/lit/ - Literature

>>5919796
does it?
where is the evidence that ancient societies had anything different?

>>5919796
humans are greedy

>>5919809
Humans are by nature altruistic, take a biological anthropology course before spouting your edgy non-truths

>>5919796
Capitalistic "human nature" does not exist as distinct from animal nature and only adapts to the circumstances of the era of production to survive.

>>5919819
humans are altruistic by society and circumstance*

FTFY

>>5919796
Monarchy is human nature in a system format.

>>5919796
>if capitalism is basically human nature in system format

It isn't. Stop listening to Americans.

>>5919819
social altruism on a personal level has nothing to do with capitalism

an enjoyment of excess and an inability to integrate existential danger do, however.

>>5919796
Sounds like something capitalists would say to justify themselves, but that couldn't possibly be it, right?

>>5919804
>>5919809
>>5919822
>362 days into 2014
>being cultural capitalists

>>5919804

Any historian would just laugh at your claim that "le free market" existend in Han China, Maurya Empire, ancient Greece or in Pre-Columbian America.
It's not because you have trade that you have the shit that's called capitalist ( investing of surplus ).

>>5919833


#Guillotine

>>5919833
Probably the best answer.

Alpha (The King)
Beta (The King's Guard + Advisors)
Gamma (The Nobles)
Delta (Citizens/Peasants)
Epsilon (Slaves)

>>5919828
No, they are genetically predisposed to altruism.

>>5919833

>>5919852
I'm an idiot who thinks crowd traits are based on genetics*

FTFY as well

>>5919850
Tribal societies are largely egalitarian, monarchy started with the unnatural invention of agriculture

>>5919833
>Monarchy is human nature in a dribble format.

There ya go.

>>5919855

>>5919833
Humanism is retardation in philosophical format.

>>5919796

Didn't Rand say it was because humans were enslaved by some sort of pseudo-Nietzschean slave/collectivist morality?

That would mean human nature is being a manipulatable dunce at the mercy of those who are smart enough to know that.

>>5919833
Monarchy is entirely a product of human beings being weakened by technology of abundance.

>>5919891
Monarchy is human being achieving their full potential

>>5919920
> 30 years war was almost entirely religious
lol kek

>>5919920

Traditionalists once again in charge of invented pasts.

>>5919861
>>5919845

all still practised excessive consumption.
i'm not a cultural capitalist btw

>>5919935
>using "lol kek" as a response
your intellectual laziness is showing

>>5919920
>potential
>achievement

I also like how neo-monarchist pretend or imagine they would be aristocrats rather than part of the serf slave class

in simple societies (nature-tribes and stuff) the wellbeing of the group directly influences the wellbeing of every single member, and organization is easy because there's only a handful of people

in large society the wellbeing of one is very insignificant to the wellbeing of the group as a whole and organization is a big hassle.

it's just a question of probability really. either some kind of feudalistic system happens, or the group falls apart. it's very likely going to be feudalistic rather than a grassroots thing because that's exponentially more efficient.

>>5919961
the serf slave class would generally be reserved for minorities and people on minimum wage or collecting welfare.

the aristocracy would be reserved for the people who own land and the means of production along with engineering degrees etc.

>>5919988
Then that is meritocracy

>>5919988
>would

>>5919988
That's called liberalism.

Why would you want to appeal to nature? Nature is savage as fuck.

>>5919988

>engineers are aristocrats

So you attribute someone's superiority on the basis of their merit?
And you call yourself "Evolakid"? More like American cryptolibertarian STEM fag thinks he's duke.

>>5920010
whats so bad about savage

>>5920014
He really doesn't like the negative use of "bourgeois", either. Despite Evola using the term negatively.

>>5919971
doesnt anyone wanna critizise my viewpoint

really pisses me off when i type out an answer on /lit/ and noone even replies

>>5920015
Why are you wasting time with humans instead of chilling with your Silverback bros?

>>5919988

It's terrifying that this is what neo-monarchists believe.

>>5920029
poor baby

>>5919971

Not true.
In Inuit societies the wellbeing of the group is more important. Hence they'll sacrifice individual members of the tribe to survive.

>>5920029
You're a faggot

>>5920029
You posted the anthropologiCal consensus so it isnt really your viewpoint

Good post I guess but I didn't have real criticism so I didnt reply

>>5919994
>Then that is meritocracy

no. because it would be hard for the poor the get into the nobility.

>>5920008
liberalism is a product of the enlightenment.

>>5920014

A person with a higher IQ is superior to the degenerate masses in ghettos and trailer parks.

>>5920039
Not really since they have no soft or hard power at all

>>5920022

I might not be an Evolafag, but when Americans read his works and reformulate his ideas it turns out even more comical. And it just shows they can't let go of their Roma Invicta-complex and the American formula of "stop being a faggot and work 'till you're alpha."

>>5920038
i don't like their strict social hierarchy
the one male per group thing's a bitch
>>5920045
yeah but they _are_ like small group living with nature

>>5920048
ty man

>>5920056
>no. because it would be hard for the poor the get into the nobility.
It already is, dumb ass. And making it harder doesn't change the fact that's still liberalism, it's just a question of what sort. You take away public education, your system is still a variant of liberalism.

>>5920056
Do you think it was easy before? The state examinations in China were meritocratic, but only like 1% of people that took them were commoners. You're literally suggesting meritocracy.

The people in charge of such decisions had all the power, and didn't want to give their wealth away.

>>5920056

Did you actually read Evola or is did you just pick up on the idea of an "elite in a degenerate age"?

Aristocracy is a blood matter, not an IQ, degree or whatever else you try to make your aristocracy look like.

>>5920056

please stop posting

>>5920056
You keep describing liberalism
Go suck some moar dicks

>>5920074
Explain the Rothbchilds.

>>5920093

Jews in charge of banking?
Sounds very untraditional to me.

>>5920096
They were made aristocrats as a reward for their services as court Jews.

>>5920062
I'm not even american

>It already is,

no its not actually.

>dumb ass.
declining to name calling isn't helping your point.

>And making it harder doesn't change the fact that's still liberalism,
yes it does actually, liberalism is also a product of the enlightenment and there is no monarchy in liberalism.

>it's just a question of what sort. You take away public education, your system is still a variant of liberalism.

this is incorrect.

>>5920074
>Did you actually read
yes
>>5920076
no
>>5920083
you can say it as much as you want it doesn't make it true.

The economic system doesn't matter, all that matters is crushing the weak and dominating the masses.

>>5920115
>yes it does actually, liberalism is also a product of the enlightenment and there is no monarchy in liberalism.
There certainly can be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism
Dumb ass.

>>5920131
nope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy
dumb ass

>>5920014
>More like American cryptolibertarian STEM fag thinks he's duke.
So like all reactionaries, traditionalists, and, really, most shades of rightists?

>>5920102

Being 'made' an aristocrat means shit in the Evolian universe.
It might as well be rewarding a frog with the a badge of humanity.

>>5920135

Seems like it.
I've seen Evolafags turn libertarian.
They're now posting how unions are ruining those precious job creators their opportunities to invest while a few years ago it was all about riding the tiger in the Kali Yuga.

In other words, to get ad hominem, but to really get to what motivates them, they suffer from a superiority complex and any idea that helps them to hate "le dumb masses" or niggers is good.

