[ckaihatsu]

What humans need to be happy is meaning. A productive life brings satisfaction and fulfillment. I retired early and had all the things the other poster wants very badly. I saved all my life and had enough to live the rest of my life in a very comfortable manner without having to work. And yet, I went back to work part time because I felt I was unproductive.

It is sad to see the dystopia in those that want the state to provide.

It is sad to see such a *hypocritical* political position, one that accepts state-type collectivism for *some* government programs, like that of imperialism and militarism, and tax cuts for the already-wealthy, while eschewing the same for mass-needs programs like continued unemployment compensation.

Today the world produces enough food for everyone on the planet. So why are more than a billion people still dying of hunger? Why is life itself tenuous for so many families while the eight richest people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 50 percent of people in the world?

The answer is poverty. But poverty can be stopped, and this raises the question, “how much does it cost to end poverty?”

Jeffrey Sachs, as one of the world’s leading experts on economic development and the fight against poverty, stated that the cost to end poverty is $175 billion per year for 20 years. This yearly amount is less than 1 percent of the combined income of the richest countries in the world, and only four times the United States’ military budget for one year.

https://borgenproject.org/how-much-does ... d-poverty/

And:

For Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020), the Department of Defense's budget authority is approximately $721.5 billion ($721,531,000,000). Approximately $712.6 billion is discretionary spending with approximately $8.9 billion in mandatory spending.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... ted_States

---

Your words above are 100% correct. Anything a human receives for free is not appreciated and leads to the behavior we see in places like San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, etc.

*Or*, since the BLM protestors are *hardly* wealthy, let's look at those who *do* receive wealth for free:

According to the American federal government statistics compiled by Mark Zandi in 1985, the average US inheritance was $39,000. In subsequent years, the overall amount of total annual inheritance more than doubled, reaching nearly $200 billion. By 2050, there will be an estimated $25 trillion inheritance transmitted across generations.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance#Inequality

[Tainari88]

Hope you're not too disappointed, Tainari, but my dance is in my *heart*, and not necessarily in my legs...!

Yup on all the rest.

(I'll note that Western reductionist science tends to be fairly *static*, as depicted, like my diagrams, for example. Fortunately I have a diagram for that (heh), to relieve that *stasis* quality and indicate a *forward-vector* *self-deterministic* *motivation*, which is usually left out of *academic* treatments.)


universal context

Spoiler: show

Don't worry i tried to teach @Potemkin to dance and he needs lots of practice too.

Lol.

So you are attempting to debate someone I have discarded long ago? This black man says it all regarding the issue with such people. I say drop them like a hot potato. They are not successful people at being consistent or know what the hell they are doing. It is not for me. I am not into washing machine people.

[ckaihatsu]

Don't worry i tried to teach @Potemkin to dance and he needs lots of practice too.

Lol.

Is there anything you *can't* do over the Internet? (grin)

So you are attempting to debate someone I have discarded long ago? This black man says it all regarding the issue with such people. I say drop them like a hot potato. They are not successful people at being consistent or know what the hell they are doing. It is not for me. I am not into washing machine people.

GccWD-v_pqw

Understandable.

Many people, unfortunately, think that politics is all about interpersonal exchanges, as I noted earlier in the thread, when that's *not* the case -- politics is far more *structural*, as seen at my 'Anatomy of a Platform' schematic framework.

Social exchange

Main article: Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory emphasizes the notion that social action is the result of personal choices that are made in order to maximize benefit while minimizing cost. A key component of this theory is the postulation of the "comparison level of alternatives": an actor's sense of the best possible alternative in a given situation (i.e. the choice with the highest net benefits or lowest net costs; similar to the concept of a "cost-benefit analysis").

Theories of social exchange share many essential features with classical economic theories, such as rational choice theory. However, social exchange theories differ from classical economics in that social exchange makes predictions about the relationships between persons, rather than just the evaluation of goods. For example, social exchange theories have been used to predict human behaviour in romantic relationships by taking into account each actor's subjective sense of cost (e.g., volatility, financial dependence), benefit (e.g. attraction, chemistry, attachment), and comparison level of alternatives (e.g. whether or not there are any viable alternative mates available).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ps ... (sociology)#Social_exchange

Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show

[Julian658]

It is sad to see such a *hypocritical* political position, one that accepts state-type collectivism for *some* government programs, like that of imperialism and militarism, and tax cuts for the already-wealthy, while eschewing the same for mass-needs programs like continued unemployment compensation.

As a libertarian I oppose any form of collectivism and therefore you are correct. The basis of a civil society is individualism. This gets rid of discrimination and that other form of collectivism known as racial groups which leads to racism. If we judge each other as individuals the problems are immediately solved as no one would pay attention to group membership.

Unfortunately we exist in a hierarchy of competence and as Peterson used to say all hierarchies can become corrupt and tyrannical. The exact same situation always happens on the left. We are HUMAN!

