The Amish Achieved Communism - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14976415
One Degree wrote:So, you are arguing ‘artificial’ is neither natural nor unnatural?


It means "Man Made". And in the context of your post by altering words we can see "Are American trees artifical because they originate here from Asia by man", has a completely different meaning by doing so and as such why context and meaning of words are relevant. For example a sixth finger on a humanhand might be unnatural but it is never artificial.
#14976416
B0ycey wrote:It means "Man Made". And in the context of your post by altering words we can see "Are American trees artifical because they originate here from Asia by man", has a completely different meaning by doing so and as such why context and meaning of words are relevant. For example a sixth finger on a humanhand might be unnatural but it is never artificial.

But, you are using it as an alternative to natural, while denying it is either natural or unnatural. Your inability to place it in either shows it’s purpose is obfuscation. You want to make ‘artificial’ inferior to natural without it being unnatural. This is obfuscation rather than a logical argument. A well entrenched obfuscation, but that is all it is.
#14976417
One Degree wrote:But, you are using it as an alternative to natural, while denying it is either natural or unnatural. Your inability to place it in either shows it’s purpose is obfuscation. You want to make ‘artificial’ inferior to natural without it being unnatural. This is obfuscation rather than a logical argument. A well entrenched obfuscation, but that is all it is.


To be honest One Degree, your original post has absolutely no relivance to this thread or is a response to anything I wrote either. All we are doing is arguing over semantics and ruining one of the better threads on PoFo. And as I have not used the term unnatural, whether artificial is natural or not is irrelevant as context is important in written communication.
#14976422
B0ycey wrote:To be honest One Degree, your original post has absolutely no relivance to this thread or is a response to anything I wrote either. All we are doing is arguing over semantics and ruining one of the better threads on PoFo. And as I have not used the term unnatural, whether artificial is natural or not is irrelevant as context is important in written communication.


Fine, continue your discussion but you said...

True. But if nature is all things natural, then all things that are not natural are artificial.


You made artificial synonymous with unnatural and now deny it.
#14976423
One Degree wrote:You made artificial synonymous with unnatural and now deny it.


English made artificial synonymous to unnatural One Degree. But that doesn't prevent words having different meanings that are synonymous.
#14976424
B0ycey wrote:English made artificial synonymous to unnatural One Degree. But that doesn't prevent words having different meanings that are synonymous.


So, are you now agreeing artificial and unnatural are the same thing? You must label artificial either natural or unnatural or you are just using obfuscation. If you agree it is unnatural, then you need to explain how a natural human can create unnatural things in an environment that can be nothing except natural.
#14976425
One Degree wrote:So, are you now agreeing artificial and unnatural are the same thing?


No, they are synonymous. :roll:

And in the context of what I was writing, as I was discussing a human invention, using the term unnatural would be wrong. As proven by your example with trees as a counter argument (to something I never written).

Good bye One Degree. Stop ruining good threads.
#14976643
B0ycey wrote:I believe by definition it means man made actually. But I can see your point.
Read carefully, please. The word artificial comes from artificium, which means handicraft. Artifice, artificial, and art, are closely related.

Hence why I once stated: When man-made satellites orbit earth, we technologically turn the planet into a work of art. It started (we approximate, hang on, let me check the Akashic records)... at the Pettakere cave in Sulawesi, we turned a pig into a human myth.

"Thoughts transform chaos into habitable cosmos."

Nature is transformed when it passes through human minds and human hands. My point was a loaded one, and you didn't "see" it.

A beaver will alter it surroundings to fulfil its natural requirements. So I will accept your point. But in regards to capitalism it is not like a dam. Without it humanity will still survive - unlike the beaver who requires the dam to do so.
Unlike a Beaver, Humans are fully aware of a past present and future and therefore can cognitively navigate the material world as we and IT (although we're IT) unfold through spacetime. So yes, there's a choice, but that doesn't make Capitalism unnatural. Capitalism is a psychosocial operating system and a form of pattern recognition. A value judgement doesn't make Capitalism an unnatural form of human pattern recognition. It's an organic human behavior. Marxists have a convoluted way of framing capitalism as something unnatural, and that's part of the politicization of "nature" and the demonization of social affairs. All of which is formulated around a socioeconomic philosophy that expounds a moral judgment upon class and the value of labor.

Perhaps the difference for whether something should be considered natural is the instinct for necessity... or in your words "extention of biological necessity".
Are you trying to say that some human thoughts are unnatural and that some human thoughts are natural? One can only imagine how and when you draw the line between natural and unnatural thoughts. Perhaps the process revolves around your definition of what is natural and what's unnatural. :lol: And perhaps your definition of what is natural and what's unnatural is pure speculation formulated to fit a conditioned ideology.

Again, Nature is an abstract concept used by humans that wish to study it as an environment outside of or separate from the human experience.

Natural and unnatural remind me of organic and inorganic chemistry. In reality, all Forms are expressed by the universe. Nomenclature is definitive because we use it for communication. Nonetheless, a description is not an explanation. Natural and unnatural are subdomains of the word Nature. Nature is a moment of birth, and all unnatural things arise from natural things.


I consider laws restrictions rather than outcomes. In nature there are no restrictions so there can be no laws. But if you consider laws to be expected outcomes then the results are your laws and your point is valid.
Restrictions provide outcomes. It's communicative ecology. If I'm unable to observe something, that restriction will affect my observation. The laws we impose exist as repeatable approximations of the outcomes we can observe.

This is theory vs fact. Theory is unrestricted, fact is restricted.



Evolution is merely outcome. Nature doesn't consider anything.
Nature is a field of information. The information in that field is in a communication loop. Everything is considered, but not exclusively from a single point of view in the field.

If the organism happens to have the best conditions to survive it does. And if not, it dies.
No. Conditions are dynamic in the wild. The most adaptable organism survives.

There is no external force unless you accept a diety.
The external force is everything else in the field of information.

Nonetheless what is this information loop you talk of so frequently?
The figure-ground interplay of the mind-matter interface.
Are you moving your point to what is consciousness - and what we as individuals understand the information we are given through our senses to create a mental image we understand to be sequenced?
You're unfamiliar with my work.

If so, our mental image does not alter reality but merely creates it for us to something our mind can understand. We do not change the rules and as such nature remains unforgiving.
Hilarious, considering all political philosophies/ideologies wish to change the rules.

Unlike you I don't consider a system or concept a technology.
All technologies begin in the mind and pass through a causal chain of expression. I'm not fond of compartmentalizing each step, and that's why you misunderstand my approach to these matters.

If anything it is a function or an idea. But I don't think semantics is your point here. I can't fathom it actually, but I will try.
Please do. I enjoy sharing my thoughts with you.

Are you saying that technology is artificial but everything else is natural?
Technology is a re-imagining or restructuring of what's already here. Hence why we have the word RE-source. Everything is SOURCE, rising again and again in new ways.

And by default that includes capitalism.
Yes.

If so why is the creation of a human concept any different to an advanced man made object in terms of what should be considered natural?
Huh? Can you restate this, I'm not sure I follow your question.

Perhaps to prevent confusion it is better to maintain actually definitions rather than alter them for unnecessary confusion.
Yes, to prevent miscommunication we compress experience through language. And yes, it can produce unnecessary confusion. :lol:



This is true. But by maintaining a fixed base social change cannot alter the superstructure. In other words by restricting capitalism the base remains fixed.
Capitalism is a destructive form of organization because it's a static mode of perception. While reality is a dynamic cycle of evolutionary change.

Perhaps the Luddite attitude did this as well.
Yes, it does.

But being that capitalism promotes profit and advancement I would suggest excluding its influence was better at keeping their social structure fixed than just reducing their technogical options as creation is natural and profit is not.
The restrictions of technologies shape the expression of social structures.



Lets for argument sakes say I accept your notion that currency is a technology, what does it matter?
You'd need a new technology to obsolesce or modify the old one (think blockchain or crypto-currency as a crude example).

Like electricity, currency only has worth if you accept it has worth.
Like any thought you can hold in your mind, right? ;)

Electricity is worthless unless you can harness it and have the means to use it.
Yes, the causal chain must be defined by that which it passes through. Hence why the medium is the message, content is worthless unless you can harness it.



True. So is the restriction of outside influences the key to their success? I would suggest so. Or it is ethical rules they adhere to.
Restrictions on thought and technology is the key to their success.



But that doesn't stop it being a choice. It is not a biological need so cannot be a requirement of life. External forces might make people think you should keep technology and advance it, but only personal morals judgement will dictate whether those external sources are right. And people are making those judgements every day FYI. The fact you and I have not turned away from technology yet means that we have chosen to accept it regardless of our opinons of it. But if we ever turn it off then our moral judgement changes. And as such it is a choice.
I'll end with this example:



^This is why the future will be scientifically authoritarian. If Earth cycles don't wipe us out... The environment will eventually become a human technology, and when it does, it will require constant maintenance, because the whole of it will be an engineering problem... A work of art. :eek:
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 01 Jan 2019 00:13, edited 3 times in total.
#14976728
@RhetoricThug

As you have fragmented my argument to such an extent, I will summarise rather than quote for clarity in argument.

You claim Capitalism is natural because it is a process in human thought. I call it artificial for the same reason. So for me to determine whether something is natural or not will depend on biological survival. In other words, if you find the behavior is necessary for the species to survive it will always be found in nature regardless of the climate the species is in (if it is to exist) - and by default natural. Capitalism is not necessary. If we lost it tomorrow there is no certainty it will return the day after. We do not need it as private ownership of production is not a requirement in human life and as it is not a requirement in life and is also a human invention it has to be classed as artificial.

Nonetheless, even if I accept your definition for natural, what does it matter to topic anyway? The Amish only engage in Capitalism to interact within the surroundings outside their community. Inside it they maintain the means of production for society, share procession, give to society according to their ability and take from it in accordance to their needs. I agree they have achieved a form of Communism. But I believe they have done so not because of Luddite attitude but because they adhere to an ethical code. It seems that if the superstructure remains fixed the base does not evolve and vice versa. And if that is because the culture is run on an ethical code of unity rather than individualism, the result looks like something Marx would envisage.

Which now brings me onto the last part of your response - technology. Is currency a technology or a concept for a means to exchange goods? Does it really matter? It exists in our current surroundings and even the Amish deal with currency in order to trade within a system that is outside their environment. If our society alters its method of exchange, the Amish will adapt as currency is not a factor in how their society functions but in ours.

Which now leads me nicely onto technology in the form of production. It advances all the time in our society as the base is not fixed. Self interest and competition in a major component in capitalism and this brings forward advancement in technology all the time. While capitalism is a factor, I suspect Technocracy is our future as the vast majority of the world accepts its existence. And if we didn't, under a free market, the technology would cease to exist or halt in advancing its creation. It is our attitudes to accept it that brings forward change. And that is because most of us do not adhere to a code of ethics but personal morals. We accept what we want to accept and not what we are told to accept. The Amish adhere to Gods morals. They are not influenced by self interest but collective interest. Their populous either accept their society or move out of it. So it does not change much.

