So, since Marx has been thoroughly debunked and discredited...

>20th century history proves that capital and other material considerations do not underpin all of society

I usually view it that he is right in his critique of capitalism, but wrong in his advocation of communism as the cure.

why pick another 19th century thinker

why not be a true chad and focus on making a coherent 21st century populism out of the works of Lasch and Ellul

Post Marx' plan for a communistic society right now, primary sources only, and tell us which aspects you take issue with and for what reasons.

Why Populism? That’s cringe. I want to LARP as a Roman legionaire

you submit to the political death of the nostalgia, rather than embracing the eternal life of true historical analysis. will you fight? or will you perish like a dog?

>muh hero worship

Mainly the fact that it isnt inevitable

GUYS I HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO ANNOUNCE!
>*BRRRAAAAAAAP*

I'd rather we fashion our political philosophy around the works of John Ruskin, who transcends the petty left-right dichotomy to form a political theory that respects tradition and religion without undervaluing the lives of laborers, as the right tends to do.

No it didn't

So pretty much Christian Socialism then

no u

Shut up

That wasn't very Christian of you to say my friend.

Christ, shut the fuck up

Say something vaguely worthwhile, these posts are useless. How does Ruskin transcend the left/right dichotomy

We do not reject something simply because it isn't inevitable

Yes Carlyle is one of the best thinkers of his time. Unfortunately the cucked intelligentsia ignore him for not being progressive

Shuddup cunt

This, but also kinda not this. The communist manifesto was a reflection of the state of the working class during unregulated capitalism. As bad as communism is, I can see where Marx came from.

No, not exactly, though Christian Socialists are fond of Ruskin and would be on board with the program.

Communism appeals to weak people.

Hierarchy is not only natural but preferable

Marx has not been debunked
>inb4 muhh 55 million deaths
Marx never advocated for complete equality.

It wasn't true capitalism.

What's it ever done for us then

*ahem*

Attached: 45433034084_2febe0102c_c.jpg (800x640, 107K)

9 million people die every year from starvation in Capitalists countries right now.

%

People shouldn't be starving if we have multi-billionaires

Well that’s the biggest load of bullshit I’ve ever heard

but thats pretty much the crux of marx's theory. if it isn't inevitable there's really no reason to think it'll every occur

1) objectively false since commies killed 100 milions people and not even all wars for oil put together can put a dent to that.
2) It was unironically not true capitalism but just New Deal style cronyism

>true capitalism
"true capitalism" would not only kill 100x more, nigger, but would also end humanity by destroying the earth.

How do you know it has never been tried!

Attached: IMG_2893.jpg (258x245, 12K)

If I wanted to be beguiled by the ramblings of an old Scottish racist I'd rather go to Benidorm and ask any bald-headed and gut-protruding Anglo there their opinion of Muslims after they did two fat lines of adulterated cocaine bought from a Romanian teenager.

You're doing yourself a disservice by seeing Carlyle that way. Even his opponents at the time respected him.

And that number is decreasing every year.

I've read his Dr Francia via Moldbug, it was well written and enjoyable (bit dense, but I expected that) but I'm a fucking communist.

Are you really that retarded? Do you even know what the advocates of ideal capitalism propose?
What we have today is pretty close to ideal capitalism, just substract the agency of the state and banks. You get a despotic imperialism with a focus on capital acummulation and the production of superflous commodities. Soon later the world ends.

>trillions
Conquest is well known to have used fraudulent methods lmao. As is, millions have died 'under' both capitalism or socialism (far far more under the former but whatever). But the numbers game is pure faggotry regardless of which side is doing it. I don't support one or the other based on bodycount, but on their internal contradictions and subsequent development
>cronyism
You say that since (at least) the 30s we've had not-capitalism, then why should I take it seriously as an ideology you fucking retard. Why does your precious 'capitalism' turn into 'cronyism' with such mind numbing predictability? Here's the unironic truth, any system that comes to achieve any kind of large scale success will have thousands, likely millions, of deaths 'attributable' to it, that's seemingly just the nature of social change. That's shit, but it's what we've seen borne out by history, repeatedly, with all systems yet anyway. So own your system and its flaws and stop being a faggot. Make some actual arguments. Engage with history more honestly. Stop being Utopian.