“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”
― George Orwell, 1984


“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
― George Orwell, 1984

*Or*, since the BLM protestors are *hardly* wealthy, let's look at those who *do* receive wealth for free:

They are low in the hierarchy and unhappy because they compare themselves to those that have more. IN a socialist nation the ability to compare would not be allowed.

[ckaihatsu]

As a libertarian I oppose any form of collectivism and therefore you are correct.

Well then where do you stand on the issue of a nationalist military?

As soon as you say 'yes' to that you're accepting a certain *type* of collectivism, one that's state-run, and is structured in a way that could be called 'military syndicalism'.

What about tax breaks for the wealthy? That's a policy of collectivism for the rich, based on existing wealth ownership, better known as 'plutocracy'.

The basis of a civil society is individualism.

Civil society doesn't produce *dick*, though, so you have your European-Enlightenment bourgeois 'rights' arguments from the 1700s, but that's about it. We now -- since you haven't noticed -- live in an *industrial* age, with mass production practices that benefit the plutocratic wealthy elites, but not the workers who actually *make* the stuff.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show

---

This gets rid of discrimination and that other form of collectivism known as racial groups which leads to racism.

Bullshit -- you think that *balkanization*, down to the *individualist* level, is the answer, when it's *not*. As soon as you have a company / business, or corporation, you have a localized kind of 'collectivism', but for private interests.

Racial groups, acting in their own collective-group best interests, is called anti-oppression, or anti-colonialism, or Black Lives Matter, because they're historically *oppressed* social minorities, and have every right to address the ongoing issue of racism in a collectivist way, as against collectivist-government monolithic policies, like regarding killer-cop policing and statues and whatever.

You're effectively *blaming the victim* and saying that any kind of collective *fightback* against bourgeois institutional racism is somehow 'racism' -- you *would* use the term 'reverse racism', but that's too glaring and discredited these days.

If we judge each other as individuals the problems are immediately solved as no one would pay attention to group membership.

More bullshit, because *many* institutional government services are inherently monolithic, and have to be administered according to blanket government *policies*, like that for the military, taxes, roads, rails, education, and other kinds of infrastructure-in-common.

The *lack* of universal standards in government policy, by race, is called *institutional racism*, like Jim Crow laws, killer cops, police brutality, redlining, etc.

Unfortunately we exist in a hierarchy of competence and as Peterson used to say all hierarchies can become corrupt and tyrannical. The exact same situation always happens on the left. We are HUMAN!

Collectivism actually *mitigates* the vagaries of individualism because any given *group* can take on a life of its own, shedding or including individuals on the basis of what's best for the group as a whole, which is what groups / organizations / institutions *do*.

Are you really saying that you want all businesses, governments, corporations, and groups to be *abolished* -- ? I didn't think so.

“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”
― George Orwell, 1984


“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
― George Orwell, 1984

You're *what* -- describing *NATO* here?

They are low in the hierarchy and unhappy because they compare themselves to those that have more. IN a socialist nation the ability to compare would not be allowed.

There's no such thing as a 'socialist nation', unless you're a *Stalinist*, and you're increasingly sounding like one with this particular line of yours.

What do you think of social hierarchies?

[Julian658]

Well then where do you stand on the issue of a nationalist military?

As soon as you say 'yes' to that you're accepting a certain *type* of collectivism, one that's state-run, and is structured in a way that could be called 'military syndicalism'.

As a libertarian I have no choice but to accept a military for the purpose of defense. Nations or groups that have achieved more than others have done this since day one. As soon as agriculture developed there was a need for protection from outsiders that wanted to rob the goodies. You are trying to dismiss the very essence of being human. We evolved in tribes, it is wired, we cannot do much about it. At best, some of us recognize we are tribal and try to modulate the outcome; meanwhile most people have no idea they are tribal.

What about tax breaks for the wealthy? That's a policy of collectivism for the rich, based on existing wealth ownership, better known as 'plutocracy'.

Only the productive members of society are taxed. Meanwhile the non-productive or less productive want to tax the productive as much as possible to take possession of wealth. Same old story!

Civil society doesn't produce *dick*, though, so you have your European-Enlightenment bourgeois 'rights' arguments from the 1700s, but that's about it. We now -- since you haven't noticed -- live in an *industrial* age, with mass production practices that benefit the plutocratic wealthy elites, but not the workers who actually *make* the stuff.

The workers benefit much less than the creators and owners of the system. I do not see a way out of this one. Let the workers work with no creators or organizers of business. It does not work that way--------most humans are mundane followers whereas creators are very few. Without people with vision the workers produce NOTHING. This hierarchy is a bitch because those that sit at the very top are just a very tiny minority. Destroying the top creates a nation of average people. with very average results.

Bullshit -- you think that *balkanization*, down to the *individualist* level, is the answer, when it's *not*. As soon as you have a company / business, or corporation, you have a localized kind of 'collectivism', but for private interests.