Which now leads me onto my final point, choice. You do not have a biological requirement to accept capitalism/Technocracy and as such can decide to reject a social contract that is run by it and become an outlaw. You can create your own society and adhere to your own morals like the Amish. This is not an easy choice but it is a choice nonetheless. You do not need to bring anyone else with you. And if you do there is always the option of revolution (or democratic change) if you have the numbers agreeing with you. There are people out there today who have done this already. They are off the grid. If they can do it anyone can. Be your own mind RT. Make your own choices in life. Live the life you want to live and go with it.
#14976812
B0ycey wrote:You need to look into the study of praxology to perhaps understand why greed is a factor in the things we do - and by default why it could be a problem with the creation of Communism.

Also, self interest according to Adams creates progress and enhances personal wealth - which is also a consideration in why greed is a factor in advanced societies. And he has a point. If you take self interest away then where does wealth and progress come from? Why would anyone serve a system that does not provide gratification? Nonetheless you are not wrong in believing Capitalism has enhanced our greed behaviour. It has to. Its function relies on it.

I reckon I'll need to sometime along side learning about CHAT (Cultural Historical activity theory). They're a bit at odds with one another as Mises and that of those sympathetic to Austrian school tend towards a Kantian a priorism. Which I think is mistaken and leads them to simply denying the empirical relevance of their own work at times.
Below is Austrian fella Hoppe's defense of his Argumentation Ethics against claims of empirical evidence contradicting his work.
https://books.google.com/books?id=NR6bRIhY31EC&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=My+entire+argument,+then,+claims+to+be+an+impossibility+proof.+It+is+not,+as+the+mentioned+critics+seem+to+think,+a+proof+that+means+to+show+the+impossibility+of+certain+empirical+events+so+that+it+could+be+refuted+by+empirical+evidence.&source=bl&ots=aajEOAH3Qt&sig=qKx1kOPVw3N1FsPMWnyx8NjmQfY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRh6qFjM3fAhXjqlQKHR9xD2oQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ
My entire argument, then, claims to be an impossibility proof. It is not, as the mentioned critics seem to think, a proof that means to show the impossibility of certain empirical events so that it could be refuted by empirical evidence. Instead, it is a proof that it is impossible to justify non-libertarian property principles propositionally without falling into contradictions. Whatever such a thing is worth, it should be clear that empirical evidence has absolutely no bearing on it. So what if there is slavery, the gulag, taxation? The proof concerns the issue that claiming such institutions can be justified involves a performative contradiction. It is purely intellectual in nature, like logical, mathematical, or praxeological proofs. Its validity, like theirs, can be established independent of any contingent experiences. Nor is its validity in any way affected, as several critics—most notoriously Waters—seem to think, by whether or not people like, favor, understand, or come to a consensus regarding it, or whether or not they are actually engaged in argumentation.

As long as it's pretty on paper and self consistent, that's all that matters which is an inherently idealist approach to the truth to things. But the task is to establish real and true abstractions that are reflective of the world and not simply castles in the sky so to speak.
The difference between an idealist and materialist is being on what basis the truth of things is established.
And I'm skeptical that because they assert the logical consistency independent of empirical facts, that the aren't necessarily shielded from points of the empirical world because of their preferred attitude towards the reality because the truth of things is its correspondence to what is real and possible.
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm
Idealism can also be understood as the practice of understanding abstractions through other abstractions; where an abstraction is something that does not necessarily have basis nor relation to reality, but only exists in relation to other abstractions. The primary concern for the idealist is to create concepts that adequately explain (and change of viewpoint of) the world as we know it.
...
For an example of idealism, what follows are the beliefs of three prominent idealist philosophers in regards to what is truth. While truth is an abstract, or ideal from reality; idealists understand such abstractions through equating them to other abstractions:
Descartes: "true are those things that are certain."
Husserl: "truth is doubt"
Hegel: "the element in which truth is found is the notion"

The materialist, on the other hand, understands abstractions by equating them to reality.

But I do find it attractive in it's emphasis on action and mention of intention/goals/aims.
This is something important to the definition of action in activity theory and action is the substance of CHAT.
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/chat/index.htm#unit
Actions are the main units of human life, of Activity. An Action is a purposive act or doing. An Action is therefore both objective, external, material, perceptible movement, and subjective, internal, mental – intentions, plans and feelings. That is, actions are a unity of both consciousness and behaviour. (‘Behaviour’ does not include any subjective component.) (See LSVCW v. 3, pp. 35-50.)

A concern though with the kantin a priorism is tht they would ignore Herder's critique of Kant's summary of the subject which is abstracted of many of the real world qualities.
Kant's subject was a necessary step in understanding but is still too abstract.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/kant.htm
As Kant emphasises, there is nothing of an empirical nature in this conception of the transcendental subject; it is a purely “philosophical” conception. “Substance” is to be understood in its strictly philosophical sense as an irreducible conception at the base of a philosophical system, and not in any sense as a “substance” in the common sense of the term as matter, or “stuff.”

The transcendental subject is a subject “underlying” and preceding all empirical experience, all physiological determination or effect, all cultural and historical determination. It represents only the necessary preconditions for a thinking being.

Although the subject has become a “transcendental” subject, it should be noted that it still resides in an individual, thinking person, the cogito. And Kant has determined that it is (1) immaterial and simple, that is to say it cannot have any attributes or qualities, (2) self-identical, or ‘personal’, continuing in existence as one and the same single person, and (3) immortal, but only in a philosophical sense – he claims no necessity or evidence for life after death. These are the necessary pre-conditions for the existence of “I think.”

Despite the purely transcendental character of this subject, it is a personal subject, though an object of pure rather than empirical psychology, nevertheless, the substrate of an individual psyche.


But after that tangent, I'm not sure how such a method would illuminate human greed's nature if I'm correct in my estimation of their method. And I tend to wonder that the Austrians use a methodological individualism in their approach which fundamentally differs from CHAT and I would say entails so many problems for the nature of abstracting essential elements of human existence.
I suspect that Andy Blunden has found something useful in identifying collaborative projects as the basic unit of analysis in chat that overcomes a the duality of individual/agency vs structure.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/flourishing.pdf
When Economics builds its science on the assumption of an independent, individual economic agent who makes decisions to maximise their own utility they take as given a society in which the norms of Utilitarianism are universal. In the event that the subjects of a community do not act as individuals maximising their own utility, then the science fails. But perhaps more importantly, governments and firms which make policy on the basis of economic science, and therefore Utilitarian ethics, are acting so as to foster this ethos in the community, with all the consequences in terms of inequality and social disintegration.
...
Collaboration is a concrete relation whose norms differ widely according to the kind of project involved, but in every case these norms are robust and well-known, and rooted in the self-concept of the shared project. In some cases the norms of collaboration strictly require joint decision-making, in other cases, customer/service provider norms suffice, and in other cases the norms of line management prevail. But it remains the case that the norms of collaboration are in fact, not just in theory, the norms of modern social life.

Consequently, by taking collaborative projects as our unit of analysis we can do realistic science, and insofar as an object of scientific investigation departs from this assumption, it is to that extent also a departure from the relevant ethical norms, and appropriate intervention is warranted. In part, this dependence on the reality of ethical norms is the motivation behind the current reflections on abuse of power.

We also take ‘projects’ rather than ‘groups’ as a unit of analysis. That is, rather than seeing a community as a mosaic of groups of various kinds – ethnic groups, age groups, occupational groups, voters, consumers, etc. – we see the social fabric as woven of projects.

This has a number of implications. Firstly, it means we do not take subjects as nonentities with contingent attributes attached (gender, occupation, ethnicity, ...) by means of which they can be pigeon holed into various groups. We see social life as made up of people pursuing common ends, i.e., projects, and the community as we find it is the product of these projects. This society, with its laws, customs, land, human beings, etc., is all created and shaped by past projects and kept alive by the projects we pursue today. Every individual human life is itself a project.

Secondly, although statisticians prefer the pigeon-holing approach to analysis, the project approach is an eminently suitable lens through which to view society for those of us who are interested in change and who are less interested in people as consumers and voters than in people as agents shaping their own lives and the lives of others through participation in projects.


What Smith effectively explained was man under capitalism, which he then generalized to human nature in general. To which because the political economists were uncritical to the categories they used, they didn't see the origins of things which they were meant to explained and ended up presupposed.
So for example, Smith doesn't illuminate the basis of such self interest he simply asserts its existence and it resonates as true because it reflects the society which he lived.
But this is ideological to universalize that which is characteristic of one's particular social relations, it doesn't establish the necessity of such a universalization.
To which Marx sought to find that the basis of the appearence of greed and competition wasn't something innate to people per se as much as it was derived from people's social relations, to which he sees private property's development through time maturing with capitalism.

But to be clear, Smith isn't just discussing self interest, he discussess an egoism, its a particular sense of self interest. To which Marx is at odds with an abstracted egoism which he sees as going against the social nature of human beings. It's characteristically anti-social once what establishes that the egoist self interest doesn't harmonize with that of society and thus it ends up rational by standards which people one sidedly abstract the political economy but is a problem to well being of humans. Generally the self itnerest which is made universal is that of the ruling class, the capitalist class if it is the rational interest for all.
To which I think of what John Berger once said
The word we, when printed or pronounced on screens, has become suspect, for it’s continually used by those with power in the demagogic claim that they are also speaking for those who are denied power. Let’s talk of ourselves as they.

