the power of the "free market" is a complete fraud

The funny part is, we already have socialism in the West. If you're rich, that is. The rest of us have to fight and compete. The rich, however, are too big to fail so, we, the poor have to share our meager scraps to supposedly ensure the proper functioning of society. The rich screw up, then they cry for socialism, for society to help them. The poor want their fair share of the profits THEY make for a company, then they cry the principles of capitalism, tell you to work harder or start your own pointless profit machine. Do you see, middle and lower class capitalists, how you've been played? Played by your false heroes who champion capitalism while secretly relying on socialism when the going gets rough.

So to sum it all up. We have socialism, right now for the rich. We've always had socialism, as a human species it's the only way. Capitalism is the deviation. We're beginning to see through the fog, to the end of the capitalist experiment. Eventually we will right the ship and cooperate once more. Socialism is the inevitable social structure. It'll be back, once capitalism eats itself alive.




PS: To those that will say socialism has never worked in recent history, you are correct. Since capitalism came along it has been impossible for socialism to survive. Why? Because capitalists eliminate competition, including competing socio-economic structures like socialism. What are capitalists so afraid of? Why not allow competition if its such a virtuous quality for a society?

PPS. To those that will say we wouldn't have all the wonderful, magical things like iPhones and the internet without capitalism, I ask, how do you know? I think we'd probably have MORE wonderful, magical things because people would be free from the work-to-eat mentality. We'd be busy creating, instead of competing. Also, we'd have more wonderful, magical things because the truly wonderful and magical things wouldn't be run out of business by competitive companies. Wonderful, magical things could thrive, based on their usefulness, not their ability to create profit.




posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Living in a capitalist country, I see more unemployment, houses for sale and homeless around everyday. If socialism can promise to provide what people need to have a decent living, it will be the "inevitable" choice.

I can deal with that, but I don't want to see corrupted socialist leaders like the one just died few days ago.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Star and flag because you have the balls to say what others fear and I agree with you to a point. If only more people were willing to have an open mind and actually think about things.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Ask yourself why your ideology cannot exist unless everyone is subjected into it as well.

What exactly is stopping you from creating your own Brook Farm?

If you actually understand socialism on a community level, and still want to live under that system, nobody is stopping you.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
Ask yourself why your ideology cannot exist unless everyone is subjected into it as well.

What exactly is stopping you from creating your own Brook Farm?

If you actually understand socialism on a community level, and still want to live under that system, nobody is stopping you.



That is so disingenuous, yet most people would agree with you. I want to start my own brook farm but unfortunately I can't find any landowners to let me take over their land. Maybe you can point me in the right direction besides telling me to compete until I do own it.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
You don't have an "anthropological perspectiove" at all. An "anthropological perspective' would indicate you have actually studied other cultures, yet your post shows no evidence at all that you have. Capitalism is not new and is certainly not just 300 years old. 2000 years ago were the Romans socialist? No, they had a capitalist society. There were the ruling class, the elite, then the Equestrians, who were the capitalists, then the proletariat, which were the working class, followed by the slaves. 4,000 years ago were the Egyptians socialist? No, again. They had an active and vibrant capitalist society. Indeed, from an "anthropological perspective" any time you get above a tribal level, i.e.: Bands of hunter/gatherers roaming the countryside without benefit of agriculture, you develop a capitalist society. Even then, if your tribe is going to interact with other tribes, you do that through warfare--or trade. You "trade goods and services" because someone has to keep the goods moving. This is done through the incentive of improving your life if you can hack it. That's capitalism, and it has been around for a long, long time. You really shouldn't use big words unless you have an inkling of what they mean.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trueman
Living in a capitalist country, I see more unemployment, houses for sale and homeless around everyday. If socialism can promise to provide what people need to have a decent living, it will be the "inevitable" choice.

I can deal with that, but I don't want to see corrupted socialist leaders like the one just died few days ago.


This terrible leader you speak of was loved by the vast majority of his country. The opposition was completely from the minority elite, which hated that the ability to exploit was taken away.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
That is so disingenuous, yet most people would agree with you. I want to start my own brook farm but unfortunately I can't find any landowners to let me take over their land.


Taking something you don't have any rightful claim to should be easy for a socialist.

Just think of it as step one.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
the op shows a gross misunderstanding of human history

SOCIALISM- is about state control, particularly of the means of production and property- this is not something which has been going on for 200,000 years!