I will take balkanization at the individual level every time. There is no such thing as a nation with no leaders or chiefs.

Racial groups, acting in their own collective-group best interests, is called anti-oppression, or anti-colonialism, or Black Lives Matter, because they're historically *oppressed* social minorities, and have every right to address the ongoing issue of racism in a collectivist way, as against collectivist-government monolithic policies, like regarding killer-cop policing and statues and whatever.

Racism today is much less than 60 years ago. What we have is hyper awareness or racial PTSD. There is a collective mindset that somehow believes they are suffering more than people that actually lived during slavery and Jim Crow. The young people of this era have been told they are oppressed since birth, therefore they believe they have it worse than ever.

You're effectively *blaming the victim* and saying that any kind of collective *fightback* against bourgeois institutional racism is somehow 'racism' -- you *would* use the term 'reverse racism', but that's too glaring and discredited these days.

You fail to see the similarity of the Antifa/BLM partnership with the cultural revolution of Mao. Cops kill more unarmed whites than blacks, but the media keeps that away from the public. Tony Timpa an American of European ancestry was killed by the cops in exactly the same manner George Floyd was killed. The media said NOTHING. We have a problem with police violence, that is the issue. The media creates the illusion that only black dudes are killed by the police.

Watch Timpa die, no different than George Floyd:

[Tainari88]

Racism is just a by product of a bad system.

Here is some evidence in math.

[ckaihatsu]

As a libertarian I have no choice but to accept a military for the purpose of defense. Nations or groups that have achieved more than others have done this since day one. As soon as agriculture developed there was a need for protection from outsiders that wanted to rob the goodies. You are trying to dismiss the very essence of being human. We evolved in tribes, it is wired, we cannot do much about it. At best, some of us recognize we are tribal and try to modulate the outcome; meanwhile most people have no idea they are tribal.

So you're *for* a certain *kind* of collectivism, that of a nationalist military.

Why aren't you screaming bloody-tribalism at *this* point, because *nation-states* haven't always existed, and yet they're the basis for *military* institutions / groups these days, which you explicitly accept.

Only the productive members of society are taxed. Meanwhile the non-productive or less productive want to tax the productive as much as possible to take possession of wealth. Same old story!

You're assuming that all wealth was obtained *meritocratically*, though, which certainly *isn't* the case, as is confirmed by inheritances and nationalist-corporate acquisitions of natural resources like petroleum.

Exchange values / market-pricing doesn't gauge *productivity*, either, contrary to your pretendings. *No one's* been able to accurately define what pricing denotes, exactly -- it's too much of a complicated mish-mash to define precisely what any given dollar bill actually represents.

Is the conquering of lands from others (indigenous peoples) to be considered 'productivity', and to be rewarded with wealth? And yet that's exactly what happens.

The workers benefit much less than the creators and owners of the system. I do not see a way out of this one.

It's *easy* -- since it's the *workers* who are doing the actual productivity, it's the workers who should be the ones to also collectively 'own' and control the *means* of mass industrial production.

Let the workers work with no creators or organizers of business. It does not work that way--------

Correct -- because of existing *private property* ownership.

most humans are mundane followers whereas creators are very few. Without people with vision the workers produce NOTHING. This hierarchy is a bitch because those that sit at the very top are just a very tiny minority. Destroying the top creates a nation of average people. with very average results.

*Or* the workers might just continue producing whatever it is that they've *been* producing, like food, housing, etc. -- which is fine as a baseline.

Given a new kind of social organizing around *workplaces* instead of around *capital*, society could readily collectively self-determine *what* needs to be produced, and how to distribute the products according to *human need*.

I developed a logistical approach to this issue myself:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


And:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

---

I will take balkanization at the individual level every time. There is no such thing as a nation with no leaders or chiefs.

Leaders and chiefs, though, are no longer *individuals*, because their social function is to politically represent the mass social subjectivity of *many* people, which is far more social power than for just themselves and their own personal preferences and will.

So you're not really for fully-balkanized individualization / individualism, but you're for social hierarchy, as with nations, leaders, and chiefs.

Racism today is much less than 60 years ago. What we have is hyper awareness or racial PTSD. There is a collective mindset that somehow believes they are suffering more than people that actually lived during slavery and Jim Crow. The young people of this era have been told they are oppressed since birth, therefore they believe they have it worse than ever.

You're *pretending* though, that's it's all-in-their-heads, which is *not* the case. It's a social subjective *reflection* of actual social-reality conditions, like those of killer cops, police brutality, the wealth gap (by race), income inequality (by race), structural white supremacy, lack of access / representation in government (by race), etc.

You fail to see the similarity of the Antifa/BLM partnership with the cultural revolution of Mao. Cops kill more unarmed whites than blacks, but the media keeps that away from the public.