The history of the political economy shows the ideological nature to try to be a rational science but necessarily gets tied up to issues of class interests. Historically the capitalist class was in a sense the universal interest of humanity when it did away with feudalism and the old order.
But it is now seen that the working class is the particular class which is the basis for the universal interest of humanity.
Spoiler: show
http://libcom.org/files/marx,%20marginalism%20and%20modern%20sociology%20-%20clarke.pdf
Parsons defined the problem of order in essentially Hobbesian terms as an abstract problem posed by the anti-social character of human nature. The positivistic theory of action na¨ıvely postulates a spontaneous harmony of interests, and so ignores the need for normative regulation as a response to the problem of order. Enlightened self-interest is a sufficient guide to action and a sufficient condition for a harmonious society. Social conflict arises from ignorance and irrationality and can be remedied by education and science. The idealistic theory of action recognises the inadequacy of this assumption and takes full account of the Hobbesian problem, but it divorces the values that determine the subjective orientation of action from the context of action so that values belong to a supra-individual and supra-empirical order of reality. Both the positivistic and the idealistic theories of action resolve the problem of order by referring beyond action, the former explaining order by reference to the external conditions of action, the latter by reference to the external system of values. Only the voluntaristic theory of action is able to resolve the problem of order within the framework of the theory of action.
...
Classical political economy sought to develop a model of the ideal harmonious society within which every form of property would have its proper place. However, the purpose of describing the contributions of different forms of property to the well-being of society as a whole was not so much to develop theoretical models, as to set politics on a rational foundation, the ideal society defining an appropriate form of constitution, and appropriate forms of legislation, taxation and economic and social policy, whence the term ‘political’ economy. While the ideal was to construct an harmonious society, the different theories of political economy attached different degrees of importance to different forms of property, and so inevitably favoured one class against another. However disinterested a particular thinker might be, political economy could not avoid being an intensely political field of study.
...
The technical weaknesses of Smith’s system only began to become apparent when his sanguine assumptions about the natural harmony of class interests came to be challenged politically, so reopening consideration of the basis of class relations. The question of the relation between the fundamental classes of society was reopened in Britain by consideration of the economic and social dislocation precipitated by the Napoleonic Wars. The Wars had been a sharp increase in the price of grain, and so of agricultural rents, at the expense of wages and profits, and were followed by a serious recession. Although the War was not the only source of strain in a period of rapid capitalist expansion, the increased price of grain created real hardship for large sectionons of the population and, even if it was not the cause, could easily be made the scapegoat for successive waves of working class radicalism. Moreover, the price of grain, inflated by the Corn and Poor Laws and by the debasement of the coinage, on top of a heavy burden of taxation, could easily be blamed for the recession through its impact on profits. Thus widespread grievances surrounding the price of corn, monetary policy, the Corn Laws, the Poor Laws and the burden of taxation directed attention to the impact of economic policy on the level of wages and profits, and so on the distribution of the product among the component classes of society.

Consideration of these questions of economic policy was not simply an economic concern. In France, failure to deal adequately with similar grievances had precipitated a revolution, and radical agitation in Britain was sufficient to make the threat real at home. Thus the point at issue was that of the proper organisation of society, and particularly of the relations between the classes, and this had fundamental constitutional and political as well as economic significance. Thus questions were raised that Smith’s system could not answer. It fell to David Ricardo to bring the classical system to completion.
...
Smith and Hegel were both concerned to discover the foundation of society in order to reform their own society so that it would accord with the dictates of reason. Both observed that civil society is based on egoism, albeit moderated for Smith, so that the coherence and unity of society, its inherent harmony, is not immediately apparent. Thus for both Smith and Hegel the rationality of society could only be imposed on society from outside. While Hegel looked to the idea of universality to provide the rational principle of unity, Smith looked for the roots of reason in nature. Thus while Hegel wanted to show the nation state as the self-realisation of the Idea, classical political economy strove to see the capitalist economy as the self-realisation of Nature. While Hegel established the rational necessity of the constitutional state, classical political economy established the natural necessity of the capitalist economy. Both Smith and Hegel thereby abolished society, Hegel absorbing it into an absolute Reason, Smith into an absolute Nature. Thus in each case society is abstracted from humanity and attributed to some external force.
...
The economic categories are determined socially and so the factors involved in their determination are quite different from the factors identified by the classical writers. In revealing the social determination of these categories the critique of political economy uncovers the social foundations of the laws of development of capitaism. In so doing the critique of political economy is able to resolve the contradictions that plagued classical political economy. It does this by showing that these contradictions within theory arise from the attempt to deny the existence of real ‘contradictions’ in capitalist society, that is from the attempt to show the process of capitalist development as an harmonious and co-ordinated process. Correspondingly, once it is recognised that economic laws are not natural but social laws it comes to be recognised that these laws do not determine the fate of humanity, but only the fate of a particular form of society.
...
Within this framework political economy can be defined by the economic laws on the basis of which it defended its fundamental political principle, the principle of laissez-faire. Following Gide and Rist we can identify seven fundamental laws of classical political economy (Gide and Rist, 1948, pp. 359–71) . The first four derive from the theory of exchange, and characterise any liberal economic theory, whether ‘classical’ or ‘vulgar’. These four are: first, the law of self-interest, which in its most general form states that individuals tend to pursue their economic ends in accordance with their rational self-interest. Economics is concerned to elucidate the implications of action performed on this basis, the most optimistic theories claiming to show that in a world of perfect liberty the pursuit of self-interest spontaneously gives rise to social harmony and social progress. However such bland optimism was by no means generally characteristic of classical political economy, as we have seen.
...
These four laws were regarded as almost self-evident. If individual capitalists pursued their own self-interest a regime of economic freedom would maximise their incentives and their opportunities and so result in the maximisation of profits and of economic growth. Any infringement of such freedom could only be justified to the extent that the abuse of economic power infringed the freedom and opportunities of others. However it was not so self-evident that the interests of capitalists in economic freedom was shared by the other classes of society, the landed interest and the working class. Economic conflict between these classes over the determination of rent and wages was a feature of capitalist society that could hardly be ignored. The classical theory of distribution was an attempt to theorise this conflict in order to establish the relationship between the capitalist interest and the interests of society as a whole, and so to establish a proper basis on which to achieve the harmonious integration of capitalist society. Although Ricardo formulated the theory of distribution within the framework of the labour theory of value, the economic laws that defined the theory of distribution could equally be presented on the basis of other theories of value.
...
Early working-class agitation could be put down to the actions of a misguided mob, so that vulgar assertions of the harmony of class interests might be sufficient. However, the persistence of working-class demands, and the development of trade unions to further those demands, forced political economy in Britain to sharpen its ideological defences in the name of its natural laws, in order the better to rebuff demands for reform. Thus classical political economy survived the criticisms of the 1830s; was reformulated by Mill in the 1840s; was vindicated by the period of unprecedented prosperity and social peace that followed the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, and was constantly reinvigorated by resistance to the exaggerated claims of trade unionism and social reform through the 1850s and 1860s. In Europe, however, where effective trade unionism developed later than in Britain and where the major challenge to the rule of capital was a political and ideological one, vulgar economy, in one form or another, reigned supreme.
...
Conservative critics did not share the economists’ faith in the power of the hidden hand of the market to achieve social harmony and social integration. They pointed to the costs of capitalist development: crises, unemployment, undermining of paternalistic authority, class polarisation, socialist agitation, the destruction of cultural values and national spirit, and the erosion of the moral and political authority of the state, the church and the ruling class. Political economy neglected the spiritual, moral and aesthetic qualities of the human species and underestimated the importance of the essential ties of deference to and respect for authority that had held the medieval economy and society together, and that were being destroyed by the advance of capitalism. Capitalism was an unviable form of society
...
Although he accepted the basic class model of capitalist society proposed by political economy, Comte rejected the economists’ belief that class relations could be harmoniously regulated on the basis of the competitive pursuit of individual self-interest. Political economy ‘pretends that the general laws of Material Order can be studied, apart from other laws’ (Comte, n.d., II, p. 329), but the rule of self-interest creates not harmony but conflict as opposed interests clash in the market. It may be the case that the present economic relations were based on the pursuit of self-interest, but such a condition was merely transitional, a symptom of the decline in the moral regulation of social relations in accordance with earlier forms of religion and law. It was a condition that was unstable, as the new forms of moral regulation associated with the Positivist doctrines took effect, regulating the conflicts to which an inadequate moral regulation gave rise by subordinating ‘self-love’ to ‘social-love’ in order to reconcile progress with order.
...

http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10867/1/VWills_ETD_2011.pdf
Thus, while Marx's philosophy proceeds from individuals and their life-activity, and his critique of capitalism is based on its inability to permit individuals to flourish and develop their personalities, his concern with individuals should not be confused with an abstract egoism that opposes self-interest to the interests of society.
...
Marx's critique of Stirner's ethical egoism displays a philosophical continuity with his explication of the distinction between abstract and concrete individuality in his doctoral dissertation, and the statement, “abstract individualism is freedom from being, not freedom in being” might be just as at home here as it is in that earlier work. For Stirner, the problem of alienation can simply be swept away through a further retreat of the private individual into herself as her only cause or concern, which she opposes to social concerns. Mutual dependencies and interrelations among human beings are regarded as illusory, at best, and dangerously deceptive, at worst. Not only does Stirner's brand of ethical egoism call on the individual to embrace asocial behavior and attitudes, but it argues that the individual should satisfy herself at her present level of development, whatever that may be, rather than strive to further that development. It posits the human person as a static, isolated atom, rather than as a concrete individual, developing and existing within society, and for whom the problem of alienation can only be resolved through a transformation of society, brought about through coordinated human action aimed at common goals.

The connection between individual and society in Marx's thought is further clarified in Marx's defense of communism against Stirner's charge that communism calls for the subordination of individuals to the “good cause” of society. Stirner argues that for communists, “Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new spook, a new 'supreme being'” (Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p.111), for whom the individual must sacrifice himself. Marx answers that far from denigrating the individual, the development of a communist society, and the practical activity required to achieve that society, are the only methods by which the wellbeing of individuals can actually be pursued, a goal which Stirner's “mere moral injunctions” cannot achieve. Stirner is mistaken in believing

that the communists want to “make sacrifices” for “society”, when they want at most to sacrifice existing society; in this case he should describe their consciousness that their struggle is the common cause of all people who have outgrown the bourgeois system as a sacrifice that they make to themselves. (The German Ideology, MECW 5:213)

Stirner, on the other hand, offers no genuine solution to the real challenges that concrete individuals face. He argues against any organized political (much less, revolutionary) activity on the grounds that such coordinated, planned action would subordinate the individual to the needs of a collective. (Stirner does imagine that individuals might spontaneously form a “Union of Egoists” whose purpose is to restrict any social incursion into their egoistic pursuits, but provides no explanation as to how such a union might be achieved.) Marx points to the workers' movement, a real political movement developing at the time of his writing as a means by which the social conditions that limit the ability of individuals to flourish and pursue their own development as an end might be abolished. Stirner turns his back on this existing political current and retreats into the realm of ideas, thereby depriving himself of any genuine explanation of how the problem of alienation might be solved.
...
Abstract individualism, Marx writes, suffers from the fact that it proceeds from the self-conception of bourgeois actors, taking for granted their selfunderstanding as essentially autonomous persons whose ability to satisfy their egoistic interests is limited by the existence of other, competitive and equally autonomous individuals. However, from a materialist point of view, it is clear to see that these bourgeois atoms exist only in thought; in reality, human individuality can only emerge and develop in and through society, which is not merely some necessary evil erected and tolerated in order to keep the competing atoms at bay. Rather, it is the necessary condition for the development of human beings who exist not merely as what Marx later calls “herd animals” or as exemplars of the species, but rather as real, concrete individuals who interact with the natural and social world in increasingly diverse ways.
...
The appearance of human beings as atomized individuals striving for the satisfaction of mere “egoistic need” also develops hand in hand with the expansion and sharpening of alienation. As the Hungarian Marxist philosopher, Istvan Mészáros, writes, in capitalist society,

Alienation is therefore characterized by the universal extension of 'saleability' (i.e. the transformation of everything into commodity); by the conversion of human beings into “things” so that they could appear as commodities on the market (in other words: the 'reification' of human relations); and by the fragmentation of the social body into 'isolated individuals' (vereinzelte Einzelnen) who pursued their own limited, particularistic aims 'in servitude to egoistic need', making a virtue out of their selfishness in their cult of privacy51.

