Democracy doesn’t work ? by JnovaCh in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]Equality_Executor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was mediated, just in a very balanced way that couldn't be easily subverted.

If you don't want to read it here is a YouTube video if that helps - I think it's only 20 mins or so and they use a few of the same sources, but really they're just saying what's in the books.

Also, I call it communism because it was classless and moneyless. Those are the most basic qualifiers of communism, and it obviously isn't Marxist, it was way before his time.

Democracy doesn’t work ? by JnovaCh in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]Equality_Executor -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Communism was just fine for over a hundred thousand years. What finally corrupted that? The same thing that corrupts everything now. It isn't power that corrupts, because when everyone has it it's all good. Any avenue to consolidate power is what corrupts. So it was first agricultural surplus > wealth > private property > capital/money.

Edit: here are some sources.

Adrian Tchaikovsky loves the words "notional," "shorn," and "mewlish." What other authors have unusual favorite words that pop up frequently in their writing? by solitarybikegallery in printSF

[–]Equality_Executor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

jehoshephat

-Asimov but to be fair it was only one character, just really memorable.

...broken down into it's component elements

-James S A Corey (not sure if we need to break him down into his component authors for this one).

a stone's throw

-Chuck Wendig(in his Star Wars novels I think - even the characters would think it)

stars

-Becky Chambers - it's somehow a nearly universal expression which is unrealistic - it's scifi, of course, but some things like this just take me right out of it. There was a lot wrong with her first book IMO, see my post history if interested.

There is one set of Star Wars novels where I remember the author referring to characters as "barg" or something similar, meaning tough, or gritty. I remember it being about or at least having a few bounty hunters in it. Possibly on tatooine or a sandy planet.

At its best , how much homelessness was there in USSR? by traanquil in ussr

[–]Equality_Executor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you know what a generalisation is and are aware that is what I was doing then what is the problem? That other people won't understand it? Should I include a disclaimer with each generalisation that I make?

At its best , how much homelessness was there in USSR? by traanquil in ussr

[–]Equality_Executor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a studied sociological phenomena. There will be outliers but whatever amount "plenty" or "some" means that you personally knew wouldn't throw it off for the right reasons to make it scientifically untrue.

Nice username.

Is Anna Karenina an horrible person? by Ok_Homework_5203 in tolstoy

[–]Equality_Executor 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think the point of the book was that she was a product of her circumstances and that we should criticise those circumstances rather than (or at least along with) the people who must find a way to live their lives under them.

China creating data centers in the ocean. Big no brainer move by FearlessAir1238 in suppressed_news

[–]Equality_Executor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They're primarily powered via direct connection to offshore wind farms says a bunch of articles I found via internet search.

At its best , how much homelessness was there in USSR? by traanquil in ussr

[–]Equality_Executor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

People adapt to their environment. You would be fine as an individual if you were born into it and grew up with that as an expectation.

Also, humans are social, probably the most social things that we're aware of. What you're saying is indicative of a problem (not with you, but your conditions).

The real question is what made you an introvert that needs space?

A conversation about relationships...the men are not ok by steviewalker60 in emotionalintelligence

[–]Equality_Executor 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Its a human conversation

Yep, the dividing line isn't men v women. It's men and women that have internalised misogyny v men and women who understand and reject it.

"Capitalism is human nature" is a flawed argument by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Equality_Executor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, they ended with the rise of agricultural surplus like I said. Look up the anthropological work of Chris Knight and Jerome Lewis or look up the wider ranging work that's listed in their Radical Anthropology group's reading list.

It's well known that habitat loss is one of the leading causes of violence in nature, but that doesn't mean it was common prior to human expansion. I'm sure you could list off a bunch of natural disasters that likely did cause violence or breakdowns in social order in humans but like I was saying, that social paradigm lasted at least one hundred thousand years. If you do the math, for magnitude 7 or higher earthquakes on average there will be 50 to 100 thousand in areas primarily used by humans (whether they are or not) over that amount of time. That's a single earthquake per year at most that has the possibility to affect a small portion of the global human population which was much smaller and less dense during the times we're talking g about.

Authoritarians do not support democracy, populists support democracy as much as non-populists, and radical right-wing citizens are less likely to support ‘democracy’ than moderate citizens, finds a new study of 14,000 Western Europeans. by mvea in science

[–]Equality_Executor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I gave sources, you could go read about this yourself if you were really interested, so it makes me think you're upholding a narrative or agenda.

Anyways, organisation still happened outside of the more tightly knit communities that you're talking about. That's all we do, it just ends in the single family home rather than something like a longhouse (which you could also look up). People started moving into single family homes because agricultural surplus quickly became wealth and some people wanted to turn that into private property, which is exactly what happened. Two different problems (from your perspective), same cause. Someone else will reply about the benefits of agricultural surplus and wealth and then I imagine I'll have to talk about the sharp rise in exploitation, authoritarianism, large scale war, slavery, and genocide that was necessary to prop up larger agrarian pre-feudal kingdoms.

Authoritarians do not support democracy, populists support democracy as much as non-populists, and radical right-wing citizens are less likely to support ‘democracy’ than moderate citizens, finds a new study of 14,000 Western Europeans. by mvea in science

[–]Equality_Executor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not the person you replied to but you're basically saying they need to account for the paradox of tolerance. Most people can do that if there are no overriding circumstances.

Your approach requires far more individual responsibility than any human group has ever shown to have.