My *own* politics call for more than just a Maoist-type 'cultural revolution' -- I call for a *proletarian revolution* worldwide, which has to do with who controls the means of mass industrial production. It *should* be the workers of the world in control of mass industrial production, and not capital ownership.

Cops kill disproportionately more *people of color*, though you're correct that the greater bulk numbers of people killed by cops are Caucasian.

Tony Timpa an American of European ancestry was killed by the cops in exactly the same manner George Floyd was killed. The media said NOTHING. We have a problem with police violence, that is the issue. The media creates the illusion that only black dudes are killed by the police.

Watch Timpa die, no different than George Floyd:
_c-E_i8Q5G0&t=120s

It's a valid point, of course, though, again, blacks are *disproportionately* killed by cops, which means that killer cops are racist in their killings.

[Julian658]

So you're *for* a certain *kind* of collectivism, that of a nationalist military.

As I said: It is a necessary evil--------Thomas Hobbes said it best.
“The condition of man . . . is a condition of war of everyone against everyone”
― Thomas Hobbes

“Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.”
― Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

“The source of every crime, is some defect of the understanding; or some error in reasoning; or some sudden force of the passions.”
― Thomas Hobbes

Why aren't you screaming bloody-tribalism at *this* point, because *nation-states* haven't always existed, and yet they're the basis for *military* institutions / groups these days, which you explicitly accept.

I simply acknowledge we are tribal. You seem to think tribalism is a social construct.

You're assuming that all wealth was obtained *meritocratically*, though, which certainly *isn't* the case, as is confirmed by inheritances and nationalist-corporate acquisitions of natural resources like petroleum.

The natural state of the ancient man was violence and poverty. That some men are not poor is an aberration. That some men are pacifists is also an aberration. However, if we go back in time the first rich man made money because he was better than his peers.

Exchange values / market-pricing doesn't gauge *productivity*, either, contrary to your pretendings. *No one's* been able to accurately define what pricing denotes, exactly -- it's too much of a complicated mish-mash to define precisely what any given dollar bill actually represents.

It is not an exact science, however, the market tends to determine pricing.

Is the conquering of lands from others (indigenous peoples) to be considered 'productivity', and to be rewarded with wealth? And yet that's exactly what happens.

The strong conquering the weak is the story of humanity. You are battling the nature of MAN. But, I am not surprised Marx did not understand the nature of MAN.

It's *easy* -- since it's the *workers* who are doing the actual productivity, it's the workers who should be the ones to also collectively 'own' and control the *means* of mass industrial production.

That is a bit naive. Someone has to have a vision to plan the end product. Someone needs to provider the framework and direction to create the end product. I-phones did not create themselves spontaneously.

*Or* the workers might just continue producing whatever it is that they've *been* producing, like food, housing, etc. -- which is fine as a baseline.

A return to the 19th century technology is the only way it may work.

Given a new kind of social organizing around *workplaces* instead of around *capital*, society could readily collectively self-determine *what* needs to be produced, and how to distribute the products according to *human need*.

Capitalists are incredibly good at producing what the masses want.

You're *pretending* though, that's it's all-in-their-heads, which is *not* the case. It's a social subjective *reflection* of actual social-reality conditions, like those of killer cops, police brutality, the wealth gap (by race), income inequality (by race), structural white supremacy, lack of access / representation in government (by race), etc.

Racism is real, but much less than 5-6 decades ago. And yet the perception of racisn has gone up. The only explanation is PTSD.

Cops kill disproportionately more *people of color*, though you're correct that the greater bulk numbers of people killed by cops are Caucasian.

Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings

An oldie, but a goodie. The study done by a black scholar. The rate of killing is no different between black and white when other variables are adjusted . However, in non-shooting encounters the blacks are treated a bit worse than whites.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upsh ... tings.html

It's a valid point, of course, though, again, blacks are *disproportionately* killed by cops, which means that killer cops are racist in their killings.

See the above study. Blacks have a much greater number of contacts with the cops.

[Unthinking Majority]

Racism is real, but much less than 5-6 decades ago. And yet the perception of racisn has gone up. The only explanation is PTSD.

I don't think it's PTSD. I think it's changes in demographics and technology. The % of non-whites, especially among the younger set, in the west has never been higher. So they are vocal, and also have a larger presence in the media, universities etc. Then add the advent of social media, which means everyone has a voice now, and angry minority voices are amplified.

[Julian658]

I don't think it's PTSD. I think it's changes in demographics and technology. The % of non-whites, especially among the younger set, in the west has never been higher. So they are vocal, and also have a larger presence in the media, universities etc. Then add the advent of social media, which means everyone has a voice now, and angry minority voices are amplified.