To satisfy one's needs in capitalist society, one requires money. And whether capitalist or worker, in order to make money, one has to sell something. Marx writes in “On the Jewish Question”:

Selling [Veräußerung] is the practical aspect of alienation [Entäußerung]. Just as man, as long as he is in the grip of religion, is able to objectify his essential nature only by turning it into something alien, something fantastic, so under the domination of egoistic need he can be active practically, and produce objects in practice, only by putting his products, and his activity, under the domination of an alien being, and bestowing the significance of an alien entity – money – on them. (On the Jewish Question, MECW 3:174)

However, the sale of labor-power to satisfy private, “egoistic” needs is particularly alienating in that “Estranged labour reverses this relationship [between conscious being and species being], so that it is just because man is a conscious being that he makes his life activity, his essential being, a mere means to his existence.” (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, MECW 3:276). Labor under capitalism alienates the human being from his own essence, and changes “the life of the species into a means of individual life” (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, MECW 3:276) insofar as man's essential nature as a member of the species Homo sapiens, his ability to labor, is converted into a commodity to be sold in order to satisfy the private, egoistic needs of the individual. It is this inversion which Marx argues would (and should) be set aright in the transition to a communist society.
...
In a condition of human, rather than merely political, emancipation, the strict division between the public and the private sphere disappears, because the human being is able to act as a species-being—his activity is not the activity of an isolated atom, but rather the activity of an individual cooperating with other individuals, who has an understanding of himself as a member of the species, and who regards other persons as the source of his freedom, not as limiting barriers against it. The rights of man do not:

go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society – that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. (On the Jewish Question, MECW 3:164)
...

Such abstract individualism is based in the increased fragmentation of social life due to the increased commodification of things. People in practice really are breaking down into atomized individuals although of course our existence is tied to social groups and people.

What the self-interest of the capitalist class has achieved is technological progress, capitalist development is the most revolutionary in human history.
But it comes at the cost of ourselves, the intense alienation of humanity. Such that the good of capitalism is only justifiable to the extent that it is the basis for socialism/communism. We lose ourselves before we truly find ourselves as human beings. Such poverty in order that we can realize a real earthly humanity, not seeing others as a barrier to our own interests but actually the means to our own realization as human beings.
So the self-expansion of capital has been good for production, less so for people and why capitalism does need to be abolished.

But as such I worry that you don't necessarily consider what motivates humans beyond this generalized self-interest to which the self-interest which realizes in practice that it's not opposed to that of other human beings but finds a means to its own realization would be a collbaorative project that seeks to objectify the new kind fo society. People do many great things which isn't merely for profit and the extent that one doesn't see motives beyond making a buck, one doesn't properly consider human beings but only the economic actor or capitalist and generalizes them characteristic of human nature.
The presumption that people won't find gratification in a social life seems to contradict the notion of human beings which Marx has and foresaw in the real existing workers movements of his day.
When communist workmen gather together, their immediate aim is instruction, propaganda, etc. But at the same time, they acquire a new need—the need for society—and what appears as a means has become an end. This practical development can be most strikingly observed in the gatherings of French socialist workers. Smoking, eating, and drinking, etc, are no longer means of creating links between people. Company, association, conversation, which in turn has society as its goal, is enough for them. The brotherhood of man is not a hollow phrase, it is a reality, and the nobility of man shines forth upon us from their work worn figures.

We find satisfaction in other people in themselves and the motive for profit for the capitalist is the level which he personifies the objective necessity of the economy for self-expansion of capital whilst for the worker its the extent that he needs to subsist generally that they need money. But if one had enough money, and one hasn't been kept poor in terms of the content of their humanity, someone who has developed themselves in various ways that they can appreciate things in life beyond immediate satisfaction of a physical need (the condition of many of the worlds poor who are in a sense reduced to animals) one would find a want for things in themselves. Why does person take pride in any hobby or activity, one finds pleasure in the act of cooking and sharing with others, one finds fine craftsman ship in working with wood or playing an instrument. Much activity satisfies our being and the more one internalizes the culture of the world, the greater one's capacity to see in such activities and objects human sensibilities.
I don't think this means all activity would be utterly pleasant in communism, but that activity would have a human character and one would do it freely rather than out of necessity to subsist. Life's satisfaction is in doing things and it is even greater when it is shared with others.
One tends to get a better satisfaction out of going out for a coffee with a friend than necessrily buying ones self something expensive so it is thought in behavioural economics.
The value of things being more their human/social character than their cost in money.
If one seeks out people who really enjoy their job, whilst they might not be displeased with the money they get, one will find many motives and satisfactions based on the nature of the activity itself.
My father in law for example makes a decent living as a lawyer but he says what satisfies him the most is giving people the knowledge and answers to help them with their problems. They come in stressing out and he can help them and it gives him great joy.
This is a recognition of the social side of people which is unknown to an egoism that sees life's joy only in themselves. Such a person would be the epitome of alienation from humanity, they possibly even got decent money and have an empty life with much material things.

I suspect you wonder how communism is to develop but what pops up in my head is those people who get joy out of their work and the basis of it. Generally I associate their pleasure not merely with the activity but in it's relation to other people. One wouldn't work as constantly on a grindstone but I would imagine if the world wasn't as alienated in it's production, where everything was to be a commodity, people would be greatly inspired by things and driving for excellence at many things (Greek Virtue).
Many people who make it rich don't just subsist in the home they try to enjoy life and many still work but in a more leisurely manner rather than one compelled by money as a means to subsist and get the things one really does want out of life.
I think you have a point and I agree with you here. Humans are just like any other creature and they will adapt to their surroundings and always look after their self interest first. So if it is best to look after the collective interest to maintain their own interest they will do that. Under capitalism there is not much will to do that and so private property is a thing. If we were to work as social creatures and share our possessions then it gives Communism a chance. Nonetheless it must be a factor that a high number of people will need to give up what they have gained first against their current self interest (you could forcably remove I guess), for the best of the group and that any form of hierarchy within a socialist system you create first would need to avoid any form of corruption for Communism to have a chance of existing as well. And these are traits that are factors found within humanities desire for greed today that need to be over thrown tomorrow btw.

Well there is will in that people to often try to resist the alienation of their lives.
It's just that this in itself doesn't dissolve the basis of such alienation and is the real task at hand.

And whilst its not my study right now, true to your emphasis on the success of the anabaptist communal groups being their ethics, I see the possible working class movement of the 21st century as being characterized as an ethical revolution as much as it is an economic one.
And the possibility for such is opening up some: https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf

Well I agree with Marx. Doesn't everyone want the sense of having? The problem I see today is that whilst Capitalism provides sufficiently for the majority of Western people they will accept the inequality of the system to maintain what they have as it is in their interest to do so. In other words, it is not in their self interest to over throw a system that they in some form profit from. When that is no longer true they will over throw the system. But then what? Will Napoleon provide for the nation that gave him the farm or just turn into another farmer? Will he go against his own self interest for the good of the collective or will he take the collectives interest over his? History says he will look after is own self interest over that of the collective. But for Communism to work he needs to look after the collectives interest over his own.

Well the issue Marx raises with this sense of having is that its at the expense of human sensibilities.
I haven't studied Lenin's work but what you're writing makes me think of the wealth taken from third world countries and sustains the wealth in the west.
http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Marxism/Marxism%20As%20Science.pdf
Luxemburg had formulated an earlier version of this argument, but Lenin's was the most comprehensive reconstruction of the original Marxian theory of the dynamics of capitalism. It addressed a number of anomalies and made a number of predictions, some of which indeed came to pass. Thus, Lenin, never one to ignore the importance of nationalism, anticipated that a major challenge to capitalism would come from wars of national liberation in the colonized Third World. In the core countries, on the other hand, Lenin argued that the spoils of imperialism would trickle down to the working class to create an aristocracy of labor. Therefore, certain sections of the working class had a definite material interest in imperialism. and this was the material basis of the "refo-sm" of social democratic parties and of their support for national wars. Lenin also saw how the expansion of capitalism into backward countries would uproot the population and provide a pool of cheap labor, further balkanizing the labor movement in advanced capitalist countries. In characterizing the world system in terms of core, colonized and semi-independent nations Lenin had already anticipated contemporary world systems analysis.

But a lot of that wealth doesn't meaningfully get to the majority of the popuation a lot of the time.
If so many people are poor amidst such opulent wealth like in the US with some of the richest people in the world amidst such homelessness and other social problems, the GDP of the country means fuck all if people's quality of life is shit because they're denied a meaningful part of that society. But
But what I see is that we're stagnating in the west, austerity measures increasing with no reasonable defense for the gains objectified in state rights (or in the case of the US, rights they never got like universal healthcare). Industrialization which is brutal but tends to give a sense of technological progress has moved out of the west for the most part, all the cheap labor is in asia, south america and so on.
Things which had already been completed in the west.
But there is a political issue on immigrtion which does cause tensions and difficulties for the working class. TO which I agree with this person's summary against open borders: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/
It's allowing great success for right wing populism and the possibility of increased sympathy for neo-fascism.
But then I'm not sure how much one can meaningfully change immigration when its dependent on the interests of the most powerful capitalists who can push the government to their interests.
As such, I sometimes don't think there is much success in struggling for or against immigration stuff as much as countries like Austrlia and the US necessitate struggling with those most exploited rather than having them excluded as many of the now failed unions (knights of labor) tried in the US. Compared with the attempt for working class unity of the International Workers of the World.

But the political climate simply isn't that good for the left wing in much of the world, especially a place like the US where it needs to re-establish itself.
Because the lack of class consciousness of many Americans and their attatchment to the categories of race have them in fighting and entirely missing the basis of their problems, seeing only an appearance.
But there can be hope for 'em just as there have been for people of the KKK to see that their poverty wasn't due to some black fella: http://college.cengage.com/english/chaffee/thinking_critically/8e/students/additional_activities/p198.pdf
Solidarity is the concept that needs to be realized in any working class movement and is an ethic which is most relevant in modern life which is so fragmented. A world of self interested egoists indeed would not constitute the real existing movement of workers or what ever. But the present state of things isn't eternal and things change for the better and the worse and I retain much hope in what is possible that things can change.
One wouldn't be able to foresee a movement when it doesn't yet exist, but such things do emerge unexpectedly.