Yeah thanks to China

Then yeah you're not going to like his political stuff. You might still enjoy Sartor Resartus or his French Revolution. The guy had an immense impact on 19th century literature.

Your absolute lack of self consciousness was funny just now but this post turned it to tragic, like having to explain to your quadriplegic daughter Why her dream of being a ballerina will never come true.
I'm bummed out. Peace.

Attached: IMG_3509.jpg (960x960, 75K)

[Citation needed]

You're responding to someone who's not the same that wrote the two posts before. I was just pointing that the ironic punchline you threw thinking that it represented some kind of "communist gets wrecked by neoliberal dilettante" was actually pretty stupid. The inability to produce 'good' humour is usually an indicative of a low level of intelligence.
When the ideal is just a radicalisation of the actual and even when disregarding the actual it's obvious that poverty, hunger, death and collapse are crucial parts of a system that's inherently contradictory, the "How do you know it has never been tried!" is just retarded. It's like saying that true world scale nuclear bombing has never been tried, therefore you can't deduce what could happen.

>going from one retarded Hegelian to another retarded Hegelian

It's common knowledge that they lifted 800 million out of poverty at this point mate but fine
worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview
Also
>That is to say, without China’s efforts of poverty reduction, or excluding China’s poverty population, the poverty population of the world would have increased from 848 million in 1980 to 917 million in 1990, and then to 945 million in 1999
imf.org/external/np/apd/seminars/2003/newdelhi/angang.pdf
Also
>Developing countries have renegotiated about $50bn of Chinese loans in the past decade, with term extensions, refinancing and debt forgiveness the most frequent outcomes, according to research challenging “debt-trap” accusations surrounding Chinese lending. An examination of 38 Chinese debt renegotiations with 24 countries in the past decade by the Rhodium Group, a consultancy,concluded that China’s leverage remains limited, with many of the renegotiations resolved in favour of the borrower.
ft.com/content/0b207552-6977-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d

Carlyle spends way more time lambasting laissez-faire capitalism than he does socialism. At most, he disliked socialism being promised as cure-all than any particulars.

But what allowed them to do that was adoption of capitalist policies.

Large parts of china was africa levels of poor before they opened up their economy.

>capitalist
No - market and capitalist aren't synonymous. China is market socialist, i.e economic commanding heights are state-owned and planned, combined with consumer goods light industry etc markets that are highly regulated and utterly subordinate to the economic core. The Chinese call this the primary stage of socialism.
Hence:
asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/Xi-doctrine-comes-before-profit-for-China-s-state-owned-companies
ft.com/content/3e37af94-17f8-11e9-b191-175523b59d1d
scmp.com/news/article/2165254/beijings-tilt-towards-state-owned-enterprises-raises-doubts-about-future

China is a capitalist state with a totalitarian regime that the rest of the world just ignores due to commercial interests.

See
I don't give a fuck about your gay ass 'totalitarian' buzzwordism tho sorry mate

marx is more relevant than ever

Attached: Specters_of_Marx,_French_edition.jpg (201x300, 6K)

you sure would care if you lived in China lol

do the Chinese economists use marxists economics for their analyzes or Keynes?

I'd care if I was some black cunt getting ported off to the plantation as well, or a syrian kid or a tranny or any other millions of things, but I'm not so meh. I don't defend every aspect of the Chinese state (like they need my defense anyway), I merely acknowledge the fact that they are indeed socialist, and therefore are indeed advancing world-history. Any hypothetical Western socialism would hopefully look 100x better than China, despite its massive achievements.

If socialism can be stretched to include a dictatorial party whose economy has loads of market elements and doesn't seem to be in any way moving towards any kind of proletarian uprising, then I fail to see why you even care about the word, unless you truly believe their situation over there is part of an inevitable course of world history, in which case I would ask you to consider the possibility that Marxism is not like physics, and you can't actually predict with any certainty that that's going to happen.