That is an excellent point. But, there is a propagation of the meme of racism. The media likely plays a role as they amplify the racism message on purpose while avoiding news that may show racism is less. For example Tony Timpa died in exactly the same manner as George Floyd, but Mr. Timpa was white. The media wants to promote the message of racism, no doubt. They want people to believe only black dudes get killed by the police. Then you have the black leaders that constantly promote the noble victim role. Some people have embrace victimhood as part of their cultural identity.

Lastly anti-racism has become a religion that moves the so called oppressed. There is a constant recollection of evils slavery in the same manner evangelicals remember Jesus death on the cross. They have down the concept of original sin (slavery ) and the idea that one day the will be a time when the white people will have to fix this, the atonement and second coming. They applaud and rejoice when politicians mentio these themes in speeches and use the so-called oppression as culture.

[Unthinking Majority]

That is an excellent point. But, there is a propagation of the meme of racism. The media likely plays a role as they amplify the racism message on purpose while avoiding news that may show racism is less. For example Tony Timpa died in exactly the same manner as George Floyd, but Mr. Timpa was white. The media wants to promote the message of racism, no doubt. They want people to believe only black dudes get killed by the police. Then you have the black leaders that constantly promote the noble victim role. Some people have embrace victimhood as part of their cultural identity.

Outrage is good for ratings in the news. Outrage trends on twitter, it gets a lot of people commenting etc. Reasonable, uncontroversial opinions are boring, they don't attract the eye-balls, they're becoming lost white noise.

I think this one reason why our politics is polarizing too. The minority outrage opinions, whether neo-nazis or leftwing nutballs, seem more mainstream than they are because of the coverage they get. The silent majority is lost in the noise, and then everyone is shocked when something like Trump winning happens. Most people don't pay close attention to politics, they're casual observers, and many don't even bother to vote.

A lot of people don't even use twitter. People over 50, how many use twitter? Journalists and media personalities also represent a certain viewpoint, these are urban well-educated people living in the biggest cities in the US, especially NYC and LA, and represent those viewpoints. Flo the 50-year old cashier at Walmart and Bob who drives a truck, and Dale the rural farmer, their voices aren't heard.

[Julian658]

Outrage is good for ratings in the news. Outrage trends on twitter, it gets a lot of people commenting etc. Reasonable, uncontroversial opinions are boring, they don't attract the eye-balls, they're becoming lost white noise.

I think this one reason why our politics is polarizing too. The minority outrage opinions, whether neo-nazis or leftwing nutballs, seem more mainstream than they are because of the coverage they get. The silent majority is lost in the noise, and then everyone is shocked when something like Trump winning happens. Most people don't pay close attention to politics, they're casual observers, and many don't even bother to vote.

A lot of people don't even use twitter. People over 50, how many use twitter? Journalists and media personalities also represent a certain viewpoint, these are urban well-educated people living in the biggest cities in the US, especially NYC and LA, and represent those viewpoints. Flo the 50-year old cashier at Walmart and Bob who drives a truck, and Dale the rural farmer, their voices aren't heard.

There are well educated young blacks that are not buying into the victimhood role. Listen to McWhorter and Coleman Hughes. There is also the old guard:
Thomas Soule and Walt Williams two giant intellectuals have never been embraced by the black community. Meanwhile they are adored by the libertarians and conservatives.

[ckaihatsu]

So you're *for* a certain *kind* of collectivism, that of a nationalist military.

As I said: It is a necessary evil--------Thomas Hobbes said it best.
“The condition of man . . . is a condition of war of everyone against everyone”
― Thomas Hobbes

“Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.”
― Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

“The source of every crime, is some defect of the understanding; or some error in reasoning; or some sudden force of the passions.”
― Thomas Hobbes

So, on a continuum from 'competition' to 'cooperation', which side do you favor? Do you see 'competition' as being a *necessary prerequisite* for the world to function, as through the international patchwork of nation-states?

Do you think it's important for the members of a nationalist military to internally *cooperate* with each other, for overall group cohesion?


---

Why aren't you screaming bloody-tribalism at *this* point, because *nation-states* haven't always existed, and yet they're the basis for *military* institutions / groups these days, which you explicitly accept.

I simply acknowledge we are tribal. You seem to think tribalism is a social construct.

Well, it *is* -- it's based on the societal development of *pastoralism* as a means of production:

Pastoralism is a form of animal husbandry, historically by nomadic people who moved with their herds. The species involved include various herding livestock, including cattle, camels, goats, yaks, llamas, reindeer, horses and sheep.[1]

Pastoralism is found in many variations throughout the world, generally where environmental characteristics such as aridity, poor soils, cold or hot temperature, and lack of water make crop growing difficult or impossible. Operating in these more extreme environments with more marginal lands, mean that pastoral communities are very vulnerable to global warming.[2]

Pastoralism remains a way of life in many geographies including Africa, the Tibetan plateau, the Eurasian steppes, the Andes, Patagonia, the Pampas, Australia, and other many other places. As of 2019, 200-500 million people practice pastoralism globally, and 75% of countries have pastoral communities.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralism

And, again, nationalism is a fairly recent societal development, as it *transcends* mere tribalism, because it uses *bureaucracy* for internal administration over far larger populations and more vast expanses of political territory than any given tribe could do itself with traditional heredity-type hierarchies.