>>5920148
That sounds right.

>>5920135
>liberalism (what Americans call libertarianism)
>right wing

It didn't. It just took thousands of years to codify it.

Or do you think we didn't have DNA until Watson and Crick found it?

>>5920148

To add to that.
They love hierarchy and will always defend a system that seeks inequality of some sort.
To them equality is inconceivable not because of any rational argument, but because that would imply they're equally worthless.

I know this is a personal attack, but reason is just thin crusty layer resting atop an emotional inferno.

As years progress, I have little patience discussing with dudes whose choice of ideology is symptomatic of something more annoying than any traditionalist tome.

>>5920176
Why would anyone want equality? For one, some people are better than others. Secondly, equality precludes me from being on top. Why would I settle for equality?

>>5920184

In tribes, the original human condition, there was no structural inequality.

Perhaps alpha male god tier.
But we all know we wouldn't be that dude.

>mfw I just realized civilization is an autist's conspiracy against ripped dudes

>>5920199
>there was no structural inequality.
What about the patriarch who dominated the submissive majority?

>>5920202

It's not structural.
Leadership in tribes was far more the case of collective agreement, it was informal. A matter of charisma mostly.

>>5920134
Enlightened absolutism is liberal monarchy inspired by the Enlightenment, so to say monarchy is incompatible with liberalism is absurd.

>>5920217
It was passive agreement because the patriarch was the strongest and most respected. That is where our monarchs came from.

>>5919833
>Evolakid
>Preaches that Monarchy is a legitimately good system
You guys are simply romanticizing with the aesthetic of tradition. not tradition itself. You wouldn't want to live a day in a monarchy.

>>5920231

In a sense it is.
But it wasn't hereditary.

"In sleep we dream of only two forms of government--anarchy & monarchy. Primordial root consciousness understands no politics & never plays fair. A democratic dream? a socialist dream? Impossible.
Whether my REMs bring verdical near-prophetic visions or mere Viennese wish-fulfillment, only kings & wild people populate my night. Monads & nomads."
- Hakim Bey

>>5920240
No, it was based on strength.

>>5920237
But I do live in a monarchy...

>>5920115
>there is no monarchy in liberalism.

Locke supported constitutional monarchy

>>5920244

Not solely.
Being the best hunter for example has little to do with Zyzz tier body structure.

>>5920184
>1754 + 260
>still conflating natural and moral inequality

>>5920258
I said strength, something hunting and fighting require.

>>5920264
Morality is subjective and a spook.

>>5920269
I'm referencing rousseau, dumbass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Inequality

>>5920258

Also, let's not reduce tribal life to economic activity solely.
The sickest shaman could probably accumulate some prestige over the years that made him tower above any alpha.

>>5920158
I can't find a frog sad enough for the soul of some little pecker who doesn't know the diff between Organic vs. Mechanic

>>5920278
Rousseau was an idiot.

>>5919988
>the aristocracy would be reserved for
>engineering degrees etc
Evola himself quit a engineering degree because it wouldn't be an aristocrat thing to do, you're retarded and since you're apparently argentinian you're not even
>white

>>5920280
Why not, that`s what the tribes actually do.

>>5920301
Cogent argument, anon. Since you aren't even familiar with his definitions of natural vs moral inequality I doubt you've even read his discourses

>>5920280

>the autist's great escape and rise above is only possible by going backwards in time, bring humanity to his original condition again and become truly the wizard he is

>>5920332
Why would I, his ideas are unfalsifiable and nonsensical. I'm not going to waste my time reading him prattling on about it.

there is no human nature you huge idealist pile of shit. Ideas are formed by material conditions and not the other way around

>>5920357

>thinks dialectics work for dross

yes, that's why it's impossible to conceive of immaterial ideas like infinity.

oh wait, yes you kan.

>>5920237
But there are plenty of nice monarchies in the world of all different stripes

>>5920380
"All different stripes"? There are like 2 absolute monarchies left in the world. Every single other one is constitutional and the leader is a figurehead

>>5920367
Karl Popper already demolished the idea of dialectics. Get with the times.

>>5920406

>dialectics is bad because it doesn't give us Jews all the power in the world

Yeah real legit critique.

>>5920415
>>>/pol/

>>5920406

the only thing Sir Karl demolished was his credibility

>>5920406
>caring about something a wittgeinstein-sucker said
fucking positivists

>>5920419
>waah I don't like science because it hurts muh feels
>>5920420
>Popper
>positivist
You are literally retarded

>>5920423

>falsificationism = science

>>5920423
>Kritizismus isn't a fancy word for positivism
yeah right

>>5920406

>guise guise I know how le science works, it's basically if you can say "shit can be false", there I did it, authoritarianism beat it

>>5920423
>Popper
>not a positivist
u wat

>>5920431
>>5920433
>>5920462
Spot the literature majors. Why is it that for all your pseudo-intellectualism you can't understand simple scientific concepts??

>>5920472
He was opposed to positivism.

>capitalism is basically human nature in system format
Do you even know what you're talking about?

Capitalism is unsustainable, as major corporations are obligated to ignore systemic risks.

>>5920494
Capitalism is unsustainable due to the prospect of post-scarcity and nothing else.

>>5919858
>>5919852
Jesus it doesn't matter
Humans have a genetic predisposition both towards altruism and selfishness, the point is to build a society where altruism is priveleged over selfishness and people behave altruistically because it is their genes and its how they are raised

The communist thesis is actually strengthened by the acknowledgement that socialisation is a big part of human behaviour

>>5919920
>this much bad history in on post

>>5920474

WHY IS IT YOU NON SMARTS CANT INTO STEM GOD TIER

>>5920474
i'm a physics major, but you don't have to be a STEM to know falsification hasn't been a lethal test for theory since 1960.

it's a nice rule of thumb for everyday fallacies (horoscopes etc) though. Not practical or very useful when it comes to how modern research actually works.

>>5920353
>I haven't read his ideas
>I know they're unfalsifiable

>>5920535
So modern science is mostly unfalsifiable garbage?
I guess philosophy is better after lol

>>5919920
>WWII and Stalinism = democracy is bad

Jesus shit, that's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. If anything, the events you mentioned are arguments for more democracy

>>5920537
You don't need to read directly from him to know them.
>>5920535
>i'm a physics major
That's why. Your field is based too much in speculation.

>>5920550
>I know the claims but haven't listened to the arguments behind them
>I have authority on them

>>5919796
human nature is fucking with other people and that's why it takes forever to get to anything

>>5920557
Why would I listen to him prattle on with feeble justifications for his nonsense. I don't listen to arguments for why god does or does not exist, so why should I listen to Rousseau who has just as unfalsifiable beliefs.

>>5920540
Falsification is a criterion for demarcation. If a theory cannot be falsified it is an unscientific one.

>>5920579
karl pls go

>>5920583
What an argument! Do you want fries with your Nobel Prize, Dr Anonymous?

>everyone in this thread the product of capitalist education system
>they're dumb as fuck

>>5920589
Thing is Karl popper doesn't make arguments, only ridiculous claims that even other analytic philosophers know are laughable.

>>5919920
>30 years war
>religious
>not monarchs using religion as casus belli to expand personal power

>>5920600
Sounds like you have something in common.