But I don't think what Marx expressed made individual self interest and collective interest mutually exclusive.
And I think they remain to abstract a categories to illustrate where an individuals interest overlaps with a groups.
But movements and such expresse such a unity between one's interest as shared in a group, one realized in Blunden's idea of collaborative project.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/On%20Political%20Representation.pdf
The problem of representation does not arise from the diversity of people; it arises even when I represent myself. (See Hegel, 1821, §115) I have innumerable different needs and desires, but at every given moment I nonetheless form an intention and act according to that intention. My intention furthers a purpose which resolves the contradictions between my various desires and the constraints imposed by those of others. I cannot act at all other than through momentarily resolving the contradictions between my various desires, and formulating a purpose, even while I take myself to be an single, independent human being – I cannot do two things at once, nevertheless, I must act. So in representing myself I face the same contradiction that confronts the representative who acts on behalf of a group. In selecting a representative and instructing the representative, the group implicitly resolves these contradictions and thereby forms itself into a subject, a personality.

It is by acting in the world that an individual makes themself into a personality and in just the same way, by choosing and mandating representatives, a group transforms themself from a collection of individuals into a subject, an actor on the stage of history. There is no implication in this that internal differences are dissolved, overridden or ignored, but they are transcended.

So we have two concepts here of what constitutes a person and what constitutes a representative. On the one hand, a person is seen as someone with a certain gender, age, education, experience, nationality, etc., etc., and on the other, a person is someone who pursues certain purposes, has commitments, a life. The former is the object of surveys of voter preferences, the passive object of political policy and action. The latter is the active subject, who pursues ends collaboratively with others and changes the world.

Because one can't make sense of things like workers movement, or womens liberation movement or the civil rights movement if one is asserting the self interest of those people were at odds with the movement. Rather they participated as they saw themselves in it's ideals and aims.
To which the task is against taking the particularties of the many movements of the 20th century but giving them a totality.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm
Today, we already can discern the signs of a kind of general unease — recall the series of events usually listed under the name of “Seattle.” The 10 years honeymoon of the triumphant global capitalism is over, the long-overdue “seven years itch” is here — witness the panicky reactions of the big media, which — from the Time magazine to CNN — all of a sudden started to warn about the Marxists manipulating the crowd of the “honest” protesters. The problem is now the strictly Leninist one — how to ACTUALIZE the media’s accusations: how to invent the organizational structure which will confer on this unrest the FORM of the universal political demand. Otherwise, the momentum will be lost, and what will remain is the marginal disturbance, perhaps organized as a new Greenpeace, with certain efficiency, but also strictly limited goals, marketing strategy, etc. In other words, the key “Leninist” lesson today is: politics without the organizational FORM of the party is politics without politics, so the answer to those who want just the (quite adequately named) “New SOCIAL Movements” is the same as the answer of the Jacobins to the Girondin compromisers: “You want revolution without a revolution!” Today’s blockade is that there are two ways open for the socio-political engagement: either play the game of the system, engage in the “long march through the institutions,” or get active in new social movements, from feminism through ecology to anti-racism. And, again, the limit of these movements is that they are not POLITICAL in the sense of the Universal Singular: they are “one issue movements” which lack the dimension of the universality, i.e. they do not relate to the social TOTALITY.

Here, Lenin’s reproach to liberals is crucial: they only EXPLOIT the working classes’ discontent to strengthen their position vis-a-vis the conservatives, instead of identifying with it to the end.52 Is this also not the case with today’s Left liberals? They like to evoke racism, ecology, workers’ grievances, etc., to score points over the conservatives WITHOUT ENDANGERING THE SYSTEM. Recall how, in Seattle, Bill Clinton himself deftly referred to the protesters on the streets outside, reminding the gathered leaders inside the guarded palaces that they should listen to the message of the demonstrators (the message which, of course, Clinton interpreted, depriving it of its subversive sting attributed to the dangerous extremists introducing chaos and violence into the majority of peaceful protesters). It’s the same with all New Social Movements, up to the Zapatistas in Chiapas: the systemic politics is always ready to “listen to their demands,” depriving them of their proper political sting. The system is by definition ecumenical, open, tolerant, ready to “listen” to all — even if one insist on one’s demands, they are deprived of their universal political sting by the very form of negotiation. The true Third Way we have to look for is this third way between the institutionalized parliamentary politics and the new social movements.

The ultimate answer to the reproach that the radical Left proposals are utopian should thus be that, today, the true utopia is the belief that the present liberal-democratic capitalist consensus could go on indefinitely, without radical changes. We are thus back at the old ‘68 motto “Soyons realistes, demandons l'impossible!": in order to be truly a “realist,” one must consider breaking out of the constraints of what appears “possible” (or, as we usually out it, “feasible”).

I think the development of the different particular groups with their own particular interest is characteristic of postmodern times which (without any awareness) is opposed to abstract universals, emphasizing the plurality of things. But such identity politics is limited in it's range and todays political landscape is that of alliance politics which I think Andy Blunden theorizes well as to how it can develop into a meaningful and modern movement that isn't like that of the workers movements of the past with vangaurds and parties.
It's something with more radical potential.
It feels like what ever movement of people emerges today will be more concrete in a way because it'll be of many determinations of different interests and demographics.
With alliance politics no one group can dominate and its now basis for a new ethic of 'what we do is decided by you and me'. It at present isn't guided by certain ideals but in struggling against a certain issue or predicament to which I think Blunden illustrates a useful concept with the Greek Amphictony where its possible for independent subjects to not dominate one another but collaborate towards some shared end where the good is based in the project itself and isn't about temporary self interests of the different subjects.
The remarkable success of the amphictonies must cause us to reflect on their significance for our own times. The establishment of an amphictony recognises that the relevant subjects do not intend to make an alliance or union, but are prepared to deal with each other as moral equals and make common sacrifices in order to protect and maintain something of common value to them all, and are prepared to continue doing that even when at war with one another. Participation in an amphictony in no way sacrificed the sovereignty of the participating states, since maintenance and protection of the sacred site was the only responsibility of the amphictony, even though that duty could have profound repercussions for any state.

The inclusion in the scope of an amphictony of the inviolability of water sources gives us a clue as to what a modern amphictony would mean. It is the institutionalisation of the recognition by subjects, that there is something which transcends them and whatever may separate them. The nearest thing to a modern amphictony would be a league of independent sovereign subjects which accepted the responsibility to protect the environment or a particular feature of the environment relevant to them.

Amphictony provides for bonds with other subjects with whom we would not form an alliance or even make a peace, but which is in many senses stronger and more long-lasting than an alliance. An amphictony can be exceptionally long-lasting because the object to be protected defines its continuity, rather than the parties.

An amphictony differs from a hegemony because the controlling entity (on one hand the hegemon, on the other the sacred site) is outside, and it is not a subject. Amphicton, the mythical founder of the Great Amphictonic League was born of the soil of the sacred site. The maintenance of shared festivals (like May Day) and institutions (the unions) are possible examples, but above all of course, protection of the environment, create opportunities for the establishment of amphictonies.

At a deeper level, what the amphictony represents is the collaboration of mutually sovereign and independent subjects in a common project, itself a sovereign and independent project outside or above the life of each participating subject. The shared religious rituals and beliefs of the Greek people provided this opportunity, just as do shared religious beliefs and institutions today, though it is stewardship of the environment which is more paradigmatically modern.

I think this is what will allow people of such diverse beliefs and backgrounds to rally together. It'll be about the project more so than merely the competing ideas about things. To which one does see such a diversity of views in a lot of protests and such. There simply cannot be the hegemony of a stalinist/trotsky party or some shit.
Those who are trying to proselytize people are confused about the political landscape today.
I always enjoy and is interested in your input and clarity of thinking Wellsy. But as Capitalism works to gain profit, I cannot concur that it is not a system that is primarily driven by greed.

Nonetheless I do think that Communism is natural and perhaps based on humanized nature. That is, capitalism isn't natural and without it as a concept that we invented, humans by default would create a society that is more communal and based on shared interest (and shared procession) like most of the rest of the animal Kingdom. But today it is a concept. And we function under it. So if I look at dialectical-materialism and make a guess to where we are heading I can only see two outcomes. We either go authoritarian or go communist. Unfortunately I think that authoritarian is more likely just be reflecting on history. But if humanity stands united against authority if it heads away from their own interests, there is no reason to believe that communism cannot be achieved I guess.

Well what I'm trying to emphasize is the objective necessity of such profit irrespective the subjective/psychology state of people within it.
It can indeed foster greed, confuses people with commodity fetishism (a facet of alienation where we imbue objects with our own activity and power). But the emphasis is that capitalism doesn't necessarily stem from greed within the individual but has to be based within the real world relations which people have developed within. No doubt many a capitalist personifies greed, but it is a necessity of the position rather than simply something inherent to them as a person. It originates from the position and relations which essentially govern them. The idea being that the problem isn't that we're trying to fight greed exactly but the foundations of it.
Because its very different to argue against private property than it is against a concept of greed which seems universal and above any historical circumstance as it exists across humanity through its history.


Well I don't know I care about whether capitalism is unnatural or what ever, I wouldn't consider it that artifical than most of human societies have existed in their own way. Rather the point is that it doesn't accord with the best for human nature because it alienates us from our essential nature.
As a tangent, Marx never dissociated man from nature and its this metaphysical foundation which solves a lot of epistemological problems by making their mutual ontological interdependence primary.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/jordan2.htm
For the understanding of Marx a different point is, however, important. The Marxian conception of nature, of man, and man’s relation to nature disposes of many traditional epistemological problems. Marx neither needs to prove existence of the external world, nor disprove its existence. From his point of view both these endeavours are prompted by false assumptions concerning the relation of man to nature, by considering man as a detached observer, setting him against the world or placing him, as it were, on a totally different level. For man, who is part of nature, to doubt the existence of the external world or to consider it as in need of proof is to doubt his own existence, and even Descartes and Berkeley refused to go to such a length.