Yes, we co operate, and often we do so because of religious belief, but this is not an indicator of state socialism- state socialism is one of the most destructive forms of governance known to man
edit on 10-3-2013 by Credenceskynyrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
You don't have an "anthropological perspectiove" at all. An "anthropological perspective' would indicate you have actually studied other cultures, yet your post shows no evidence at all that you have. Capitalism is not new and is certainly not just 300 years old. 2000 years ago were the Romans socialist? No, they had a capitalist society. There were the ruling class, the elite, then the Equestrians, who were the capitalists, then the proletariat, which were the working class, followed by the slaves. 4,000 years ago were the Egyptians socialist? No, again. They had an active and vibrant capitalist society. Indeed, from an "anthropological perspective" any time you get above a tribal level, i.e.: Bands of hunter/gatherers roaming the countryside without benefit of agriculture, you develop a capitalist society. Even then, if your tribe is going to interact with other tribes, you do that through warfare--or trade. You "trade goods and services" because someone has to keep the goods moving. This is done through the incentive of improving your life if you can hack it. That's capitalism, and it has been around for a long, long time. You really shouldn't use big words unless you have an inkling of what they mean.


Just because you trade with others does not mean that you are capitalist. In Rome and in Egypt there was no upward mobility. You were born into the class you were born into. I wouldn't call that capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. Regardless, both eventually failed. Capitalism in theory would have everyone starting from the same place with the same opportunities and then the winners would be determined.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
the op shows a gross misunderstanding of human history

SOCIALISM- is about state control, particularly of the means of production and property- this is not something which has been going on for 200,000 years!


Yes, we co operate, and often we do so because of religious belief, but this is not an indicator of state socialism- state socialism is one of the most destructive forms of governance known to man
edit on 10-3-2013 by Credenceskynyrd because: (no reason given)


Totally wrong. In socialism the means of production is owned by the whole society. You can have socialism without a state. Why do you people comment when you have no idea what you are talking about? Did you hear it on the radio?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueman
 




I can deal with that, but I don't want to see corrupted socialist leaders like the one just died few days ago.


I don't buy into any 'ism' or dogmatic belief system but I fail to see how you can differentiate between a 'corrupted socialist leader' and a corrupt capitalist leader, or any corrupt leader for that matter.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Just because you trade with others does not mean that you are capitalist. In Rome and in Egypt there was no upward mobility. You were born into the class you were born into. I wouldn't call that capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. Regardless, both eventually failed. Capitalism in theory would have everyone starting from the same place with the same opportunities and then the winners would be determined.


Which is what the framers of the US Constitution were aiming for. They wanted at all costs to avoid "inherited wealth" having seen how nicely that worked out in Europe. That is what inheritence taxes are about, not about taking something away from a dead person. It was about everyone starting from the same place and in order to have that 'level playing field' one must have some kind of socialism - education, basic housing & food, health care.

Socialism is you and me participating in the welfare and opportunity for all - not just those with wealth and power. I got distracted, pardon me.

The point is that the US Constitution is not a Capitialist document - it's much more Socialist in intent.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
the op shows a gross misunderstanding of human history

SOCIALISM- is about state control, particularly of the means of production and property- this is not something which has been going on for 200,000 years!


Yes, we co operate, and often we do so because of religious belief, but this is not an indicator of state socialism- state socialism is one of the most destructive forms of governance known to man
edit on 10-3-2013 by Credenceskynyrd because: (no reason given)


Totally wrong. In socialism the means of production is owned by the whole society. You can have socialism without a state. Why do you people comment when you have no idea what you are talking about? Did you hear it on the radio?


oh yeah radio boy, well it is only through the state, realistically that this will happen- and as the op has said this is how human history has actually progressed (except for the last 300 years)- please festoon me with all these civilisations that have

"production"

"owned by the whole society"


I'll be waiting



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by Trueman
Living in a capitalist country, I see more unemployment, houses for sale and homeless around everyday. If socialism can promise to provide what people need to have a decent living, it will be the "inevitable" choice.

I can deal with that, but I don't want to see corrupted socialist leaders like the one just died few days ago.


This terrible leader you speak of was loved by the vast majority of his country. The opposition was completely from the minority elite, which hated that the ability to exploit was taken away.


He didn't practice at home what he was preaching....