All human progress comes from autists. no you don't add anything with your stem degrees, a couple autist genius come along every couple decades and does the work of a million minds. But autists can't rule, so someone who can control the autists must lead.

Literally everyone else should just do what they are told and in their free time do what makes them happy.

Traditional monarchy is shit. We don't need and classes, just genius autists and their keepers, a small counsel of leaders who are all castrated men and everyone else is a pesant

>normative economics

HAHAHAJHAHAH

>>5920600
Did you read Wikipedia or something?

>>5920600
>Implying other analytic philosophers are not just jealous of Popper because he solved the problem of Induction.

>>5920593
>capitalist education system
>almost wholly public with exceptions (mainly religious schools)

>>5920600
>implying

>>5920303
>not/doing things because that's what an aristocrat would/n't do
That's not aristocratic, that's bourgeois as hell.

>>5920395
Are we counting only king-level abs. monarchies? I think there are more if you include independent ducal and county level states.

>>5920649
Does it matter? They're still a marginal, dying breed. Even Saudi Arabia is becoming more democratic

>>5920660
It does, if we include non-royal absolute monarchies I think the number jumps to like the double digits.

>>5920637
Private schools are far superior.

>>5920664

>>5920589

Dr Truman to you, plebe.

Your high school level knowledge about what qualifies as 'unscientific' would be funny if you weren't so obviously serious. Did the last 100 years of scientific theory not happen to you or are you just a biology student or something?

theories are adopted based on their success, not because they're the only theories not yet falsified. while the popperian approach works at a base level of critical thinking, it's not useful as a guideline for modern verification.

philosophy of science today is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to swallows, don't try to pretend otherwise. inducing probability, regardless of how crazy your idea might seem, is what actually got us to things like quantum science.

>>5920712
>sees itself is a democracy
>is democracy

>>5920721
Which area of Physics do you have a phd in?

>>5920721
Spoken like a true physics major. You truly are the rogues of modern science, and the lack of respect we all feel for you accompanies this.

Human nature in its purest form is Feudalism. I've never seen a more perfect display of human nature: assholes being assholes to other assholes. Nothing has changed, now we have more bureaucracy.

The modes of exchange are a bit more complex and layered. If you want my opinion, I think we've made huge strides in economics lately, with the digitized commodity Bitcoin, but in the last 2000 years we've made no progress whatsoever in morality, proving Malthus' theory that human economic progress is only checked by misery and vice.

>>5920723
My point is just that monarchies (which explicitly DO NOT label themselves "democratic") are pretty much dinosaurs, not that north korea is really a democracy.

>>5920691

Private schools exist for networking and to keep the plebs out, regardless of if they're smart enough or not. I went to a private school that's considered one of the best in the UK, getting in on a scholarship that doesn't exist anymore, and, in hindsight, it makes me wonder just how bad the standard school system is.

>>5920741
I exclusively went to Catholic schools, but everyone I know who went to state schools turned out to be retarded.

>>5920754

Seriously? Before I got into a private secondary school, I went to a catholic school, where the science teacher used to tell us that what we were learning was 'lies we needed to know' but in reality everything could be explained by the Bible. I got a detention, aged 9 years old, for asking for proof that she was right and the textbooks were wrong. It's what provoked my parents to send me to a private school. I fear for how I would have turned out were I a child now and didn't have the option of getting out of the state school system.

>>5920788
I'm not American. You people are just retarded.

>>5920788
I think it depends where you live, but it's also a gamble. I went to a poor, rural Midwestern school and my AP bio teacher pretty much just taught out of the textbook, didn't bring up religion. I have no idea what his views were. But I do dislike public schools for having little accountability, a lot of my teachers were lazy shits who were more interested in being friends with students than teachers.

>>5920796

This was in Manchester.

>>5920808
Then your teachers were just retarded. They sound like proddys tbh

>>5920839

Maybe but not even the religious education teacher, who was an actual catholic priest (or whatever they're called) was anywhere near as much of a zealot. We also never had to sing any hymns, listen to bible stories or say any prayers besides for the main one, which was a welcome change. Even as a child, it felt really excessive. Maybe a catholic secondary school would be better but, really, I don't even know what a good school would really entail. The whole system could do with a major overhaul.

>>5920839
typical wee huns fs

>>5920788
There are public catholic schools?

Marxism is human nature. Why can't these stupid counter-revolutionaries understand that? A post-communist society is a pipe dream.

Feudalism is human nature. Why can't these stupid bourgeois revolutionaries understand that? A post-feudal society is a pipe dream.

Primitive communism is human nature. Why can't these stupid farmers understand that? A post-gathering society is a pipe dream.

>>5920878
Capitalism is human nature. Why can't these stupid worker and peasant revolutionaries understand that? A post-capitalist society is a pipe dream.

>>5920896
thatsthejoke.jpg

>>5920878
>Primitive communism
source?

>>5920905
that it is a joke or not is unfalsifiable
thatsnotthejoke.jpg

>>5920867
We had liturgical singing, prayer, mass, and Bible stories. That is nothing like denying science, though.

>>5920878
Can you prove that we will evolve into a Marxist society? Could you define what a Marxist society would be?

>>5920148
You have that backwards a lot of traditionalists are former libertarians.

>>5920910
It's basic Marxism, Marx defines pre-agricultural societies as "primitive communism" because private property doesn't exist but it's "primitive" because the means of production are pretty much non-existent.

Since a lot of people seem to be missing the point, my post was just trying to show that people always think the current socio-economic system is "human nature" and eternal. Primitive communism is gone, feudalism is gone, Marxian communism is (effectively) gone, and some day capitalism will be replaced too. It's ridiculous to think that "this is really it" with capitalism and that its "human nature" (4 real this time guize) when it's only a few hundred years old.

>>5919971
This.

Basically there are hunter-gatherers who don't have enough resources to form large groups and then there are human groups which developed agriculture.
Then capitalism happens.

>>5919796
Hunter-gatherers, the alternative to capitalism, are way more violent than capitalism tho.

http://www.economist.com/node/10278703

>From the
!Kung in the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic and the aborigines in Australia, two-thirds of modern hunter-gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly 90% go to war at least once a year. War is a big word for dawn raids, skirmishes and lots of posturing, but death rates are high—usually around 25-30% of adult males die from homicide. The warfare death rate of 0.5% of the population per year that Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois calculates as typical of hunter-gatherer societies would equate to 2 billion people dying during the 20th century.

>>5919796
>So if capitalism is basically human nature in system format, why did it takes hunderds of thousands of years to get to it?
Because it isn't. /thread

>>5920919
You literally didn't get it

>>5921066
but richard dawkins came up with memes and now they go viral

>>5921055
Human nature changes because humans evolve.
Darwin > Marx.

>>5921082
Care to explain what biological evolutions led to the passage from feudalism to capitalism?

>>5921082
You think substantial genetic changes to the human species have occurred in the span of recorded history?

>>5921065
>Hunter-gatherers, the alternative to capitalism

What, that's the only alternative? Are you margaret thatcher?

Also, the violence you describe is just a bloodier version of the structural/imperialistic violence of capitalism

>>5921087
Decrease in the size of the brain associated with a decrease in aggressiveness.

Hypothetically.

See:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
>If Marx is so smart, why is he dead?
>Checkmate, atheists

>>5921093
>Also, the violence you describe is just a bloodier version of the structural/imperialistic violence of capitalism
>I cut my hand at work waaah capitalism is evil

>>5921082
Humans have been around <200,000 years, a blink of an eye in evolutionary time, and yet human nature has manifested itself and changed in radically different ways. Explain the sexual revolution, which happened in less than a century

>>5921090
Many of them yes.
Some populations are more capable of metabolising cow milk than others.
That's agriculture for you.

>>5921093
What alternative is there?

>Also, the violence you describe is just a bloodier version of the structural/imperialistic violence of capitalism
The violence of the hunter-gatherer tribes?
Yes, it's bloodier, that's exactly my point.
The reason we can live in cities is because we don't kill each other to that extent.

>>5921099
>I don't know what colonialism was
>I don't know what structural violence is

The Belgians killed 10+ million in the Congo, to pick just one example, more that the holocaust. Imperialist violence is/was inherent to the development of capitalism

>>5921096
Relevant quote on page 2:

>What may have caused the trend instead, they argue, is selection against aggression. In essence, we domesticated ourselves, according to Richard Wrangham, a primatologist at Harvard University and a leading proponent of this view.

>Some 30 animals have been domesticated, he notes, and in the process every one of them has lost brain volume—typically a 10 to 15 percent reduction compared with their wild progenitors. Domesticated animals also have more gracile builds, smaller teeth, flatter faces, a more striking range of coloration and hair types—and, in many breeds, floppy ears and curly tails. Except for those last two traits, the domesticated breeds sound a lot like us.

>“When you select against aggression, you get some surprising traits that come along with it,” Wrangham says. “My suspicion is that the easiest way for natural selection to reduce aggressiveness is to favor those individuals whose brains develop relatively slowly in relation to their bodies.” When fully grown, such an animal does not display as much aggression because it has a more juvenile brain, which tends to be less aggressive than that of an adult. “This is a very easy target for natural selection,” Wrangham argues, because it probably does not depend on numerous mutations but rather on the tweaking of one or two regulatory genes that determine the timing of a whole cascade of developmental events. For that reason, he says, “it happens consistently.” The result, he believes, is an adult possessing a suite of juvenile characteristics, including a very different temperament.

>So what breeding effect might have sent humans down the same path? Wrangham offers a blunt response: capital punishment. “Over the last 100,000 years,” he theorizes, “language became sufficiently sophisticated that when you had some bully who was a repeat offender, people got together and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about Joe.’ And they would make a calm, deliberate decision to kill Joe or expel him from the group—the functional equivalent of executing him.” Anthropological records on hunter-gatherers suggest that capital punishment has been a regular feature of our species, according to Wrangham. In two recent and well-documented studies of New Guinea groups following ancient tribal custom, the ultimate punishment appears to be meted out to at least 10 percent of the young men in each generation.

>“The story written in our bones is that we look more and more peaceful over the last 50,000 years,” Wrangham says.

>>5921117
Biological/genetic essentialism. You've been reading too much steven pinker

>>5921146
*determinism, sorry

>>5921065
>history develops as hunter gatherers, then agriculturalists, then capitalism
>making a very negligent distillation of hunter-gatherer peoples and their cultures
What do you call something worse than trash? Yikes.

>>5921110
The sexual revolution itself isn't really a change in human nature.
The big change is that Western women are now allowed to divorce the men they married and take their stuff.
Women have always wanted to mate with the best possible men, it's called hypergamy.
The sexual revolution was simply liberating the constraints of religion, culture on female nature.
You'll note that those who practice the sexual revolution are contracepting themselves out of existence.
That's why religions exist, a group which does not promote reproduction will get wiped out.

>>5921157
>Women have always wanted to mate with the best possible men, it's called hypergamy.

>>5921146
Humans are animals, they are biologically determined.

>>5921153
>history develops as hunter gatherers, then agriculturalists, then capitalism
All the people who practice agriculture now are descendants from hunter-gatherers.
There are also hunter-gatherers which descend from farmers, but they don't last long, do they?

>making a very negligent distillation of hunter-gatherer peoples and their cultures
I'm just comparing the violence rates of hunter-gatherers and humans which developed agriculture and concluding that you need to develop agriculture to reach sufficient densities of population to have cities and all the technology that comes with them.

>>5921166
>Humans are animals
>Ergo, all social phenomena can be explained biologically

>>5921181
>Ergo, all social phenomena can be explained biologically
There's no other science that deals with animals.

>>5921162
WAKE UP SHEEPLE ITS THE FLUORIDE IN THE WATER AND CHEMTRAILS THAT ARE CAUSING FERTILITY RATES TO DECLINE
OBAMA=FEMINIST=ILLUMINATI=NWO=POPULATION REDUCTION=HYPERGAMY

>>5921189
Contraception causes the fertility rates to decline.
Feminists are just a mistake of evolution and will be wiped out by the next wave of humans who know better.

>>5921189
"Muh female hypergamy" and similar concepts are pure r/theredpill

>>5921157
>The big change is that Western women are now allowed to divorce the men they married and take their stuff

this 'now' lasts like forever and way before the sexual revolution

it actually significantly changed later when 'prenups', cohabitation and men who take woman's stuff on divorce (it's the poorer side who is the predator there) got significantly more prominent

>>5921203
>>5921203
feminists wipe themselves out
even betas reproduce lol

>>5921166
There are at least a few more steps between "agricultural revolution" and "capitalism".

The comparison of violence is off to begin with as it's almost a category error. For example, hunter-gatherers tend to have ceremonial wars between groups, in which 'glory' is attained through bravery and sometimes violence, but the goals of such conflicts are to show bravado and not to kill, whereas agriculturalists have territorial violence that are often wars of domination or expulsion at best, genocidal extinction at worst.

>>5921186
DAE sociology and psychology are not science? Le stem master race xD

>>5921205
>this 'now' lasts like forever and way before the sexual revolution
No.
There's now no social consequences to switching between men or not even getting married.

>>5921223
>The comparison of violence is off to begin with
Read the paper:
http://www.economist.com/node/10278703
>genocidal extinction at worst.
Nothing comparable to 25-30% of the men of a generation.
Wars are efficient and nowadays they are professional.
Collectivism means everyone is at war.

>>5921162
What's wrong with that statement exactly?

>>5921238
Indeed.
Human ecology is the scientific version of sociology and psychology can be scientific if it's grounded in biology (for example using brain scans, because brain scans are biological measurements).

>>5921248
Wars are the opposite of professional. In WW2 we sent every pleb who could hold a rifle out to kill each other. In the past soldiering was a livelihood where you trained from childhood.

>>5921251
Explaining every social phenomenon as a product of female hypergamy/mating patterns is /pol/-tier bullshit

>>5921260
>In WW2 we sent every pleb who could hold a rifle out to kill each other.
No, you had officers and other politicians overseeing everything.
Those who sent the most soldiers to their death were collectivists, basically wannabe hunter-gatherers.

>>5921267
>sexual revolution
>every social phenomenon
>not directly related to hypergamy

>>5921274
If the sexual revolution was caused by female hypergamy, why were men allowed to be equally promiscuous? And why did it happen at the same time that birthrates dropped?