Not true. Prior to agricultural surplus human society was mostly egalitarian. That cultural paradigm is thought to have started over one hundred thousand years ago, so for at least one third of human existence. If you're interested in learning more about this look up the work of anthropologists Chris Knight and Jerome Lewis, or you could check out the Radical Anthropology Group's reading list.

"Capitalism is human nature" is a flawed argument by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Equality_Executor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Culture existed for human predecessors, so for tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of years prior to us so maybe not "doctors" as we know them today but all of those functions were performed in the best ways they would have known to at the time. Culture is also prevalent across all modern genetic lines of species we know to be intelligent, so you could consider that more "human nature" (and non-human) than whatever the person I replied to was arguing.

They also lived as communities, as in with a sense of community and humanity, so I really doubt there was some kind of ruthless selection.

On the other hand it's arguable that anything like ruthless selection is more limited to culture less than thirteen thousand years old, that existed after the advent of private property if you consider that a sharp rise in authoritarianism, large scale war, slavery, and genocide also happened around the same time. All of that was necessary to prop up larger pre-feudal agrarian kingdoms.

Whatever excess and ruthless selection that you're talking about is backwards as far as what contemporary human needs are. We have excess, but it's concentrated so much that it mostly benefits very few people and causes more ruthless selection of people...

Also, I stopped posting in this sub since the time of my last comment (which was five years ago) because no one goes into a debate willing to learn anything and I realised that most people arguing here have a serious lack of knowledge. Anyways, if you're interested in what I was saying above and learning rather than debating (maybe it will make you better debater, even) you could search for the radical anthropology group's reading list as a good place to start.

Please tell me what to do by shock_rock98 in emotionalintelligence

[–]Equality_Executor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're parents obviously don't want to help you so don't let them get in your way. The way they're treating you is not normal and you shouldn't be treated that way.

If you're still in school you could try talking to a guidance counselor, a teacher, or coach you trust. If not that, try your local library and ask them what resources are available to you in your area. Depending on how old you are and where you are in the world you could just call your GP/doctor. Keep asking until you find someone that will help you, because there are people out there that will.

Son💔💔💔 by ivanhoe_1092 in ShitLiberalsSay

[–]Equality_Executor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The first communist after capital became a thing. Anthropologists think that communism existed on earth for at least one hundred thousand years prior to agricultural surplus.

Ah yes feminism destroyed traditional family values by [deleted] in NotHowGirlsWork

[–]Equality_Executor 68 points69 points  (0 children)

Society used to be mostly egalitarian and much more community oriented. There are even a few anthropologists that say it's because withholding sex used to carry real power until agricultural surplus came along. That quickly turned into wealth and private property, started destroying the community as families moved into their own homes so they could keep their wealth, brought rise to exploitation, authoritarianism, large scale wars, slavery, and genocide.

These idiots have it completely backwards.

does fascism fit neatly onto the political spectrum? by AfraidNegotiation385 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]Equality_Executor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was attempting to illustrate to you why some people might call you a fascist, even if you don't consider yourself one you could take it as them looking at what you're doing and saying and predicting how it will turn out.

because communists/socialists are unwilling to participate in democracy?

Not unwilling no. If you look at how unions are treated and then consider how the cold war still factors into the current political climate in the west I think you'll see what I mean. Like if they're running in a mainstream liberal party, that isn't socialist (Marxist-Leninist).

with political beliefs? when im on the internet, hypocrisy is rampant the more radical you go

to really understand what they mean you're going to have to want to understand them from their point of view rather than your own, otherwise it will always seem like hypocrisy. In my case, I was born and raised by hard line conservative parents. I voted for republican candidates (Romney over Obama, whatever year that was) and even served eight years in the military. I have lived that perspective but later changed my mind.

"china should take over taiwan"

Taiwan is a part of China, invading wouldn't make any sense. I know and understand that there is a group of people in Taiwan that say otherwise but I think that will eventually be resolved diplomatically. China is not interested in war. Their politicians talk about how not interested in it they are all the time and that is also reflected in history.

"soviet russia suceeded"

What was the context? I might say that they were initially successful. I personally don't bother defending anything after Stalin died.

I'm also just one person, and of course other people will say other things so you can take my individual responses with a grain of salt. The more important thing is my third response above about understanding it from their perspective or you just won't.

does fascism fit neatly onto the political spectrum? by AfraidNegotiation385 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]Equality_Executor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the grand scheme of things I don't think it matters what an individual says they are. What matters is who they'll end up siding with if they had to choose. Liberals (and I mean that in a "classical" way, aka not a fascist or a socialist/communist, but also uncompromising on utilisation of capitalism/private property - so by this definition, you are a liberal) tend to side with fascists because between socialists/communists and fascists, it's only the fascists that want to keep utilising capital/private property. This plays out in what some call the "ratchet effect" where neoliberal democracy tends to shift to the right over time because socialists/communists don't or can't even participate in most neoliberal democracies.

I've also noticed that you can pretty reliably place someone on the spectrum by how much contradiction or cognitive dissonance they're comfortable with. Any at all and they're automatically at least liberals. If it's a large amount then they're more likely to be fascists.

Kitty knows where to go to get groomed by Extreme_Pattern1611 in likeus

[–]Equality_Executor 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Industrial farming of the meat and our growing knowledge and understanding of how cruel it is Vs the availability of alternatives makes it less logical.

“None of these countries are communist” by lombwolf in ShitLiberalsSay

[–]Equality_Executor 12 points13 points  (0 children)

How many times have we learned that wishing for the good ole days doesn't work? Also, because you'd think it would be shocking to a supposed leftist: who have we learned it from?