This conclusion is of considerable significance for the interpretation of Marxian philosophy. As Marx refused to dissociate nature from man and man from nature and conceived man not only as part of nature but also nature in a certain sense as a product of man’s activity and, thus, part of man, Marx’s naturalism has no need of metaphysical foundation. Moreover, since man knows only socially mediated nature, ‘man’, and not natural reality, ‘is the immediate object of natural science’. To use Marx’s terminology, the natural science of man is logically prior to all other knowledge.[59] What Feuerbach said about his anthropological materialism applies even more fittingly to Marx’s naturalism. ‘The new philosophy’, wrote Feuerbach, ‘makes man, including nature as the basis of man, the sole, universal and highest object of philosophy, makes, therefore, of anthropology, including physiology, the universal science.’ [60]This conclusion is of considerable significance for the interpretation of Marxian philosophy. As Marx refused to dissociate nature from man and man from nature and conceived man not only as part of nature but also nature in a certain sense as a product of man’s activity and, thus, part of man, Marx’s naturalism has no need of metaphysical foundation. Moreover, since man knows only socially mediated nature, ‘man’, and not natural reality, ‘is the immediate object of natural science’. To use Marx’s terminology, the natural science of man is logically prior to all other knowledge.[59] What Feuerbach said about his anthropological materialism applies even more fittingly to Marx’s naturalism. ‘The new philosophy’, wrote Feuerbach, ‘makes man, including nature as the basis of man, the sole, universal and highest object of philosophy, makes, therefore, of anthropology, including physiology, the universal science.’ [60]

Mankind works on nature to satisfy his human needs and has created new social needs as the complexity of society and its organization of labor has changed. Capitalism is in no sense more or less artificial than earlier societies and modes of production. Much of what we recognize in ourselves as human is based on such production.
#14976830
Fuck me Wellsy. This is one hell of a response and I would spend a week replying to it. So I will cut it down significantly and focus on aspects to do with greed so I don't write an essay in response.

Wellsy wrote:But after that tangent, I'm not sure how such a method would illuminate human greed's nature if I'm correct in my estimation of their method. And I tend to wonder that the Austrians use a methodological individualism in their approach which fundamentally differs from CHAT and I would say entails so many problems for the nature of abstracting essential elements of human existence.


When I mentioned praxeology it was in regards to human purpose behaviour - why we do what we do. From looking into CHAT it appears the objective of human nature is the same but perhaps the philosophical method might alter to reach a conclusion. Also you must remember I am not a philosopher. I only engage in philosophy to understand what conclusions they have made and then look into human nature to see if there is a link to it. And there is with praxeology. Instinct and survival. I used Smith as an example as he highlighted a behaviour of self interest that was instrumental for the invisible hand that is clear to see in today's environment (capitalism) as an example of purpose behaviour. But I could have used a biological method and referenced Darkins "Selfish Gene" to suggest purpose behaviour also.

What Smith effectively explained was man under capitalism, which he then generalized to human nature in general. To which because the political economists were uncritical to the categories they used, they didn't see the origins of things which they were meant to explained and ended up presupposed.
So for example, Smith doesn't illuminate the basis of such self interest he simply asserts its existence and it resonates as true because it reflects the society which he lived.


It is true Smith didn't look into why self interest behaviour exists. He was an economist after all. His purpose was to explain the benefits of a free market. But human greed does exist in capitalism and Smith shown it does. With its existence it does prove that humans have the ability to be greedy. But whether that is natural or it has to do nurture ultimately will dictate whether Communism is possible. Because if its nurture it might be possible in an environment outside a capitalist one. But if it is natural than it is down to genetics and this would mean it is wired in our minds to be greedy and as such we would instinctly look into self interest under any economic environment.

So the self-expansion of capital has been good for production, less so for people and why capitalism does need to be abolished.


Of course. But although 99% of people would be better outside of capitalism, the power is with the 1%. It is in their self interest to maintain the system and they do. So if greed isn't a factor in human behaviour why does the 1% consider there own needs above those of the collective? And if greed is a factor what will happen in a socialism environment when only a small percentage of society has control to guide the means of production throughout the entire society? You are asking human instinct to look at the interest of the collective when they have more national control than is possible in a state that is within a free market - which also has been proven to rely on self interest by Adams.

The value of things being more their human/social character than their cost in money.


Character and interest might entice certain behaviour that has empathy to it and for some this has virtue. And yes, morals are perhaps more important to most of us than money. But we all strive to get as much money as possible for our own self interest even at the expense of morals. Why? Because it is important to what we can obtain for our survival within Capitalism. It is another factor that shows personal interest before that of the collective.

I suspect you wonder how communism is to develop but what pops up in my head is those people who get joy out of their work and the basis of it. Generally I associate their pleasure not merely with the activity but in it's relation to other people. One wouldn't work as constantly on a grindstone but I would imagine if the world wasn't as alienated in it's production, where everything was to be a commodity, people would be greatly inspired by things and driving for excellence at many things (Greek Virtue).
Many people who make it rich don't just subsist in the home they try to enjoy life and many still work but in a more leisurely manner rather than one compelled by money as a means to subsist and get the things one really does want out of life.


To me for Communism to exist in the western world first we needs the destruction of the financial market and the devalue of currency to have any chance of occurring solely down to the fact people want to maintain what they have before they are willing to gamble on something else to gain more. But yes, work ethic and the joy of it along with virtue is necessary for the system of communism to be maintained.

But a lot of that wealth doesn't meaningfully get to the majority of the popuation a lot of the time.
If so many people are poor amidst such opulent wealth like in the US with some of the richest people in the world amidst such homelessness and other social problems, the GDP of the country means fuck all if people's quality of life is shit because they're denied a meaningful part of that society. But
But what I see is that we're stagnating in the west, austerity measures increasing with no reasonable defense for the gains objectified in state rights (or in the case of the US, rights they never got like universal healthcare). Industrialization which is brutal but tends to give a sense of technological progress has moved out of the west for the most part, all the cheap labor is in asia, south america and so on.


This :up:

Here shows the problem of Capitalism and the divide in class. The type of environment might cause revolution if it continues. I am surprised there isn't more dissent in America because of the class divide to be honest. Although it does show you something. The willingness of the elite to send the lower class into bankruptcy to gain a buck. Another sigh of greed within humanity.

It's allowing great success for right wing populism and the possibility of increased sympathy for neo-fascism.


Faux hope. The signs of the failings within capitalism - the rise of popularism. As I said the conditions we find universally throughout the world could bring in Communism to our society, although humanity tends to blame rather and come together to solve a problem. And yet for Communism to occur we need to see empathy and unity shown in human traits not isolation and consolidation behaviour.

But I don't think what Marx expressed made individual self interest and collective interest mutually exclusive.


True. But I only look at history to question whether Communism is possible not Marx theory. When Stalin created the means of production to focus on the interests of the state he created breadlines and famine as a result. Where is the interest of the collective here? What difference does it matter to the poor whether they cannot afford to live in a society where the private property is to the nation or the upperclass? If Stalin was staving he would not have engaged in a nationalist mentality, he would have focused his attention in obtaining food for the society. This again is down to self interest and by default greed.

Well what I'm trying to emphasize is the objective necessity of such profit irrespective the subjective/psychology state of people within it.
It can indeed foster greed, confuses people with commodity fetishism (a facet of alienation where we imbue objects with our own activity and power). But the emphasis is that capitalism doesn't necessarily stem from greed within the individual but has to be based within the real world relations which people have developed within. No doubt many a capitalist personifies greed, but it is a necessity of the position rather than simply something inherent to them as a person. It originates from the position and relations which essentially govern them. The idea being that the problem isn't that we're trying to fight greed exactly but the foundations of it.
Because its very different to argue against private property than it is against a concept of greed which seems universal and above any historical circumstance as it exists across humanity through its history.


I think we both agree capitalism creates greed. The question is if this behaviour is inherent. We can see that humans will work together in unity for a goal. But if the opportunity arises to self benefit, will we as humans take it?
#14976875
So you're going to ignore my reply... And summarise your perspective. I see.
B0ycey wrote:As you have fragmented my argument to such an extent, I will summarise rather than quote for clarity in argument.
I dismantled your argument for clarity in this collaboration.

You claim Capitalism is natural because it is a process in human thought. I call it artificial for the same reason. So for me to determine whether something is natural or not will depend on biological survival.
Ah so it is a value judgement after-all. :roll: Do synthetic chemicals help sick people survive? Yes, but synthetic chemicals are unnatural.

In other words, if you find the behavior is necessary for the species to survive it will always be found in nature regardless of the climate the species is in (if it is to exist) - and by default natural.
:lol: Riiiiiiiiiiiight. The behavior of primitive peoples across the planet amounts to a well-thought out biological survival strategy.

Capitalism is not necessary. If we lost it tomorrow there is no certainty it will return the day after. We do not need it as private ownership of production is not a requirement in human life and as it is not a requirement in life and is also a human invention it has to be classed as artificial.
Communism is not necessary. If we gain it today there is no certainty it will be here tomorrow. We do not need it as the abolition of private ownership of production is not a requirement in human life and as it is not a requirement in life and is also a human invention it has to be classed as artificial.

See, I can vehemently type vague statements too.

Nonetheless, even if I accept your definition for natural, what does it matter to topic anyway? The Amish only engage in Capitalism to interact within the surroundings outside their community. Inside it they maintain the means of production for society, share procession, give to society according to their ability and take from it in accordance to their needs. I agree they have achieved a form of Communism. But I believe they have done so not because of Luddite attitude but because they adhere to an ethical code.
Their Luddite attitude is an ethical code.

It seems that if the superstructure remains fixed the base does not evolve and vice versa. And if that is because the culture is run on an ethical code of unity rather than individualism, the result looks like something Marx would envisage.
The Amish predate Marx. Unlike Marxists, the Amish never had to kill anyone to set-up camp/shop. Talk about social revolutionaries.

Which now brings me onto the last part of your response - technology. Is currency a technology or a concept for a means to exchange goods? Does it really matter? It exists in our current surroundings and even the Amish deal with currency in order to trade within a system that is outside their environment. If our society alters its method of exchange, the Amish will adapt as currency is not a factor in how their society functions but in ours.
Not true. The Amish pay taxes. The only reason their society functions the way it does is because they've placed restrictions on thought and technology. Technology is a manifestation of a new way of thinking about something.

Which now leads me nicely onto technology in the form of production. It advances all the time in our society as the base is not fixed. Self interest and competition in a major component in capitalism and this brings forward advancement in technology all the time. While capitalism is a factor, I suspect Technocracy is our future as the vast majority of the world accepts its existence. And if we didn't, under a free market, the technology would cease to exist or halt in advancing its creation.
I have two words for ya, technological determinism.
It is our attitudes to accept it that brings forward change. And that is because most of us do not adhere to a code of ethics but personal morals.
Most of us adhere to a legal system and a legal system is a code of ethics.

We accept what we want to accept and not what we are told to accept.
Thank god for the prison system. ;)

The Amish adhere to Gods morals. They are not influenced by self interest but collective interest.
Collective interest contains self-interest.

Their populous either accept their society or move out of it. So it does not change much.
Yep, and the Amish practice shunning. Likewise, Marxist revolutionaries murder those who will not accept communism. Differing degrees of punishment, same arbitrary madness.