>>5919861

worst bullshit I've seen in this thread. chiefdom goes back to the state of nature and more complex hierarchy is built upon it soon after

>>5921287
>If the sexual revolution was caused by female hypergamy, why were men allowed to be equally promiscuous?
Men were always allowed to be promiscuous. They were just too busy dying at war or on the job.

Simply some political agitators made it acceptable not to teach your daughters religion and thus women were freed from the monogamous obligations.
Men thought getting rid of religion and all those social obligations would make it easier to get laid but all religion did was guarantee most men a wife.
So men lost the obligation to have a job and take care of a family while women gained the freedom to fuck whoever (the most attractive guys).

>>5921297
The less people in a tribe, the less difference in power and resources between the chief and subordinates.
That's why libertarians want to reduce the size of governments.

>>5921297
Read "Society Against the State" and prepare to rethink all you think you know

>>5920563
u-underrated post
>when bar philosophy nails it.

>>5921324
>men always allowed to be promiscuous
>Infidelity considered a mortal sin for hundreds of years

>>5920721
>This nigga into Tesla

>>5921333
Murder was also a mortal sin, it didn't prevent wars.
Religion is a lie for women, that's it's only purpose.

>>5921339
lol

The biological determinism and redpill misogyny is strong in this thread

>>5921339
>Something happens
>It must be allowed by society

The point is, infidelity and promiscuousness were actively discouraged for both men and women.
Now we have promiscuousness actively encouraged by our own culture.

ITT: defs. of human nature that are no different than animal nature seen through the lens of the social compact.

>>5921355
>The point is, infidelity and promiscuousness were actively discouraged for both men and women.
Maybe so.
Mostly trying to force men into marriage so that they'd contribute to society.
I think that's something that fluctuated more or less according to the political needs.
For example if you need a lot of men to die at war, you will relax the standards of promiscuity for the remaining men so that they can take give children (future soldiers) to the surplus women.

>Now we have promiscuousness actively encouraged by our own culture.
Yes but it's easier for women than men.
It won't last anyway as more fertile societies will take our ecological niche.

>>5921326

>muh read "x" because I can't debate you on my own

yeah, I can do the same thing, read "Human Evolution and the Origins of Hierarchies: The State of Nature" by Benoît Dubreuil. One theory going against mainstream, academic view on power dynamics in state of nature is not going to convince me

Endless debating on whether prescriptive economic system X yields some sort of greater net benefit over prescriptive economic system Y, and we're not any better off for it. Things will always be changing as they have to. Humans have this awful conceit where they do things in an ad-hoc manner and try to apply it universally, rinse and repeat. Call me ignorant or a cynic, but this debate is boring and there are much better discussions to be had.

>tfw actually descended from multiple branches of European nobility but don't know how to be a worthy aristocrat

Help me Evola!

>>5919796
>dat pic

Lol, and now list the accomplishments of capitalism.

>>5922143
So, the ends justify the means?

>>5919796
Because it took that long to transition from animals to humans.

>>5922145
None of those things in the pic were ever necessary on or integral to the path to capitalism.
They're anecdotes.

>>5922147
>the path of capitalism
You're talking about something we humans are pretty much proven to be unable to comprehend. Capital works in mysterious ways, sometimes liberating people from aeons of oppression, sometimes sustaining a massacre over the course of decades so we can have cheap insulation in our laptops and handheld devices.

>>5922160
>proven
Lol ok.

>humans sometimes do bad things to humans
No shit.

>>5922169
Oh alright, you're some sort of capitalist messiah who will make our god's sacred path comprehensiboe at last? Great, but unless that has already made you super rich, I'll be reluctant to follow you.

And isn't it interesting how when something horrible happens within global capitalism, like the aforementioned carnage in Congo, people like you will say, it's just bad people being bad, but when socialist experiments end up killing people, it's proof that any such experiment is completely insane and murderous?

>>5922183
>The congo
>People

Lmao

>>5922160
>Capital works in mysterious ways,
Maybe to retards. I guarantee that anyone who has read The Wealth of Nations and Capital does not agree with that statement.

>>5922183
Capitalism isn't hard to get at all.

You earn stuff, you keep it. It's that simple.

>it's proof that any such experiment is completely insane and murderous?
The point is that communism/socialism has a much higher and much more spectacular failure rate of virtually 100%.

Also, the Congo was the playground of a single man, not an economic system.

>>5922194
Oh really. So, again, are you super rich?
>>5922195
I was talking about the current conflict, the one that gets you cheap insulation for your apple shit. Are you even paying attention?
And no, if weigh the losses and gains, communismprobably didn't kill more people on the path to their countries becoming industrialized modern societies than the 'normal' capitalist developments did. As I said, it's just that we, the inhabitants of capitalist societies, have learned not to blame any of that on the system.

>>5922204
Okay but black people are never going to do anything important and taking their resources is good. Find an actual example.

>>5922204
>again
This is literally the first time I've posted in this thread. Just stopping by to say you're an idiot. No, capital does NOT work in 'mysterious ways'. You can effectively 'track' the impact a transformation of productive capital to unproductive capital(opportunity costs) or a general mass encroachment of unproductive capitalist's wages on the wages of the productive capitalists (and this is why America's east coast is going to be in some trouble soon)

>>5922204
>I was talking about the current conflict
The basics of capitalism are dead easy.
It doesn't take a "capitalist messiah" to understand as you said here: >>5922183

>communism probably didn't kill more people on the path to their countries becoming industrialized modern societies than the 'normal' capitalist developments did.
Communism did little but kill, impoverish, starve, ... people before inevitably failing.

Meanwhile capitalism has thrived ever since it was created.

>>5922212
Oh, capitalism is okay because it happens to only kill people you dont care about, right now.
>>5922213
True, but capital works faster than a human mind can think (that's why firms are competing to put serverstacks one or two meters closer to the Stock Exchange), so all changes that occur can hardly ever be fully anticipated, only be evaluted in hindsight.
>>5922215
Communism lifted two of the largest and most populous countries on the planet from underdeveloped backwaters to global players. Total failure. Now look at places like India and Mexico, which had similar starting points in the last century, and tell me that their transition to developed countries has been more smooth and less violent. Oh wait, they're hardly even developed countries right now...I'll be back with better examples once I find them.

>>5922229
>Communism lifted two of the largest and most populous countries on the planet from underdeveloped backwaters to global players.
They only became players by virtue of their sheer numbers.

Millions had to die for those two countries to actually build very basic infrastructure and feed the survivors.

The only 'good' thing about communism in Russia and China was the fact that it acted as a unifier. Which in turn made the massacres possible.

>Now look at places like India and Mexico
They're growing fast but are having to deal with corruption.

Now show me a single successful communist example.

>>5922229
>capital works faster than a human mind can think
But the direction it goes in is what's important. Do you think the industry built around the stock exchange is productive? No, of course not. Technically, it can help raise the rate of the accumulation of capital, but instead of direct, private investing, the competition of the stocks on the marketplace do nothing to input value into the forward progress of mankind. Ergo, when some capital that could have been seed invested, loaned to productive laborers, etc. goes to a hedge fund manager, we are literally taking an opportunity cost there, whatever the rate of profit he would make on lending it to productive laborers AND whatever rate of profit the productive laborers would make. As far as you're concerned, the hedge fund manager's return on capital is meaningless because he's trying to reach escape velocity making money with more money: something only banks, who input actual value to society, should be doing.