It's a big country mate there's differences of opinion and competing factions, as far as I can tell anyway. This might be helpful:
cpim.org/sites/default/files/marxist/201204-Cheng Enfu.pdf

>socialism can be stretched to include a dictatorial party
This was always considered possible/likely by Marxists so
>has loads of market elements
Again, Marxists see socialism as a *transitional period*. Market elements to some degree or another are practically inevitable.
>proletarian uprising
They already had it in 1949.
>inevitable course of world history
I never said anything about 'inevitable'
>Marxism is not like physics
No shit. Lets not have the tiresome Wissenschaft debate please.

>They already had it in 1949.
but the proles are not remotely in control of anything in China

What about a "stateless, classless, and moneyless" society does not entail upending economic hierarchy?

>YES ONLY 9 MILLION A YEAR!

Attached: 180424_rhodes_stevenpinker_018-5afc44ae6f94a.jpg (678x382, 29K)

The ruling party of China is largely composed of bureaucrats I agree (though approximately
40% the party is/was apparently composed of 'frontline workers'as well, which isn't inconsiderable - gov.cn/english////2007-10/09/content_770812.htm).
>By June 2007, the Party had 7.96 million, or 10.8 percent, workers; 23.1 million, or 31 percent, farmers, herdsmen and fishermen; 21.3 million, or 29 percent, cadres, managerial staff and technical specialists; 1.6 million, or 2.2 percent, armymen and armed police; 1.95 million, or 2.6 percent, students; 13.77 million, or 18.8 percent, retired people, and 3.64 million, or 5 percent, "others", it said.

That's still one of their weaknesses though, even if they've handled it well so far, what with the Heavenly Mandate and the anti-corruption campaigns and so on. We'll see.

in a non-condescending way I admire your optimism. I have been so pessimistic for so long that I honestly have no idea if im being realistic or cynical anymore.

I think there's lessons both positive and negative in China for us I guess. Take care either way man, I need sleep.

>there was unfair and gross suffering due to the structure of Soviet implemented socialism
>LOOK, COMMUNISM NEVER WORKS SEE! #Debunked

>there is unfair and gross suffering due to the structure of capitalism
>well nothing can be done about that stop whining and accept death because you can't afford to live this is the natural state of society

nothing can really be done at this point though. capitalism is too pervasive to get rid of. it's in every fabric of the world now. best to just try and survive its circumstances while resenting the system than adopt alternative ideologies that accomplish nothing in our lifetimes

>That's still one of their weaknesses though, even if they've handled it well so far, what with the Heavenly Mandate and the anti-corruption campaigns and so on. We'll see.
The chinese have a civil war every 4 generations.
First generation is made of "good" rulers; they may kill milions to make their Nation into a steel-producing powerhouse But they are motivated to keep power and a bit uncertain of their position, which is good for business.
The second generation is more secure of It's heavenly mandate to rule. Often even more competent than the first but their security starts to rub the real Powers of china the wrong way.
The third generation are entitled morons, they believe they can do anything so they do. They destroy all the work the previous two generations of rulers did to mantain the peace. The clock starts ticking...
The fourth generation gets physically removed from the premises, back to step one.
Now the "Communist" era is strange because it started at generation 3, went to generation 2 or almost 1 for a while and now It's jumping straight to the third with a bloody vengenance.
I'm not even talking of the Hong Kong situation which is basically just china getting a well deserved ration of american spooks setting up trouble, I'm just talking about the general situation. The demographic crisis is getting intollerable, the ecológical one is blowing in their faces and in general they realized too late that lending money to a superpower who has 0 incentives to give them back is a foolish geopolítical move.
When the next big one hits, milions will die.

>>there is unfair and gross suffering due to the structure of capitalism
The fallacy here is that in the measure that this can be said to be true It's still corporativism's fault.

Capitalism isn't an ideology its a science based on these premises 1) humans have desires 2) they will make exchanges to satisfy those desires this some times leads to 3) the people making the exchanges are in the best positions to decide the relative value of their desires.

Communism is an ideology based on a magical quality an old german man thought could be deduced from an equation.

Based, short, to the point.

>capitalism is a science
I laughed.