My point stands that a tribalist form of social organization is *not* biologically hard-wired into us, contrary to your beliefs in such, because we're currently organized into *nations* as the core political organizing norm, which is *not* the same thing as the *tribalist* form of social organization.


---

The natural state of the ancient man was violence and poverty. That some men are not poor is an aberration. That some men are pacifists is also an aberration. However, if we go back in time the first rich man made money because he was better than his peers.

This is your standard bullshit individualism mythology -- the *history* of humanity begs to differ:

From a very different perspective, Friedrich von Hayek, the favourite economist of Margaret Thatcher, complained that humans have ‘long-submerged innate instincts’ and ‘primordial emotions’ based on ‘sentiments that were good for the small band’, leading them to want ‘to do good to known people’. 23

‘Human nature’ is, in fact, very flexible. In present day society it enables some people, at least, to indulge in the greed and competitiveness that Hayek enthused over. It has also permitted, in class societies, the most horrific barbarities—torture, mass rape, burning alive, wanton slaughter. Behaviour was very different among foraging peoples because the requirements of obtaining a livelihood necessitated egalitarianism and altruism.

Hunters and gatherers were necessarily intensely dependent on one another. The gatherers usually supplied the most reliable source of food, and the hunters that which was most valued. So those who specialised in hunting depended for their daily survival on the generosity of those who gathered, while those who specialised in gathering—and those who were temporarily unsuccessful in the hunt—relied for valued additions to their diet on those who managed to kill animals. The hunt itself did not usually consist of an individual male hero going off to make a kill, but comprised a group of men (sometimes with the auxiliary assistance of women and children) working together to chase and trap a prey. At every point, the premium was on cooperation and collective values. Without them, no band of foragers could have survived for more than a few days.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 7-8

Gordon Childe described the transformation which occurred in Mesopotamia between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago as people settled in the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. They found land which was extremely fertile, but which could only be cultivated by ‘drainage and irrigation works’, which depended upon ‘cooperative effort’.48 More recently Maisels has suggested people discovered that by making small breaches in the banks between river channels they could irrigate wide areas of land and increase output considerably. But they could not afford to consume all the extra harvest immediately, so some was put aside to protect against harvest failure.49

Grain was stored in sizeable buildings which, standing out from the surrounding land, came to symbolise the continuity and preservation of social life. Those who supervised the granaries became the most prestigious group in society, overseeing the life of the rest of the population as they gathered in, stored and distributed the surplus. The storehouses and their controllers came to seem like powers over and above society, the key to its success, which demanded obedience and praise from the mass of people. They took on an almost supernatural aspect. The storehouses were the first temples, their superintendents the first priests.50 Other social groups congregated around the temples, concerned with building work, specialised handicrafts, cooking for and clothing the temple specialists, transporting food to the temples and organising the long distance exchange of products. Over the centuries the agricultural villages grew into towns and the towns into the first cities, such as Uruk, Lagash, Nippur, Kish and Ur (from which the biblical patriarch Abraham supposedly came).

Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 19

Meritocracy (merit, from Latin mereō, and -cracy, from Ancient Greek κράτος kratos 'strength, power') is a political system in which economic goods and/or political power are vested in individual people on the basis of talent, effort, and achievement, rather than wealth or social class.[1] Advancement in such a system is based on performance, as measured through examination or demonstrated achievement. Although the concept of meritocracy has existed for centuries, the term itself was coined in 1958 by the sociologist Michael Dunlop Young in his satirical essay The Rise of the Meritocracy.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

The Rise of the Meritocracy is a book by British sociologist and politician Michael Dunlop Young which was first published in 1958.[1] It describes a dystopian society in a future United Kingdom in which intelligence and merit have become the central tenet of society, replacing previous divisions of social class and creating a society stratified between a merited power-holding elite and a disenfranchised underclass of the less merited. The essay satirised the Tripartite System of education that was being practised at the time.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_ ... eritocracy

---

Exchange values / market-pricing doesn't gauge *productivity*, either, contrary to your pretendings. *No one's* been able to accurately define what pricing denotes, exactly -- it's too much of a complicated mish-mash to define precisely what any given dollar bill actually represents.

It is not an exact science, however, the market tends to determine pricing.

It's not a 'science', it's a *practice* in which those with greater wealth have greater access to the availability of the markets.


---

Is the conquering of lands from others (indigenous peoples) to be considered 'productivity', and to be rewarded with wealth? And yet that's exactly what happens.

The strong conquering the weak is the story of humanity. You are battling the nature of MAN. But, I am not surprised Marx did not understand the nature of MAN.