Hugo Chavez net worth: Hugo Chavez was a Venezuelan politician who had a net worth of $1 billion at the time of his death on March 5th 2013. A 2010 report from Criminal Justice International Associates (CJIA), a global risk assessment and threat mitigation firm estimated that the Chavez family assets totaled between $1 and $2 billion USD. The vast majority of these assets are oil related and were controlled by Hugo himself prior to his death. The head of the CJIA, Jerry Brewer, asserted that since Hugo's rise to power in 1999, the extended family has amassed its fortune through both legal and illegal methods. Brewer further estimates that the Chavez family and hundreds of other criminal organization have "subtracted $100 billion out of the nearly $1 trillion in oil income made by PDVSA (Venezuela's state controlled oil company), since 1999."


.....he wasn't loved by the majority, he brainwashed them.

Again, I don't consider socialism a wrong way, but if the leader is a corrupted person it won't work for me.

www.celebritynetworth.com...
edit on 10-3-2013 by Trueman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
socialism is only a tool used by tyrants to gain control over people who are stupid enough to believe in it.
socialism is for the people, not the socialists.
there will always be rich people, and there will always be poor people, no matter what the social, and economic structures are.

the ideology itself is flawed because it doesn't account for human nature.
want, greed, jealousy, etc.
people want to own what they earn, and you can never change that.

the only goal of a socialist, is absolute control.

and if your a socialist, and you believe in the ideology, and you just want everyone to be equal, or you want everyone to have free healthcare, or housing, or whatever.
you are just a useful idiot.
and the useful idiots are always first to be murdered.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Totally wrong. In socialism the means of production is owned by the whole society. You can have socialism without a state. Why do you people comment when you have no idea what you are talking about? Did you hear it on the radio?

oh can it? is there such an example in reality? i think you overestimate humanity in large groups, you need a state to manage human activities on a large scale or chaos will ensue regardless of goodness or any other positive human traits.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
The OP is correct, in that capitalism is a new invention, especially corporatism which has only been around for a few centuries.

By calling everything else socialism though, he opened himself up for lots of unecessary attacks. It would be better to say that humans lived cooperatively for most of our history, rather than competitively, at least within bands or tribes.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I don't find it accurate to say that humanity has lived in cooperation.
The groups that cooperated were family groups. Those groups fought with others for resources. The victor got the resources.
After a while family groups enlarged to become tribes, tribes became nations, nations became western world, etc. The resource competition existed at every level of that progression from small to larger group. An "other" is identified and we take their stuff before they take ours. It's human nature. It's also animal nature. Alpha dog, chimp wars, which cat in a mulitple cat household gets to use the litterbox first....

That drive to dominate and posess ensures that the state which is supposed to wither away in (step 3 I think) of the progression to socialism never can wither. Without a strong over arching power the little people start getting greedy (okay, they actually were greedy all along but fear held them in check). If the overarching power doesn't wither away people who hold positions of power within that government get greedy and abuse their position.

Peace Bread and Land sounds great but there is no delivery on that promise and never will be because greed is simply a part of who we are.

The Great Wall of China is made of pieces that were originally constructed to keep the nomads(have nots) who got stuck on the non-productive land from raiding the farmers (haves) who had settled a nice little civilization on fertile soil. That goes back pretty far into recorded history and iit's been the same story ever since then.

Would it be nice if we developed a higher nature and shared in beautiful utopia of joy and plenty? Sure. But I don't see it happening.

The social good of capitalism is that it harnesses greed to the betterment of many. You need consumers after all... The problem today is that what we have isn't really capitalism. Romney's string of bankruptcies fetched him a fortune....that shouldn't be. The banksters got bailed out. We have a corporatocracy in which the big pockets control too much of government policy.

I should note that even once that is corrected I personally believe in capitalism that has a safety net and oversight. A middle way. A middle way which the little guy votes for out of greed and self interest because it puts the most in his pocket.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by doctornamtab
 


You are aware that the economic systems practiced by tribal societies are usually classified as neither Capitalist nor Socialist, right? You can point to any "primitive" tribe today and see tribal members engaging in economic activity that is Capitalist, such as bartering with members of their tribe or other tribes and creating a price structure using livestock or food as a basic currency, which then fluctuates based on supply and demand. You can then look to the same tribe and see evidence of socialist economic activity, such as the sharing of some basic resources communally. Your whole post is incredibly illogical and riddled with falsehoods and over-simplifications. Whats more, one cannot compare the economic system of a single village or group of villages with that of a whole nation or group of nations, and that simple fact invalidates your whole post. I'm sure your idea would make a nice thesis for a college term-paper, hell you'd probably get an A from some professors just for the subject alone, but your idea holds no weight in real life.



new topics
top topics
 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join