Which now leads me onto my final point, choice. You do not have a biological requirement to accept capitalism/Technocracy and as such can decide to reject a social contract that is run by it and become an outlaw.
Are you projecting here?

You can create your own society and adhere to your own morals like the Amish. This is not an easy choice but it is a choice nonetheless. You do not need to bring anyone else with you. And if you do there is always the option of revolution (or democratic change) if you have the numbers agreeing with you.
:lol: And history repeats itself.

There are people out there today who have done this already. They are off the grid. If they can do it anyone can.
Anyone huh, can a paraplegic go off grid? Just curious. :lol:

Be your own mind RT. Make your own choices in life. Live the life you want to live and go with it.
You'd make a great life coach, B0ycey.

#14976963
RhetoricThug wrote:Ah so it is a value judgement after-all. :roll: Do synthetic chemicals help sick people survive? Yes, but synthetic chemicals are unnatural.


You make a good point. Although it should have been obvious I was talking about overall species survival rather than poor health. But if you want to believe that capitalism/currency or whatever is technology you need to explain why this is relevant anyway. You would be better off bringing your case forward in a new topic rather than amalgamating it into this one.

Communism is not necessary. If we gain it today there is no certainty it will be here tomorrow. We do not need it as the abolition of private ownership of production is not a requirement in human life and as it is not a requirement in life and is also a human invention it has to be classed as artificial.

See, I can vehemently type vague statements too.


Although it needs to be said I have never said Communism is natural FYI. Any concept within a social contract is a human invention. And as such will be artificial.

Their Luddite attitude is an ethical code.


Their Luddite attitude is a way of life. Their ethical code is formulated within their faith of God.

The Amish predate Marx. Unlike Marxists, the Amish never had to kill anyone to set-up camp/shop. Talk about social revolutionaries.


True, but who says I accept that revolution is a requirement of communism? I don't, but I am not a Marxist either I might add. I see Communism also being achieved democratically or with a commune environment.

The only reason their society functions the way it does is because they've placed restrictions on thought and technology. Technology is a manifestation of a new way of thinking about something.


So the superstructure and base are fixed right? Perhaps I can see your point about their Luddite attitude being the reason why their society has not progressed, but their values that formulate the superstructure are more down to their faith. I don't think you can include one aspect of their life for formulating their society without including the other. Nonetheless you have convinced me RT that their Luddite attitude helps maintain the way their society functions.

Most of us adhere to a legal system and a legal system is a code of ethics.


Laws are restrictions and ethics are conducts. If you follow the legal system it is because it is part of being in a social contract and there are punishments if you don't adhere to it. If you follow an ethical code it is because you value the belief of that code.

Yep, and the Amish practice shunning. Likewise, Marxist revolutionaries murder those who will not accept communism. Differing degrees of punishment, same arbitrary madness.


You are projecting prejudice here. History is not a precursor. Marx didn't advocate murder, just revolution. Does revolution require bloodshed anyway? Also who's to say that revolution along with Communism can't be achieved peacefully? If you accept the Amish have achieved Communism then it is proof that Communism can be achieved peacefully FYI.

Anyone huh, can a paraplegic go off grid? Just curious. :lol:


Of course they can. But they will cope and survive off the grid within the laws of nature. That is, if they cannot adapt outside of society they will die.
#14977017
So glad we can collaborate through this technological extension of consciousness. We're bypassing time/space restrictions and look at the outcome! Two forum images knocking etheric thought bubbles aboot zee noosphere.
B0ycey wrote:You make a good point. Although it should have been obvious I was talking about overall species survival rather than poor health. But if you want to believe that capitalism/currency or whatever is technology you need to explain why this is relevant anyway. You would be better off bringing your case forward in a new topic rather than amalgamating it into this one.
Poor health affects the overall condition of the species, B0ycey. A causal chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and is only as weak as its strongest link. Strong and weak are relative states of prowess, given both states define each other.

As for a different thread of concern and discussion (you should remember this one)- I explain my "good point" here: Forum Communists, What is your Take on Accelerationism?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=174834



Although it needs to be said I have never said Communism is natural FYI. Any concept within a social contract is a human invention. And as such will be artificial.
So are you saying that a social contract is artificial? I thought humans are social creatures, so wouldn't social contracts be authentic or natural? I'd go as far as to suggest that a social contract is a biological necessity if we're to consider survival of the human species.

Hence why Capitalism is a natural human behavior. I was calling out your double-standard. Mission accomplished. :excited:



Their Luddite attitude is a way of life. Their ethical code is formulated within their faith of God.
It's a facet of customary behavior, and therefore it's an integral part of the Amish ethos.



True, but who says I accept that revolution is a requirement of communism? I don't, but I am not a Marxist either I might add. I see Communism also being achieved democratically or with a commune environment.
Fair enough.



Nonetheless you have convinced me RT that their Luddite attitude helps maintain the way their society functions.
Mission accomplished. :excited:



Laws are restrictions and ethics are conducts. If you follow the legal system it is because it is part of being in a social contract and there are punishments if you don't adhere to it. If you follow an ethical code it is because you value the belief of that code.
Yes, there's a distinction, albeit restrictions affect and protect outcomes and outcomes inform restrictions. If restrictions produce undesirable outcomes, society usually modifies its restrictions. Ethics & laws exist in a feedback loop, because human behavior exists in a figure-ground feedback loop, because a figure-ground feedback loops exists in a psycho-physical feedback loop, because a p-p f-l exists in a time-space information loop or continuum. Etc etc, ad infinitum. :eek:



You are projecting prejudice here. History is not a precursor. Marx didn't advocate murder, just revolution. Does revolution require bloodshed anyway? Also who's to say that revolution along with Communism can't be achieved peacefully? If you accept the Amish have achieved Communism then it is proof that Communism can be achieved peacefully FYI.
Again, the Amish predate Marx. The revolution occurred before Marx critiqued Capitalism. :lol: The word communism is derivative anyway.



Of course they can. But they will cope and survive off the grid within the laws of nature. That is, if they cannot adapt outside of society they will die.
We've established social contracts so we can suffer and die together. What you're encouraging and advocating is true alienation. Not the pseudo-politicized alienation Marx/Engels used to supplement their analysis of the bourgeois-proletariat dialectic. Alas, the mechanization of labor had been a consequence of technological determinism.
#14977250
RhetoricThug wrote:As for a different thread of concern and discussion (you should remember this one)- I explain my "good point" here: Forum Communists, What is your Take on Accelerationism?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=174834


Yeah I remember it. Reading it again with the mindset of considering consciousness for being the cause of the rate of change within society and also considering capitalism as a concept within our consciousness and I think you have a point about it being the way we think which dictates how we function - and as such living under a Luddite attitude ultimately tames consciousness thinking. There is quite a bit more to your posts in the other thread than just dialectics though. I can see why you think currency is a technology. It is an invention to fulfil the conscious concept of Capitalism to become a reality and to allow that idea to function within society. And with acceleration of technology, the society will continue to progress and evolve and our minds will adapt to the environment allowing even more new technology and even more change. Only the restriction of technology would prevent acceleration and by default restrict thoughts. Interesting.

So are you saying that a social contract is artificial? I thought humans are social creatures, so wouldn't social contracts be authentic or natural? I'd go as far as to suggest that a social contract is a biological necessity if we're to consider survival of the human species.


Is the social contract a biological necessity though? I don't doubt it minimises the risk of death, but living in anarchy doesn't mean all humans will die. It just means the effect of Darwinism would be more prominent and the best adapted humans progress and the weak die. So yes, a social contract is artificial as it not a contract that is a requirement to allow humans to be social creatures but a concept that limits the harm of the laws of nature. And as such capitalism is not natural as it is a restriction in the laws of nature not an adaption of them.

Again, the Amish predate Marx. The revolution occurred before Marx critiqued Capitalism. :lol: The word communism is derivative anyway.


True. I like your thinking. Although I would say that Marx understood the contradiction of Capitalism better than anyone else at the time and he published a solution to solve that contradiction that had coincidently already been invented by the Amish.

We've established social contracts so we can suffer and die together. What you're encouraging and advocating is true alienation. Not the pseudo-politicized alienation Marx/Engels used to supplement their analysis of the bourgeois-proletariat dialectic. Alas, the mechanization of labor had been a consequence of technological determinism.


I am not advocating that people leave a social contract. Just that if they don't agree with it they should exclude themselves from it. Anyone can go off the grid. Anyone. And if you collaborate with others that have also done so, you could even create your own society to mirror your own principles away from technological advancement. In another word - Choice.
#14978377
Collective sensibility
B0ycey wrote:Yeah I remember it. Reading it again with the mindset of considering consciousness for being the cause of the rate of change within society and also considering capitalism as a concept within our consciousness and I think you have a point about it being the way we think which dictates how we function -
Consciousness is a prerequisite for change, mental processes and cognitive choices (free-will is analogues to the available and/or viable choices one can make on a chess board. Technology is like a chess piece) occur within the framework and interplay of the mind-matter interface. The mind-matter interface is a biophysical communication loop defined by figure-ground interplay (gestalt psychology). I can be conscious in a sensory deprivation chamber, but the sensory deprivation chamber stimulates/informs my sensorium and then that information is compartmentalized by the brain (abstract association and experience/memories come into play). Consciousness doesn't directly cause capitalism, capitalism as a perceptional organization tool is a fragmentary operating system humans have conceptualized or programmed through language acquisition (hence why literacy is important to industrial and post-industrial societies) in order to structure sensory stimuli or make sense of sensation and give pattern recognition to an abstract world of phenomena.

Capitalism, as an applied theory, is conditioned (like any other learned behavior) by the ground or environment (please consider the human body, alongside the ground, as an environmental input for the mind) via various psychological and cultural conditioning mechanisms. The figure(s), originator(s) of capitalist behavior, or a hypothetical first-abstractor of the capitalist pattern of information, most likely developed capitalism as a reaction to an ongoing mode/amalgamation of resource exchanges and consumption that had been cumulatively fostered by the development of technologies which ultimately enabled society to produce a market economy that could harness the natural social tendencies of mammalian ecology.

Note how the word ECO simply means- "house, household."

Ecology is the study of the household (Household as in domain of interconnected information. Super-domain or macro = planet, subdomain or micro = self or individual. OR super-domain = nation, subdomain = city. All computations scaling up and down the socioeconomic operating system, compiling communicative ecosystems) while economy is the management of the household. My point- humans developed capitalism as a reaction to the natural world, thus capitalism was modeled on the mathematical management of resource exchanges. Private ownership had to be established for accountable management to take place.

The exploitative structure of commerce, namely the relationship between owners of production and producers of goods and services, is a side-effect of capitalism and its use of currency to manage labor exchanges. Capitalism in its original form, is an ontological derivative of previous iterations of trade/barter and commerce. If I'm correct, Capitalism is the extension of older modes of perception, and is therefore (considering the putative lineage of socialization) a natural outlet for human energy and creativity. Calling such activities natural or unnatural is not the same as calling em rational or irrational. Many natural activities appear to be irrational, and many unnatural activities appear to be rational.