>>5922240
It's all a question of how you define success. If a system being successful means it retains its inner nature, then yes, communism has invariably failed. If success means getting some economic development going, raising the standerd of living, education, production, medicine and all that, communism is about on par with capitalism. Just think about it: a country that was half burned to the ground by the nazis and used to be viewed as a babaric asian steppe by western europeans was also the first to put a man in space.
And numbers don't really factor in this, as Nigeria and Indonesia are also upsettingly populous, but hardly dominating any markets.

>>5922245
Read J R

>>5922258
The Finance industry is inherently unproductive. I'm not becoming indoctrinated into anyone's bullshit.

>>5922245
Okay, now we've gone from comparing capitalism to non-capitalism to comparing different regulatory regimes within capitalism, which I don't find nearly as interesting.
All I'm really gonna say is, would banks even be able to do that with the same rate of accumulation? Casino Capitalism doesn't strike me as a conspiracy, but as a 'natural' development out of the dynamics of global captalism.

>>5922229
>Oh, capitalism is okay because it happens to only kill people you dont care about, right now.

Again, pick a modern example of actual people. I'm not going to talk at length on this because it won't change your mind and will just derail the thread but Africans haven't done anything with nor even know what to do with their resources for the history of the planet. We won. We did it. There is absolutely no reason to fuck around trying to elevate a bunch of savages who failed to raise themselves meaningfully in the same span of time (or a greater span of time if you want to go with "out of africa"). Taking their shit is exactly what we should do, before China, who does not give a fuck about what is "racist". The cognitive dissonance employed in arguing for why anyone should give a fuck about niggers is atrocious.

>>5922268
Why do you even bring race into this, are you really that obsessed with penises?

All I was going to do was point out that capitalism is definitely still complicit in mass murder. Saying that murder is alright if the victims are black doesn't change the validity of my argument.

>>5919796
contingencies, my man

>>5922256
I can seem successful too if I bankrupt myself buying a fancy car.
Doesn't mean I actually am successful.

>>5922265
J R is a satire of business in which an eleven year old boy starts a paper empire messing with hedge funds and preferred to common stock. Despite being the titular character J R takes a back seat to the rest of the novel which involves the problems of various corporations and the federal government being in bed with the public school system. It was written by the liberal arts son if an old school business man. Calm the fuck down.

nick

land

nick

land

nick

land

*transforms into a cloud of vapour and disappears*

>>5922278
Yeah...and russia and china have totally bankrupted themselves.
Okay, Russia really did get in trouble when they got into a messy fight in Afghanistan, something no reasonaable capitalist country would do.

>>5922267
>All I'm really gonna say is, would banks even be able to do that with the same rate of accumulation?
Of course not, and they would most likely raise money by loaning to those who input value to society, but most post-industrial institutions input no value whatsoever. Then what are we proselytizing other nations for if this regime does not even correctly lead itself?

I am not saying capitalism is infallible, but perhaps the progression of human society as a whole has less to do with how power is consolidated and more to do with how this power is utilized.

>>5922285
>Yeah...and russia and china have totally bankrupted themselves.
Russia certainly did.

And China has merely been communist in name for a long time now.

>>5922274
>LOL DICKS
>We're all just people tho xD

You are the one who mentioned the congo. Their shit is being rightfully taken because they have done nothing for 200,000 years and would continue to do nothing anyway. You know this, too. You're just avoiding processing my point because you have been trained to regurgitate this retarded "lol ur obsessed stop caring about anything even though I care about this a lot haha" attitude. You are intellectually repulsive.

>>5922283

le dork enlightnement

>>5922279
Ah interesting. I'll look into it, then.

When you recommend something, give a short descriptor like that so people know what you're talking about.

>>5922285
>Russia really did get in trouble when they got into a messy fight in Afghanistan, something no reasonaable capitalist country would do.
Have you ever heard of the Vietnam war?
Or Gulf War II?

>>5922290
epic leftist memes /b/ro =)

>>5922286
The thing you're sort of missing is that capital, as an abstract nonentity, is pretty damn good at forcing people's hands. Sovereignty, as in, the opportunity to determine how the power is utilized, only comes into play in times of massive crisis, and usually doesn't take the form of reasonable measures that make life a little less harsh for everyone, but instead usually does some mass-murdery shit.

>>5922297

>not saying dankest maymay

reactionaries truly are shitty nowadays

>>5922285
People in Russia were lining up around the block for bread long before Afghanistan bro.
And if you can't survive a military campaign on your own border you're not a very successful country.

>>5922299
I'm just commenting on how the sovereign rulers have utilized the power over time. Here we are, in the 21st century and we have an entire industry based on financial SERVICES, service being the Smithian indicator of unproductive labor.

Yes, money and politics have been a revolving wheel ever since the factory owners had an influence on the laws passed in Britain. But we should be grateful they are letting us peons see the pyramidal structure of power on TV, just watch the mindless drones on CSpan enact laws for the capitalists, mindless drones of the bankers, who, in turn, are mindless drones of greed, consumed by the avaricious, fastidious work of finance. And these people have political connections. And the wheel turns and turns, fueled by unproductivity. No one said a wheel had to be productive to turn though, circulatory capital can still circulate in unproductive labor, but that capital can never again become productive after having been deposited into that infernal wheel.

>>5922318
Banks allow people to buy houses and cars.
Financers allow companies to grow.

These are good things.

>>5922327
Yes when they loan to productive laborers, these people are facilitating a service that would increase the amount of trade and capital in an economy that would otherwise have been smaller if these people had not had access to banking, and thus, the concept of fractional reserves helps propel industry forward. However, banks are still inherently unproductive institutions. What kind of finished goods are they producing? What kind of money have they circulated over time?

As time has progressed, these institutions lessen the value of the very money they make incremental profits off of, and they make incremental profits BY devaluing the money, BY devaluing the interest rates, BY devaluing the exchange of lesser people. Banks are inherently unproductive. They do provide a valuable service, however.

>>5922347
>However, banks are still inherently unproductive institutions.
>What kind of finished goods are they producing?

They allow others to produce finished goods.
How is that not productive?

>>5922351
Because they are not the owners of the capital used to produce those goods.

>>5922360
I should add, they are the owners of a loan, with an implied interest rate. But the value of the money is contingent on loans in the first place, especially currency not backed by any real commodity.

>>5919796
Capitalism is not human nature in system format, and anyone who believe that it is, is ideologically blinded.

It's pretty clear for anyone with a brain that although capitalism is an effective economic system, it is also an ideology, the ideology of capital accumulation, investment and consumption.

>>5922360
>Because they are not the owners of the capital used to produce those goods.
A worker also often doesn't own the tools he uses.

>>5922383
It doesn't matter, either way his labor is productive since it produces things.

>>5922390
Banks allow others to produce finished goods. That's productive.

>>5922393
Banks also allow others to make profit off of their own return on capital with CDOs or Hedge funds. That's unproductive.

>>5922402
If there weren't any profit in financing, people wouldn't do it.

If banks didn't offer interest, people wouldn't place their money in a bank account.

