Doesn't Diversity Presume Inequality? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14997363
SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, But we're not bamboos or chimpanzees, we are humans.

Humans are mammals and mammals are generally social animals, even the solitary ones like jaguars or panthers are at least semi-social. Social animals tend to have social hierarchies.

SSDR wrote:You can't compare our species to some animals that do have social hierarchies.

Why not? It's a valid scientific inquiry. Humans have social hierarchies in every society on Earth, whether they are capitalist or not. For example, the Osu caste system of the Igbo people of Nigeria is hierarchical and hereditary. These hierarchical caste systems existed long before modern capitalism.

SSDR wrote:I don't follow ANY politician, philosopher, nor Marxist person such as Stalin. I may support or agree with some politicians or philosophers, but that doesn't mean I follow them.

I see. You make all of your own decisions, with no other human-like traits of association. Very interesting.

SSDR wrote:@Rancid, Wohhh, I don't have a problem. Who ever told you that is lying to you lol.

Is it possible that Rancid came up with this conclusion on his own, and didn't rely on information from someone else?
#14997364
@blackjack21, Just because a mammal species is sociable, doesn't mean that they HAVE to have social hierarchies. Social hierarchies are taught to babies via conditioning. Respecting elders, following capitalist social norms, and trying to be "cool" are examples of capitalist social hierarchies that are TAUGHT and conditioned. It is NOT natural for humans, and humans are unique mammals. Also, I am no follower of ANYONE.

I didn't make all of the decisions in my fucking life, but that's NOT MY FAULT. If I CHOOSE to allow others to have an impact on my destiny, that would make me a follower. But I didn't! People are in social hierarchies because they HAVE TO. If they choose to follow, or if they support it, then they are FOLLOWERS. If they don't support it, but still have to for various reasons, then they are not FOLLOWERS.

If a slave HAS to be a slave, and if they don't support it, then they are not followers to slavery even though they HAVE to be under it because of the oppressive system for example.
#14997401
SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, Just because a mammal species is sociable, doesn't mean that they HAVE to have social hierarchies.

Division of labor effectively mandates hierarchies and classes, even in socialist systems. That's part of why Marxism fails everywhere. Marx would classify a multi-million dollar a year CEO as proletariat, because the CEO sells his labor to an organization, but doesn't own it. Whereas, Weber would note that the CEO has an income similar to other upper class people. You can't have a modern society without specialization of labor, and you can't have specialization of labor without classes and hierarchies.

You can continue to persist in this delusion if it pleases you, but it will do you little good in securing a living wage.
#14997404
Image

You don't need social hierarchies in a primitive hunter-gatherer society. But when humanity becomes more civilised, a society will be more hierarchical as a natural consequence. The class system first emerged after the spread of farming, which allowed the rich to accumulate wealth. The racial caste system is often the result of brutal male-dominated migratory events (i.e. India, Britain). The Cushitic-like people who built Great Zimbabwe are believed to be the Lemba of Semitic origin. The genetic evidence revealed Yamnaya-like male-dominated gene flow from Semitic immigrants from the Levant who formed founding groups for the Lemba and they admixed with Bantu neighbors after settling in Southeastern Africa. The genetic studies have found no Semitic female contribution to the Lemba gene pool. 30% of Lemba Y chromosomes can be labeled of Bantu origin (Haplogroup E), and the majority (70%) of Semitic origin with Haplogroup J.

Background. Previous historical, anthropological and genetic data provided overwhelming support for the Semitic origins of the Lemba, a Bantu-speaking people in southern Africa.

Objective. To revisit the question concerning genetic affinities between the Lemba and Jews.

Methods. Y-chromosome variation was examined in two Lemba groups: one from South Africa (SA) and, for the first time, a group from Zimbabwe (Remba), to re-evaluate the previously reported Jewish link.

Results. A sample of 261 males (76 Lemba, 54 Remba, 43 Venda and 88 SA Jews) was initially analysed for 16 bi-allelic and 6 short tandem repeats (STRs) that resulted in the resolution of 102 STR haplotypes distributed across 13 haplogroups. The non-African component in the Lemba and Remba was estimated to be 73.7% and 79.6%, respectively. In addition, a subset of 91 individuals (35 Lemba, 24 Remba, 32 SA Jews) with haplogroup J were resolved further using 6 additional bi-allelic markers and 12 STRs to screen for the extended Cohen modal haplotype (CMH). Although 24 individuals (10 Lemba and 14 SA Jews) were identified as having the original CMH (six STRs), only one SA Jew harboured the extended CMH.