The way we think does influence the way we function. For instance, if you go to an employer with a new way of conducting business, they may say, "I never thought about it like that." AND If your employer adopts your new way of thinking, it can change the way your employer conducts business.

You can not separate mind from matter, because it's a feedback loop.


I can see why you think currency is a technology. It is an invention to fulfil the conscious concept of Capitalism to become a reality and to allow that idea to function within society.
Yes, currency is the mechanism (manage the flow of human energy). Try to do business without it... See how far you can get with your capitalist attitude. :lol:

And with acceleration of technology, the society will continue to progress and evolve and our minds will adapt to the environment allowing even more new technology and even more change. Only the restriction of technology would prevent acceleration and by default restrict thoughts. Interesting.
Yes, because new technologies create new environments and new environments reshape figures. Competition and strategy change as well. Drop instant communication technologies in the environment and you speed up competition and reform strategy. Of course, again, all of this isn't a simple causal chain (and I guess this is why you mentioned my post is more than dialectics.). Technological changes create vortices and reshape biophysical communication matrices (see the Tetrad illustration in the acceleration thread for a simple visual of technological change). Multiplex systems augment dialectics, similar to how mosaic and multi-domain warfare augment the art of war.

Is the social contract a biological necessity though? I don't doubt it minimises the risk of death, but living in anarchy doesn't mean all humans will die.
Good question... It's a contract. Contracts are agreements, right? The social contract does minimize the risk of death, and living in anarchy doesn't mean all humans will live. :roll: Think about it... This is self-evident... If an accident happens and you're surrounded by others, your chances of surviving the accident increase.

Think about it this way- Water is a biological necessity. Purified water is an extension of a bio-necessity. Likewise, a tribe-family-clan is a biological necessity, and modern society is an extension of the tribe-family-clan (complete with sectarian strife).

It just means the effect of Darwinism would be more prominent and the best adapted humans progress and the weak die.
Weak doesn't necessarily mean maladjusted. Strong doesn't imply most adaptable. Darwinism doesn't consider the effects of intelligent selection or the effects of a technological environment on the evolutionary development of organisms.

Is it a sign of weakness that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki populations struggle to adapt to a post-nuclear bomb environment? This is an extreme example, but it suggests that intelligent selection obsolesces natural selection. Choice becomes the arbiter of evolution. Hence why I say love is the missing link.

Or how about this- A well-adapted man or woman with all the money in the world overdoses on prescription pills. Would you say this man or woman is weak or strong? Under socioeconomic terms, this person would be strong. Yet, under this person's mask of conceptual wealth, this person is weak.

Society creates context and defines weak and strong. Context simply means "to weave together," and that's certainly a collective sensibility.

My point- Darwinian word games follow classical definitions of determinism. And I still find the biblical notion of Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth, to be a fascinating line (despite its pre-Darwin context), because if the "strong" people of the world destroy themselves, the "weak" will inherit the world.

If you dislike my approach to these matters, I offer one more caveat concerning Darwinian survival games. Forget about humans for a moment. If new technological grounds constantly change the environment, can the natural world adapt to an anthropocentric sphere of activity? In other-words, are biological organisms and biotic ecosystems able to rapidly pivot and develop new strategies for survival in a world that is now an artificial or technological extension of the human nervous system?

Earlier in this thread we said:

B0ycey- If the organism happens to have the best conditions to survive it does. And if not, it dies.

RT- No. Conditions are dynamic in the wild. The most adaptable organism survives.


Note how exponential human progress may appear to be dynamic, but if you look at it from a distance, exponential growth is actually a static trend.

When you spit out Darwinism would be more prominent and the best adapted humans progress and the weak die, willy-nilly, I wonder if you contemplate the real consequence of human progress, namely the unforeseen effects technological structures have on the organic world. Alas, biotic ecosystems are an integral part of the human experience.

So yes, a social contract is artificial as it not a contract that is a requirement to allow humans to be social creatures but a concept that limits the harm of the laws of nature. And as such capitalism is not natural as it is a restriction in the laws of nature not an adaption of them.
Like the example of purified water above, a social contract is mechanically or artificially distilled. However, how can we be so certain? Perhaps restrictions are adaptive strategies dictated by nature. I don't want dirty water, so I restrict what's in my drinking water. Capitalism is destructive due to its static mode of conduct (which I stated elsewhere in this thread), but perhaps Capitalism in its own way is an adaptive strategy used to restrict or protect a hierarchical house of cards. Doing away with Capitalism or transitioning to a different mode of conduct wouldn't magically cure societal ills, and like a new technology, a new mode of government would solve old problems and create new ones.

Adhering to your interpretation of what's natural or unnatural. Communism is just as unnatural as Capitalism.


True. I like your thinking. Although I would say that Marx understood the contradiction of Capitalism better than anyone else at the time and he published a solution to solve that contradiction that had coincidently already been invented by the Amish.
"Other stories given have sages of their own." -Tommy Hall.

I am not advocating that people leave a social contract. Just that if they don't agree with it they should exclude themselves from it.
Fair enough.

Anyone can go off the grid. Anyone.
Again, this isn't true. Some people depend on a social contract. Sure, the social contract could be responsible for the rise of particular kinds of dependencies, but the kind of dependency I'm referring to is one which stems from genetic abnormality or genetic susceptibility. Tragedy and hope sustain society.

And if you collaborate with others that have also done so, you could even create your own society to mirror your own principles away from technological advancement. In another word - Choice.
Sure, but some technologies, once out of the box, affect the entire planet.

@B0ycey Although it seems here that it is communication technological advancement that is the cause of acceleration to you rather than the means of production.
I'm rather disappointed by your hurried response.

I challenge you to think of technology as extension of the human body. All modes of human activity involve communication. :) Production is an input-output process. If production is to produce and communication is to share, I'd say the two are inseparable.
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 09 Jan 2019 17:36, edited 9 times in total.
#14978386
RhetoricThug wrote:Consciousness is a prerequisite for change, mental processes and cognitive choices (free-will is analogues to the available and/or viable choices one can make on a chess board) occur within the framework and interplay of the mind-matter interface. The mind-matter interface is a biophysical communication loop defined by figure-ground interplay (gestalt psychology). I can be conscious in a sensory deprivation chamber, but the sensory deprivation chamber informs my sensorium and then that information is compartmentalized by the brain (abstract association and experience/memories come into play here). Consciousness doesn't directly cause capitalism, capitalism as a perceptional organization tool is a fragmentary operating system humans have conceptualized or programmed through language acquisition (hence why literacy is important to industrial and post-industrial societies).

Capitalism, as a practiced and learned theory, is conditioned by the ground or environment (like any other learned behavior) via various cultural conditioning mechanisms. The figure(s), originator(s) of capitalist behavior, or a hypothetical first-abstractor of the capitalist pattern of information, most likely developed capitalism as a reaction to an ongoing mode/amalgamation of resource exchange and consumption that had been cumulatively fostered by the development of technologies which ultimately enabled society to produce a market economy that could harness the natural social tendencies of mammalian ecology.

Note how the word ECO simply means- "house, household."

Ecology is the study of the household (Household as in domain of interconnected information. Super-domain or macro = planet, subdomain or micro = self or individual. OR super-domain = nation, subdomain = city. All computations scaling up and down the socioeconomic operating system) while economy is the management of the household. My point- humans developed capitalism as a reaction to the natural world, thus capitalism was modeled on the mathematical management of resource exchanges. Private ownership had to be established for accountable management to take place.

The exploitative structure of commerce, namely the relationship between owners of production and producers of goods and services, is a side-effect of capitalism and its use of currency to manage labor exchanges. Capitalism in its original form, is an ontological derivative of previous iterations of trade/barter and commerce. If I'm correct, Capitalism is the extension of older modes of perception, and is therefore a natural outlet for human energy and creativity. Calling such activities natural or unnatural is not the same as calling em rational or irrational. Many natural activities appear to be irrational, and many unnatural activities appear to be rational.

The way we think does influence the way we function. For instance, if you go to an employer with a new way of conducting business, they may say, "I never thought about it like that." AND If your employer adopts your new way of thinking, it can change the way your employer conducts business.

You can not separate mind from matter, because it's a feedback loop.


I can't fault your analysis here RT. After researching some of your thinking of cognitive thinking adapting the biosphere to create an noosphere, and I can understand why you are insistant that any human mental interaction to the world is natural. However I do stand by it being artificial - but to be honest it is a minor issue to me with semantics.

Although I would suggest capitalism is a reaction to allow a society to function more freely rather than a reaction to the natural world. In my opiniom it was a result of hierarchy, trade and Dialectical Materialism.

Yes, because new technologies create new environments and new environments reshape figures. Competition and strategy change as well. Drop instant communication technologies in the environment and you speed up competition and reform strategy. Of course, again, all of this isn't a simple causal chain (and I guess this is why you mentioned my post is more than dialectics.). Technological changes create vortices and reshape biophysical communication matrices (see the Tetrad illustration in the acceleration thread for a simple visual of technological change). Multiplex systems augment dialectics, similar to how mosaic and multi-domain warfare augment the art of war.


I suppose you have a point. Anything new within a society will change the superstructure and cause progress in society as a by product. The speed of technological advancement along with new technology being introduced into society from that advancement can only result in acceleration. Halt the technology and then the superstructure can only be changed by the base. If the base is also fixed, society will stagnate its progress. Whether that is good or bad will depend on your morality of the current society though.

Although it seems here that it is communication technological advancement that is the cause of acceleration to you rather than the means of production.

Good question... It's a contract. Contracts are agreements, right? The social contract does minimize the risk of death, and living in anarchy doesn't mean all humans will live. :roll: Think about it... This is self-evident... If an accident happens and you're surrounded by others, your chances of surviving the accident increase.

Think about it this way- Water is a biological necessity. Purified water is an extension of a bio-necessity. Likewise, a tribe-family-clan is a biological necessity, and modern society is an extension of the tribe-family-clan (complete with sectarian strife).


The social contract is more a system of freedoms you surrender for protections rather than a contract. And yes, living in anarchy doesn't not mean all will live. In fact, there is no reason to accept a social contract if 'all will live' within anarchy. But that does not mean either system is biologically necessary. It just means the risk of survival is greater in one system than it is in the other.
The Trump Shut Down

When the Democrats actually support some of these[…]

Co-equality? Well, ...

Sir, thank you for your response. With regard to […]

Democrats SHOULD build the wall

Try something new. Post your evidence. There's […]

@noemon , You wrote: "Steve wrote: Also, th[…]