>>5922408
Yeah, which is obviously why r is so much greater than g at this point. Thanks, banks, for focusing so much on making money with more money that the average laborer doesn't get to even make a profit by being productive, the unproductive wages making a very rapid encroachment indeed upon the productive laborer's wages.

>>5922415
>the average laborer doesn't get to even make a profit by being productive
What the fuck are you saying here?

>>5922420
That the wages of productive workers are continually shrinking in proportion to the wages of unproductive workers over time.

>>5922426
>That the wages of productive workers are continually shrinking in proportion to the wages of unproductive workers over time.

Not him, but you need to leave the labor theory of value in the 18th century where it belongs.

>>5922426
Even if it's true, to you "shrinking wages" means laborers are "not making a profit"?

It's obvious you're just talking shit to sound as dramatic as possible, bye bye.

>>5922433
How is it any different today? Do we still eat food? Yeah, I guess we do. Technology can be productive (Bitcoin mining) or unproductive (stock exchange regression analysis coding). What do you know, still applies.

>>5922439
Technically the owners of the machinery of farms, or the owners of companies that produce goods are productive workers, and they make a net profit from which they derive their subsistence. So yes, productive workers make profits.

>>5922454
>Technically the owners of the machinery of farms, or the owners of companies that produce goods are productive workers
Just like bankers are technically productive workers.
And you were talking about "the average laborer", obviously meaning wage laborers and not "owners".

You're talking out of your ass.

>>5922442
>How is it any different today?

Because value is completely subjective. If the labor theory of value made ANY sense at all(and it does not, in any circumstance), the Mona Lisa would literally only be worth the hours Da Vinci used to paint it, adjusted for inflation.

Nevermind the cultural value, or it's aesthetic value. None of that matters, only the crass materialism of a defunct Marxism matters.

>>5922462
It doesn't matter anyway, the amount of wage laborers always being much more than the amount of owners.

Bankers are not productive workers. What do they produce?

>/lit/
>Literature

I miss /pol/.

>>5919796

Who has claimed this other than 18th century French materialists and their epigones? It's a pre-Darwinian idea, and it is not seriously asserted by anyone other than rampant ideologues.

The famed 'human nature' does not exist independently of quite inhuman conditions -- conditions themselves being constantly changed by human activity. If human society happens to have a mutual plasticity with its environment, this should surprise nobody with a schoolboy's understanding of evolution. The fact that human beings as individuals possess both selfish and gregarious hereditary drives is no contradiction, and it is patently obvious that these instincts will express themselves differently in different conditions.

Anyone may see for himself that mankind has undergone a technological development from the most primitive toolmaking to modern industrial production. Who would dare deny that this complete transformation of the physical environment necessitates a transformation of social organization? -- institutions, laws, etc.

To the extent that capitalism is a form of social organization predicated upon a certain development of industry, it is merely tautological to say that it is the 'true' expression of 'human nature'. Savage tribalism and feudalism were also 'true' expressions of 'human nature' given a certain environment. The disagreement between the defenders and the detractors of capitalism is whether or not the current level of technological development yet necessitates capitalism, or whether or not a new form of social organization will be possible.

No worthwhile discussion of this question will be stimulated by the exchange of outdated phrases.

>>5922476
The most important pieces of work in economics have also been milestones in literature.
>>5922472
This is not true, because my notion of the labor theory of value does not include art.

>>5922475
>Bankers are not productive workers. What do they produce?
If management is productive (like you said), then bankers are productive.

If you follow a narrower definition ("only if you actually make something") then neither is productive.

This is a pointless discussion.

You still equated "shrinking wages" with "wage laborers are not making a profit".
Which is a dumb thing to say on many levels.

>>5922489
>This is not true, because my notion of the labor theory of value does not include art.

Of course it doesn't, because as I said, Marxism and the LTV are purely materialistic, and are not capable of valuing things which are not pure material.

>>5922500
Agreed.

>>5922472
Nice strawmanning of marxist theory right there. Just tell me, how many of Marx' economic writings have you read?
Also
>value is completely subjective
Only if your own life circumstances, those of all other potential buyers and sellers, the costs of production, the the availability of resources, the stability of the economic and political frame you're acting in are all just things happening in your head.

>>5922496
But management directs the capital they receive, the materials and machinery, and uses it to make goods.

Bankers own none of these things,

>>5922489
>The most important pieces of work in economics have also been milestones in literature.

Granted, but how does the resurrection of this particular nonsense as something contemporaneously relevant stimulate the discussion of the worthwhile elements of 18th and 19th century economic literature? 'Human nature' of this kind is a dead dog.

>>5922507
>Nice strawmanning of marxist theory right there.

I did no such thing. What is your objection? Is the LTV and Marxism not materialistic? Can you value cultural items and aesthetics with the LTV? No you can't. So sorry, no strawmen were committed, unfortunately.

>>5922327
>Banks allow people to buy houses and cars.
>Financers allow companies to grow.

>These are good things.

In a perfect world, i.e. a world solely populated by knowledgeable and morally respectful people, you are right. But in a such case, every system could work and give great results

Now look for Money Debt on youtube then you have to make a few changes in your sentences to fix it which give

>Banks allow people to buy houses and cars when they wish.
>Financers require companies to grow.

>These are almost morally reprehensible things.

>>5922518
>Can you value cultural items and aesthetics with the LTV?
Yeah, they're part of the infinite possibilities of use value, which is different from exchange value, which is different from price.

>>5922541
>Yeah, they're part of the infinite possibilities of use value, which is different from exchange value, which is different from price.

Indeed it is, but the actual act of giving value and thus pricing in LTV, uses production cost and the surplus value taken from that as it's justification.

I do not see how this can be applied to something metaphysical as a cultural artifact's evaluation.

>>5922529
>But in a such case, every system could work and give great results
And in the real world, capitalism works pretty damn well. Unlike communism.

>>5922518
If you had read _Capital_, you would know that Marx does precisely this in Volume II and again in Volume III. The monetary valuation of a commodity is the *transformed* labour valuation, but they are not identical.

Commodities that are not forced to their minimum prices of production by competition can absorb a greater economic (monetary) value than would be the merit of their indirect labour-value, but this is no contradiction. As no *new* labour-value is created by the increased subjective value, the total labour-value remains the same.

What is insistently referred to as the 'subjective' theory of value is nothing more than a sophist's retelling of the well-known laws of supply and demand. Marx is not denying the supposed 'subjective' value of commodities.

>>5922509
>I make up my own definitions 'productive' so I can start and win useless arguments

>>5922556
>As no *new* labour-value is created by the increased subjective value, the total labour-value remains the same.

Which is what I said. The "transformed" labor valuation is, as he admits, meaningless, because the "real" value, is only that which is made through productive labor.

I never said he denied it outright, he simply thought it was redundant, because what was really important to him was to prove his point about surplus value.

>>5922555
>hue hue hue, i'm a right wing troll and i don't even try to hide anymore

>works pretty damn well
would you care to give an explanation instead of being a pretentious little faggot?

Also i'm kind in the middle when it comes to politics so i'd like to avoid the untimely reference and false dichotomy with communism...