Conclusions. While it was not possible to trace unequivocally the origins of the non-African Y chromosomes in the Lemba and Remba, this study does not support the earlier claims of their Jewish genetic heritage.
S Afr Med J 2013;103(12 Suppl 1):1009-1013. DOI:10.7196/SAMJ.7297

http://www.samj.org.za/index.php/samj/a ... /7297/5714
#14997407
ThirdTerm wrote:Image

You don't need social hierarchies in a primitive hunter-gatherer society. But when humanity becomes more civilised, a society will be more hierarchical as a natural consequence. The class system first emerged after the spread of farming, which allowed the rich to accumulate wealth. The racial caste system is often the result of brutal male-dominated migratory events (i.e. India, Britain). The Cushitic-like people who built Great Zimbabwe are believed to be the Lemba of Semitic origin. The genetic evidence revealed Yamnaya-like male-dominated gene flow from Semitic immigrants from the Levant who formed founding groups for the Lemba and they admixed with Bantu neighbors after settling in Southeastern Africa. The genetic studies have found no Semitic female contribution to the Lemba gene pool. 30% of Lemba Y chromosomes can be labeled of Bantu origin (Haplogroup E), and the majority (70%) of Semitic origin with Haplogroup J.

You definitely need social hierarchies in a primitive hunger-gatherer society. How are you going to hunt sometimes large, dangerous animals with primitive weapons without set leadership? Case in point, the few humans who still hunt for their meat today (primarily Amazonian and some African tribes) have clear leaders with chiefdoms etc.

This is also shortchanging how social hierarchies tend to be formed up by cliques of girls with nothing to do and so-on; a task is not even necessary before the formation of hierarchies.
#14997421
Probably a tribal society is united under a chief or leader. But that is all they need to hunt and gather. There is no complex class system that a civilised society has. In terms of the wealth gap, a tribal society is almost egalitarian as the chief cannot accumulate wealth as much as today's American CEOs do. The world's wealthy elite has its origins in the first landowners to use oxen and horses. The ownership of land and animals does not exist in a primitive society.

Image

How wealth is distributed among households provides insight into the fundamental characters of societies and the opportunities they afford for social mobility1,2. However, economic inequality has been hard to study in ancient societies for which we do not have written records3,4, which adds to the challenge of placing current wealth disparities into a long-term perspective. Although various archaeological proxies for wealth, such as burial goods5,6 or exotic or expensive-to-manufacture goods in household assemblages7, have been proposed, the first is not clearly connected with households, and the second is confounded by abandonment mode and other factors. As a result, numerous questions remain concerning the growth of wealth disparities, including their connection to the development of domesticated plants and animals and to increases in sociopolitical scale8. Here we show that wealth disparities generally increased with the domestication of plants and animals and with increased sociopolitical scale, using Gini coefficients computed over the single consistent proxy of house-size distributions. However, unexpected differences in the responses of societies to these factors in North America and Mesoamerica, and in Eurasia, became evident after the end of the Neolithic period. We argue that the generally higher wealth disparities identified in post-Neolithic Eurasia were initially due to the greater availability of large mammals that could be domesticated, because they allowed more profitable agricultural extensification9, and also eventually led to the development of a mounted warrior elite able to expand polities (political units that cohere via identity, ability to mobilize resources, or governance) to sizes that were not possible in North America and Mesoamerica before the arrival of Europeans10,11. We anticipate that this analysis will stimulate other work to enlarge this sample to include societies in South America, Africa, South Asia and Oceania that were under-sampled or not included in this study.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24646
#14997425
SSDR wrote:@Rancid So you honestly fucking think that social hierarchies in humans always existed? And to you, it has nothing to do with capitalism nor the concept of money?

Hunter gatherers tended to favour genocide over slavery. Genocide is the ultimate social hierarchy. With slavery you nearly always have the opportunity and hence choice to kill yourself. The only reason hunter-gatherers tend not to engage in slavery is because its not practical. Societies normally get into slavery as soon it is practical. Its got nothing to do with money let alone, industrial capital. That is a filthy Marxist lie. It was WIGs (White Infidel Gentiles) that established the social norm that slavery is wrong and evil. Things have changed, now people of all races can take part in making the world a better place and Jews had the opportunity to reform and hollow out Judaism, importing the superior universalist moral values of European Gentiles.
#14997512
@blackjack21, No, the reason why many socialist countries failed to run was because THE PEOPLE IN THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT SOCIALISTS. You can't have a socialist society WITHOUT a SOCIALIST POPULACE. You can't have a capitalist, conservative, fascist, nor a reactionary population in a socialist economy because a socialist economy would lack the motives that those people who lack real consciousness need to motivate them to work.