>Economics are the only thing that matter

but you didn't reply. sort of a pattern with you guys

Haha

>people desire earn less than what they produce

>but you didn't reply
What? Yes, he did. If he didn't you would not know that he laughed. I think you meant to type:
>but you didn't argue. sort of a pattern with you guys

>can we finally focus on making a political philosophy from the works of Thomas Carlyle?
Surprised it took this long to happen desu

>Capitalism isn't an ideology
Pure Ideology *sniffs*

Last Man detected. His theory of self-reliance is up there next to Tolstoy’s principle of nonviolence and Buddha’s negation of desire for most misunderstood practices of all time.

>this shit again
private enterprise wouldn't actually exist if this principle were to be followed

Attached: 1ef0ea62cee61b8ef42c83be63cb08bc-imagejpeg.jpg (1000x2441, 352K)

I'm not saying I disagree with every single thing you say mate, but this is just idealism, sorry. Speculation. I don't care how neat your pattern appears to you personally, I care about world-history, and its advancement.

And what do you say about that then?
mercycorps.org/articles/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-global-hunger

Attached: 6546846.jpg (764x985, 234K)

That's trade or barter not Capitalism you fucking retard.
Private ownership of the means of production?

Hitler already did it, look how that turned out

Don't know about the deaths but the malnourished started increasing again.

Attached: 451681988541.png (1011x801, 45K)

Nigger, just the other day some goatfuckers with a few remote controlled planes managed to wipe out 5% of the world's oil supply, stop being so defeatist.

Real Carlyleanism has not been tried.

Not him but it's completely true,
You retards do realise people on this board actaully read, and dont just listen to the spewage of "free market good".
Nope.

What principle?

>trade or barter
yes but consumption is the sole end of production so this is a firm basis to understand the system.

I'm referring to the science of capitalism as it is studied by scientists not the capitalism/feudalism dichotomy put forward by Marx because it is hegalianism not history. But interestingly by your definition both marx's confused idea of medieval society and mythical idea of the pristine premodern communist society are capitalist.

Generally in modern thought the real point of contention is an unfettered free market (the depressing aesthetic results of which Carlyle addresses)

Capitalism? A science? Have you read Ludwig Von Mises? Methodological dualism is essential for economics, without it we end up with disgusting pedophiles like Keynes.

Attached: C814FF0B-8087-48E7-A064-4CE514704723.jpg (236x236, 11K)

No I haven't read him feel like Hodgson reps him though what do you recommend of his? I do feel like there is a place for universal theories like Keynesianism because some factors will remain unchanged, but I agree it's not physics.

multi-billionaires don't actually all have billions of dollars in liquid assets. Owning a business work billions does not entitled you to billions in profits or profits at all. It does make you a billionaire though.

Saying that there shouldn't be starvation because billionaires exist is like saying that there shouldn't be starvation because some people happen to have responsibility for a significant amount of physical capital.

what's wrong with killing people? or non-marxian socialism for that matter?

>science of capitalism
The only sciences that study capìtalism are non-liberal economics, this is, LTV based economics, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies.
What you're referring to as "science of capitalism" are a bunch of normative claims and "descriptive ones" that are unfalsifiable, have no predictive potential and don't follow the principle of parsimony. That's what makes something a science.
> humans have desires
> they will make exchanges to satisfy those desires this some times leads to
> the people making the exchanges are in the best positions to decide the relative value of their desires.
Every mode of ordering has premises which actually function like normative/operative principles that make a certain system exist. A good example is the homo oeconomicus, a premise that's not scientific, this is, descriptive, but normative and serves as a principle for liberal economists/philosophers.

“Human Action” is considered his magnum opus as it outlines his praxeology.

mises.org/sites/default/files/Human Action_3.pdf

The Austrian School is defined by its treatment of economics as something similar to mathematics (limited by a very simple set of unchanging axioms) rather than as a science.

Attached: c715068385d3627841ae5053c2474ad7ed2fae1f75772f60c214b315564c1ebf.jpg (612x792, 315K)

>muh scary infograph

That makes no sense. Capitalism would rather have people alive working for the capitalists then dead
Socialism is a trash system that starves people when they can't redistribute resources properly

How is capitalism responsible for these? People WEREN'T dying of those things before capitalism existed?