You're sidestepping the issue of what capitalism considers 'productivity' to be -- if someone buys an apartment block and rents out the apartment units, and collects rent, that's considered to be economic 'productivity', yet no commodity has been produced by the landlord. This rentier capital function (of renting out real estate) more resembles *feudalism* than capitalism. This video covers it as well:


Capitalism And The American Pandemic Response

---

It's *easy* -- since it's the *workers* who are doing the actual productivity, it's the workers who should be the ones to also collectively 'own' and control the *means* of mass industrial production.

That is a bit naive. Someone has to have a vision to plan the end product. Someone needs to provider the framework and direction to create the end product. I-phones did not create themselves spontaneously.

What you're missing is that workers can *self-organize* -- any of the management-type functions that you're indicating can be done on a collective, *emergent* basis, by those who actually do the work.

There's also a historical *precedent* for such:

Soviet democracy (sometimes council democracy) is a political system in which the rule of the population by directly elected soviets (Russian for "council") is exercised. The councils are directly responsible to their electors and bound by their instructions using delegate model of representation. Such an imperative mandate is in contrast to a free mandate, in which the elected delegates are only responsible to their conscience. Delegates may accordingly be dismissed from their post at any time or be voted out (recall).

In a soviet democracy, voters are organized in basic units, for example the workers of a company, the inhabitants of a district, or the soldiers of a barracks. They directly send the delegates as public functionaries, which act as legislators, government and courts in one. In contrast to earlier democracy models according to Locke and Montesquieu, there is no separation of powers. The councils are elected on several levels: At the residential and business level, delegates are sent to the local councils in plenary assemblies. These, in turn, can delegate members to the next level. The system of delegation continues to the Congress of Soviets at the state level.[1] The electoral processes thus take place from the bottom upwards. The levels are usually tied to administrative levels.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy

And:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

---

most humans are mundane followers whereas creators are very few. Without people with vision the workers produce NOTHING. This hierarchy is a bitch because those that sit at the very top are just a very tiny minority. Destroying the top creates a nation of average people. with very average results.

*Or* the workers might just continue producing whatever it is that they've *been* producing, like food, housing, etc. -- which is fine as a baseline.

A return to the 19th century technology is the only way it may work.

Now you're sounding *apocalyptic* -- you know that equity capital will invest in anything and everything that has economic growth potential, so even your own *capitalism* won't let you turn back the clock *that* far.

Also, you greatly underestimate the ability of people to collectively self-organize productive activities, outside of a hierarchical structure.

Capitalists are incredibly good at producing what the masses want.

The masses, though, don't get *access* to those goods if they can't *afford* them -- so the production *isn't* for the masses, literally, it's for market demand.

Racism is real, but much less than 5-6 decades ago. And yet the perception of racisn has gone up. The only explanation is PTSD.

You're still ignoring the prevalence of killer cops -- that's at least 1,000 needless, preventable deaths in the U.S. every year. It's a very good place to start instead of using people of color for your psychologicalization exercise, which is insulting to anyone.

Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings

An oldie, but a goodie. The study done by a black scholar. The rate of killing is no different between black and white when other variables are adjusted . However, in non-shooting encounters the blacks are treated a bit worse than whites.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upsh ... tings.html

So you'd rather be an empiricist hair-splitter than address the overall *issue* of police brutality in a comprehensive way. Now another day has gone by and more people have been killed or maimed by police while you obliviously juggle data.

See the above study. Blacks have a much greater number of contacts with the cops.

Okay, empiricist -- and why *is* that? Most likely due to racist policing practices.


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

That is an excellent point. But, there is a propagation of the meme of racism. The media likely plays a role as they amplify the racism message on purpose while avoiding news that may show racism is less.

Julian, you keep using the implied premise that society is somehow a blank-slate today, and entirely 'post-racism', when that's far from the actual situation.

Just the *existence* of killer-cops / police brutality, which you've acknowledged, means that society is still racist, because people of color are *disproportionately* killed by police. That's *racism*.

For society and the media to *finally* turn its attention to this history of racism, up through the present day, is a *positive* thing and should be *commended* and lauded, because typically racism is more-often *covered up*.

For example Tony Timpa died in exactly the same manner as George Floyd, but Mr. Timpa was white. The media wants to promote the message of racism, no doubt. They want people to believe only black dudes get killed by the police. Then you have the black leaders that constantly promote the noble victim role. Some people have embrace victimhood as part of their cultural identity.

You're not-understanding that racism doesn't emerge from *within* the black population itself -- it's *imposed* on blacks, and black culture, if-you-like, from *without*, from capitalism's bourgeois class power structure, notably from the *police* / policing culture that's reinforced / supported by the overall bourgeois government.

So if victimhood is a part of the black culture and black cultural identity, that's because there are actual *victims* there, who never *wanted* to be victims, but there they are now, because of policing practices, and we of the whole society need to be able to *address* this fact, as with concrete policies like defunding the police, etc., otherwise the list of victims will just continue to grow.