Poland was a socialist country, but the people were not. The people were right wing, Catholic, family oriented people. Yugoslavia was a socialist country, but the people were not. The people were emotional, obnoxious, family oriented, sexist, materialist (they love expensive stuff lol), and religious nut jobs who didn't even understand what Tito was for (I don't support him, but shit he was better than any Yugo that I know of lol). Moslems used him to defend themselves against right wing Serbs and Croatians. This was why Yugoslavia broke up, because the people were not socialists! And the same with the Soviet Union. Yes socialism today in Russia is a popular ideology, but there are more anti socialists than socialists. Russia has neo-Nazis, pro American supporters, retards like Putin (of whom I really HATE), and religious conservatives. You cannot have a socialist population when all of those people exist within a socialist economy because they will ABUSE the socialist economy. And that is what happened in the USSR. And that is WHY it collapsed. Because the NON SOCIALIST PEOPLE of the USSR abused the socialist economy.
#14997600
SSDR wrote:blackjack21, No, the reason why many socialist countries failed to run was because THE PEOPLE IN THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT SOCIALISTS. You can't have a socialist society WITHOUT a SOCIALIST POPULACE. You can't have a capitalist, conservative, fascist, nor a reactionary population in a socialist economy because a socialist economy would lack the motives that those people who lack real consciousness need to motivate them to work.

Poland was a socialist country, but the people were not. The people were right wing, Catholic, family oriented people. Yugoslavia was a socialist country, but the people were not. The people were emotional, obnoxious, family oriented, sexist, materialist (they love expensive stuff lol), and religious nut jobs who didn't even understand what Tito was for (I don't support him, but shit he was better than any Yugo that I know of lol). Moslems used him to defend themselves against right wing Serbs and Croatians. This was why Yugoslavia broke up, because the people were not socialists! And the same with the Soviet Union. Yes socialism today in Russia is a popular ideology, but there are more anti socialists than socialists. Russia has neo-Nazis, pro American supporters, retards like Putin (of whom I really HATE), and religious conservatives. You cannot have a socialist population when all of those people exist within a socialist economy because they will ABUSE the socialist economy. And that is what happened in the USSR. And that is WHY it collapsed. Because the NON SOCIALIST PEOPLE of the USSR abused the socialist economy.


I know you addressed this to blackjack but I am curious about one or two implications of this.

You acknowledge that the people under socialist regimes were not socialist and claim that was the reason socialism couldn't work there. Okay but that begs these questions:

1. Why the hell was a socialist government imposed on them if it was neither wanted nor suitable? It seems like trying feed a dog with grass.

2. Where if anywhere can socialism work? What people in the world actually are socialist?

3. If there are no people in the world who actually are socialist then why all this noise about implementing socialism? Why even bother if no one wants it?
#14997617
To answer the question, legal egalitarianism does assume a certain amount of diversity on the part of the governed.

The idea is that people will treat each other unequally because of this diversity, unless social norms and laws are set up to prevent that.
#14997622
SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, No, the reason why many socialist countries failed to run was because THE PEOPLE IN THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT SOCIALISTS. You can't have a socialist society WITHOUT a SOCIALIST POPULACE. You can't have a capitalist, conservative, fascist, nor a reactionary population in a socialist economy because a socialist economy would lack the motives that those people who lack real consciousness need to motivate them to work.

Poland was a socialist country, but the people were not. The people were right wing, Catholic, family oriented people. Yugoslavia was a socialist country, but the people were not. The people were emotional, obnoxious, family oriented, sexist, materialist (they love expensive stuff lol), and religious nut jobs who didn't even understand what Tito was for (I don't support him, but shit he was better than any Yugo that I know of lol). Moslems used him to defend themselves against right wing Serbs and Croatians. This was why Yugoslavia broke up, because the people were not socialists! And the same with the Soviet Union. Yes socialism today in Russia is a popular ideology, but there are more anti socialists than socialists. Russia has neo-Nazis, pro American supporters, retards like Putin (of whom I really HATE), and religious conservatives. You cannot have a socialist population when all of those people exist within a socialist economy because they will ABUSE the socialist economy. And that is what happened in the USSR. And that is WHY it collapsed. Because the NON SOCIALIST PEOPLE of the USSR abused the socialist economy.