>>5922552
>but the actual act of giving value and thus pricing in LTV
Two different things m8, the assignment of exchange value rather sets the frame for the price of an ordinary commodity, which I daresay the mona lisa also isn't, the price itself is determined by supply and demand within that frame, thus it usually is higher or lower than the actual exchange value.
And the cultural evalutation can be as metaphysical as you wish, from an economic standpoint it's just one of the infinite reason someone would want to jave a thing, its use value.

>>5922576
Then I have misunderstood your post, and feel doubly silly for having interjected into a conversation without fully researching it You have my sincerest apology.

>>5922584
lel, no worries

>>5922582
>Two different things m8

You say that now, but the valuation of something in a capitalist system comes in the form of a price, but even a capitalist system cannot explain the absurd pricing of a painting that took 1 hour to make, but sold for 50 million dollars, except in the form of pure subjective will.

>>5922600
Again, the pure subjective will is accounted for in the equation, as use value. What's so hard to get about that? Literally no one on earth has any problem explaining why the Mona Lisa is that important, least of all marxists.

>>5922611
>important
expensive, I mean.

>>5922472
>Because value is completely subjective. If the labor theory of value made ANY sense at all(and it does not, in any circumstance), the Mona Lisa would literally only be worth the hours Da Vinci used to paint it, adjusted for inflation.
>Nevermind the cultural value, or it's aesthetic value. None of that matters, only the crass materialism of a defunct Marxism matters.

>>5922590

Well, fuck me sideways, that seems to be exactly what you were saying.

The labour-valuation is used to explain the origin of exchangeable value. It does not set limitations on the subjective nature of supply and demand, and those things are explained in _Capital_. Marx is far from a 'crass materialist' in that regard, and if memory serves, he criticized Proudhon and others precisely on that point, viz. the notion of the labour-valuation as the only 'morally legitimate' consideration for society.

You still have my apology, of course, if I have somehow misunderstood you twice. However, if you are not condemning Marx's theory for inadequately explaining supply and demand, I have not idea what you *are* trying to say.

Fuck captcha.

>>5922611
It's not that I don't get it, and it's not that Marx didn't get it either, it's just that the "use value" as you call it, is completely immaterial to Marxism.

Marx didn't have a problem explaining why religion exists either, but that doesn't mean that the only sole purpose and explanation for religion's existence can be explained with dialectical materialism.

Unfalsifiable theories clearly have a tendency to manage to explain everything, while leaving no way to falsify it, thus becoming dogmatic.

>>5922623
>the use value is completely immaterial to marxism
How so? Things without use value don't even get to become commodities. You're talking out of your ass.
Or is criticism that Marx didn't make a catalog of use values, explaining in detail why people want to have this or that thing? Why would that be necessary for a critique of the political economy?

>>5922617
>However, if you are not condemning Marx's theory for inadequately explaining supply and demand, I have not idea what you *are* trying to say.

No, I think he understood supply and demand very well. I just think he meant it to be a lesser form of valuation than productive labor, since he was a materialist.

>>5922623
>It's not that I don't get it, and it's not that Marx didn't get it either, it's just that the "use value" as you call it, is completely immaterial to Marxism.

No, it isn't. It's *required* if an object is to become a commodity. Without use-value, no exchange is possible, and hence no exchangeable value is possible. Use-value is what exchange is predicated upon.

>Marx didn't have a problem explaining why religion exists either, but that doesn't mean that the only sole purpose and explanation for religion's existence can be explained with dialectical materialism.

Any explanation that does not involve an appeal to something non-material would be included, so long as it is substantiated with the usual empirical evidence. You are very much straw-manning Marx' materialism.

>Unfalsifiable theories clearly have a tendency to manage to explain everything, while leaving no way to falsify it, thus becoming dogmatic.

Is empiricism unfalsifiable?

>>5922581
You need proof that capitalism works well?

>>5922645
>No, it isn't. It's *required* if an object is to become a commodity. Without use-value, no exchange is possible, and hence no exchangeable value is possible. Use-value is what exchange is predicated upon.

So what is the Mona Lisa's "use-value" then? Just the fact that people will it, to have value?

>Is empiricism unfalsifiable?

Empiricism isn't a theory. If you'd have said quantum mechanics or the theory of evolution, certainly they are falsifiable.

>>5922667
>So what is the Mona Lisa's "use-value" then? Just the fact that people will it, to have value?

Whatever the person fronting the dosh decides it's useful for. Whether he wants to look at it, burn it, or cut a hole in it and face fuck it matters nothing at all in the question of its subjective valuation.

You're not making a point.

>Empiricism isn't a theory. If you'd have said quantum mechanics or the theory of evolution, certainly they are falsifiable.

I thought you were referring to materialism, however, Marx' theories are perfectly falsifiable. What are you getting at, mate?

>>5922666
your evil trips say the contrary though

>>5922666
wow -- proof it is.

>>5922682
>Whatever the person fronting the dosh decides it's useful for.

So in other words, the use-value of a commodity, is irrelevant to the LTV? So the LTV is just pointless to begin with ?

I guess we agree then if that's the case.

>I thought you were referring to materialism, however, Marx' theories are perfectly falsifiable. What are you getting at, mate?

I was talking about Marxism, which claimed one upon a time, to be a perfectly scientific, empirically verified theory.

>>5922147

You do realize that capitalism came about through what we knew as mercantilism? Which wasn't just "le trade" but shameless conquest and conquering.
You do realize that hu, fagget?

>>5922698
>So in other words, the use-value of a commodity, is irrelevant to the LTV? So the LTV is just pointless to begin with ?

What are you on about? You've been told multiple times that the exchange-value of a commodity is predicated upon its having a use-value. Without a use, it would not be exchangeable and could not be a commodity. Use-value is essential.

Subjective value, supply-and-demand, does not change the labour-valuation. It does not follow from this that the labour-valuation has no point.

>>5922698
Not that guy, but are you retarded? No one ever claimed that use value was determined by labour.

>>5922703
Countries and warlords always comquered.
Traders traded.

>>5922755

In their competition with the aristocracy, kings of Europe favored merchants, which in turn killed them, literally.

>>5922755

Capitalism is deeply amoral yes thank you i think everyone knows that
However it is often used as a shield by people with bad intentions along with science and gods

>Traders traded.
because they chose to make stolen values their core business

I always felt like, because everyone needed to eat and have shelter, that the modes of exchange were a bit more complex due to this inherent need for private property.

>>5922797
More complex than, say, political power, that is. Political power being something that is necessary, but only once a person has been alienated from his true purpose. Economics arose as a discussion of the organization of resources, which tie in to a society's need for food, shelter, food, clothing, and nowadays, technology.

>>5922804
Two of those, food and shelter, are biological needs by the way. So to some degree, economics will always be about the Earth and the materials we use for our subsistence and maintenance.

>>5922771
>"kings favored traders over nobility"
Wat

>"traders killed kings"
Wat

>>5922774
>"traders stole"
Wat

>>5922911

You obviously know shit about Colbert and the French Revolution.

>>5922911
'911' yes you need help cause you can't even read properly.

>>5919819
WTF dude. Read some evolutionary psychology.

>>5919852
This is why we need to punish anyone who isn't.

>>5922979
>the Colbert example means kings favored traders over nobility
Wat

>>5923211
So tell me what I read wrong and how.

>>5920481
to neo-positivism, yeah. But he was really into Wittgenstein.

>>5920506
exactly