Lastly anti-racism has become a religion that moves the so called oppressed. There is a constant recollection of evils slavery in the same manner evangelicals remember Jesus death on the cross. They have down the concept of original sin (slavery ) and the idea that one day the will be a time when the white people will have to fix this, the atonement and second coming. They applaud and rejoice when politicians mentio these themes in speeches and use the so-called oppression as culture.
hGJbrLs_8_0&t=50s
UPiNiTwf5bM&t=124s

So at best you're using a *metaphor* of religion, and making *parallels* to such, but you seem to be forgetting that slavery is a historical *fact*, and that the entire United States was initially *built* on slave labor, meaning people of color.

[ckaihatsu]

Bloomington confronts ‘Back the Blue’ rally and marches for Black lives

By Meredith Aby-Keirstead


(photo by Kim DeFranco)

Bloomington, MN - Over 500 people rallied at Kennedy High School and then marched to Bloomington City Hall, July 25, to confront a ‘blue lives matter’ demonstration.

The newly-formed Bloomington Antiracist Coalition (BARC), a group of Bloomington high school students and graduates, worked with other community and Black lives matter organizers to plan the Bloomington March for Justice. Their demands were justice for Black lives, an end to police ‘unaccountability,’ to stand in solidarity with Muslims, demand anti-racist changes to the Bloomington Public Schools, and to call for Isak Aden’s case to be reopened. Isak Aden was murdered by Eagan and Bloomington police in 2019.

Coincidentally, while BARC was beginning to plan the Bloomington March for Justice, Bloomington Patriots announced their plans for a “Back the Blue” rally. The Bloomington Patriots used marketing materials from, and coordinated with, ACT for America, an Islamophobic hate group that fearmongers about ‘sharia law coming to America.’

Tre Tellor, a spokesperson for BARC, explained the importance of the action to communities of color in Bloomington, “Marching for justice against the Back the Blue rally was really important to me because growing up in Bloomington I dealt with microagressions and feared the police every day. To get a chance to mobilize with hundreds of people in my hometown against hate was inspiring, it reminded me that there are people even in the suburbs willing to fight hate.”

As the protesters marched by city hall, the Bloomington Patriots and their supporters came out to the street to confront them. The ‘blue lives matter’ protesters were outnumbered five-to-one by the Bloomington March for Justice. Few of the pro-cop protesters wore masks, and several were openly carrying weapons, including one with an AR-15. The pro-cop protesters also carried lots of American and Trump flags. They tried to provoke multiple physical confrontations, including ripping off a marshal’s mask and glasses at one point. The Bloomington March for Justice marched around city hall and then returned to Kennedy High School.

Daniela Kunkel, one of the founders of BARC explained, “It’s important that we marched to counter the Back the Blue rally because islamophobia, anti-Blackness, racism and hate are not and will not be tolerated in Bloomington. BARC is looking for making change happen right here in the suburbs - police brutality, racial profiling and racism don’t stop at the Minneapolis city limits.”

Kunkel continued, “Isak Aden matters, his life mattered. His case needs to be talked about. The emotional and physical terror that the police officers put him through on the night they killed him needs to be talked about - 90-plus armed officers against one, 23-year-old man. He and his family have not received justice. We need to hold our police accountable in Bloomington for the unjust and brutal murder of Isak.”

The protest had a good turnout from the Bloomington community, including members from the Bloomington Federation of Teachers, many who marshalled for the first time at the march.

Cory Elsmore, a Kennedy High School teacher and union member, when asked why they were marshalling the protest, said, “My students need to see that I am there fighting for them and with them.” Julia Moe, a Jefferson High School teacher and union member agreed, “I will always be there to support my students! They are hurting and scared, and I feel that pain. We have needed this change to happen for years, and I had to show that I agree.”

The Bloomington March for Justice was organized by Bloomington Antiracist Coalition, Slaughterhouse Education, Communities United Against Police Brutality, Minnesota Disability Justice Network, Justice Squad, Project Rose, CAIR-Minnesota, Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar, Racial Justice Network, Christ the King Lutheran Church in Bloomington MN, Indivisible Bloomington MN, and People’s Justice Coalition.

The next protest to demand justice for Isak Aden will be on August 4 at 6 p.m. at 1501 Central Parkway in Eagan, Minnesota to challenge an event hosted by the Eagan Police Department with the bogus aim of ‘building community trust.’

view email in browser | Unsubscribe ckaihatsu@gmail.com | Update your profile | Forward to a friend

You are receiving this email because you signed up for our newswire.

Fight Back! News
P.O. Box 582564
Minneapolis, MN 55440

Add us to your address book
Copyright (C) 2020 Fight Back! News All rights reserved.

[ckaihatsu]

Wealth Inequality in America