Strangely, I agree. Socialism will never work, because people generally aren't socialists. I don't know if you could segregate people who could be proven to be socialist and give them a micro-state like Singapore or something and they would run it just brilliantly. So far, however, the track record of supposedly socialist countries is a fraud, because as you have pointed out the people in those countries are not socialists.
#14997637
SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, No, the reason why many socialist countries failed to run was because THE PEOPLE IN THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT SOCIALISTS. You can't have a socialist society WITHOUT a SOCIALIST POPULACE. You can't have a capitalist, conservative, fascist, nor a reactionary population in a socialist economy because a socialist economy would lack the motives that those people who lack real consciousness need to motivate them to work.

Poland was a socialist country, but the people were not. The people were right wing, Catholic, family oriented people. Yugoslavia was a socialist country, but the people were not. The people were emotional, obnoxious, family oriented, sexist, materialist (they love expensive stuff lol), and religious nut jobs who didn't even understand what Tito was for (I don't support him, but shit he was better than any Yugo that I know of lol). Moslems used him to defend themselves against right wing Serbs and Croatians. This was why Yugoslavia broke up, because the people were not socialists! And the same with the Soviet Union. Yes socialism today in Russia is a popular ideology, but there are more anti socialists than socialists. Russia has neo-Nazis, pro American supporters, retards like Putin (of whom I really HATE), and religious conservatives. You cannot have a socialist population when all of those people exist within a socialist economy because they will ABUSE the socialist economy. And that is what happened in the USSR. And that is WHY it collapsed. Because the NON SOCIALIST PEOPLE of the USSR abused the socialist economy.

Maybe it's OK if people need to be motivated to work. It's tied to things like self-preservation and through family, also tied to community.
#14997672
@SolarCross, To answer your three questions:

1. There were socialists in pre socialist countries like the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, or in the German Confederate Empire. Every person is different. Everyone has their own views. Socialists have been around for thousands of years, it's just that socialist politics were not commonly/collectively known until the 1800's, and people like Karl Marx coined it very famously. When socialism was collectively known in the 1800's, socialist political parties formed, attracting all of the unknown socialists like Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, Erich Honecker, Margot Honecker and her socialist parents, Tito, or Walter Ulbricht. The socialist sides won the Russian Revolution, the Second World War, the Chinese Civil War, and the Cuban Revolution. Socialists do exist, like myself or others I just mentioned. But, there are more non socialists or even anti socialists than socialists. It is just that the socialists won the conflicts, allowing them to have coordination over the societies that they live in. Some people did want socialism. Others didn't. More didn't then did, even though the outnumbered ones who did won! The non socialists abused the socialist economies, and THAT IS WHAT DESTROYED SOME SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. Socialists are around today. We were around in the 20th century. We were around in the 19th century. Our side won, but non socialists abused our liberations because they needed oppression to motivate them to work.

2. Socialism can work IF THE PEOPLE in an examined society are socialist. And there are socialists in the world, like myself, or those who are in socialist parties through out the world. But not everyone is a socialist.

3. So that crime and capitalist explotation can be stopped. Socialism is also scientifically the most advanced political system because it allows the most personal freedoms for everyone, and that it is the most stable, thus reducing unreported mental illness.

If you have a capitalist population with the socialist economy, the socialist economy will fail. If you have a socialist population under a capitalist economy, then there will be a revolution.

@Hong Wu Yeah, but those motivators are oppressors. Slavery was used to motivate people to work. Religious rule was used to motivate people to work. Nazism was used to motivate people to work. Ultranationalism was used to motivate people to work. Family rule was used to motivate people to work. The more motivation one needs to work, the more enslaved they are, whether they support it or not.
#14997708
@SSDR
Thank you for answering those questions in such a direct way, it is actually pretty unusual for pofo commies to be so forthright, it is appreciated. Do you think it might be possible for a socialist state to exist populated only by socialists? As much as I would hate to live under socialism I would be happy for you to live under it if that would make you happy. What is your idea about Stalin's socialism in one country? What if you had that but with the small policy modification of letting people leave if they did not like socialism. This way all those that would not be good socialists could remove themselves and so not cause problems for the true socialists. If the rest of the world let you try socialism again could you do that?
#14997721
@SolarCross, Yes, a socialist state can exist if it's only populated by socialists. I have mixed views of Stalin, he is a Zionist and I dislike Zionism. And it would be a good idea to let all of the non socialists leave so that they're not a burden to the socialist populace.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
Cricket

What do you need me to "come out" about[…]

@Negotiator , Many populations don't support goi[…]

One would imagine that any sentient being would re[…]

The Central Plaza mall parking lot at opening time[…]