Humans having desires is a falsifiable claim based in biology (and the cogito), something revealingly missing from your list of pseudosciences.
The fact that homo sapien (and chimps) make exchanges can be observed empirically if you got to the shop with your mum.
3) appears like a moral judgment e.g. human choices between ends should be informed by empirical fact, but actually expresss something different. Thanks to the positional advantage of knowledge the people making the exchanges will certainly be the best informed about their own desires (the cogito again).

Capitalism is perhaps the most pure and serene science.

Ah yes >every system of ordering thus this system of ordering. Dammed by the mere fact of its blood with no trial, no defence, no plea for mercy entertained

Cheers

capitalism is a failure if this is all happening

You’re just an idiot, that’s all. Read up on that party’s atrocities

Why? And what do you propose as an alternative?

Middle ground faggot having middle browed dreams.

>capitalism is a failure if this is all happening
If capitalism is a failure because of all that then every system we've had is a "failure"
and thats the position of a angsty teenager

MOre like true communism hasn't been achieved yet.
Since the computer era it is achievable at last. It can organize production without a market. But people are too much into wage labor and superbowl, hollywood, mcdonald. Inertia.
Some reasonable people have achieved it. Huterrites.

comunism is not about getting ride of the market.

That was one of the many failures of the soviets.

Oh yeah the 2 world wars, native indians genocide, philipines genocides (1899-1902).
By the way, USSR was State Capitalism. So those 100 millions are the result of Capitalism.
And nazi germany had private property of the means of production and wage labor. So Capitalism also. You cannot distort reality. It will catch you up again and again.

If people are not needed they are not working for the Capitalist. That's why each crisis, millions of wage workers are dumped.
With the usage of more and more machinery, human work becomes less and less useful, so more and more people are useless in the Capitalist mode of production.

>The fact that homo sapien (and chimps) make exchanges can be observed empirically if you got to the shop with your mum.
Homo sapiens in it's primitive form do not trade. You've got wrong knowledge, or are delusional. Give me one scientific article about trading and exchange value during paleolithic era. Just one. That's right, you can't.

Yes it is. It is about getting rid about the market, exchange value, private property of the means of production, delegation of power, the State.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist you flailing retard

talking about "redistribute resources properly".

Attached: lawrence20150721-figure1.png (600x468, 20K)

No is not. about killing the market.

that was "soviet socialism". And they failed.

Better technology allows for greater productivity in a smaller period of time. That's not rocket science.

yeah its better than the failed commie states

>happy wageslaves

Attached: 1544285512211.jpg (832x960, 77K)

So why are the oceans being polluted and tshirts falling apart after a few months?

Go to wallmart. Enjoy.

>Capitalism is perhaps the most pure and serene science.
I still don't get what you understand by "science", it seems to me that you'd say that fascism and/or feudalism are also sciences.
Capitalism is a mode of production which is a normative reality and not a conceptual apparatus aimed at understanding reality. Is this that difficult to understand?
On the other hand, you could say that liberal economic philosophies such as Mises praxeology try to pass as sciences by describing reality, the problem is that they assume certain axioms that are not known or are wrong in their core.

>So why are the oceans being polluted
What has this got to do with anything?

>tshirts falling apart after a few months?
Where are you buying your t-shirts? My most used piece of clothing is a black t-shirt that looks almost new even after 1 year of constant usage. Regardless, if there's someone selling shitty t-shirts it's because there's someone willing to buy it instead of a good t-shirt, for whatever reason.

There's quite a literature on it actually although this is of course a rather sad appeal to ignorance. If you wish to examine human behavior why leap to a period with the least available evidence if not to provide a canvas for your own delusions?

however,
"Furthermore, documented lithic raw-material procurement patterning in the African MSA and the Levantine Mousterian only exceptionally exceeds 100 km and generally is much lower (45–47). The transport of shells over distances up to 200 km (Oued Djebbana) and of >40 km, in the case of the shell beads from Taforalt, may suggest the existence, already at this early stage, of previously unrecorded interlinking exchange systems or of long-distance social networks. These networks apparently transgressed cultural boundaries defined by lithic technology, because at least three of the four sites where similar bead types were found can be attributed to a different technocomplex (Taforalt and Oued Djebbana: Aterian; Blombos: Stillbay; and Skhul: Levantine Mousterian).

We still lack the chronological resolution to draw definite conclusions on the time span during which N. gibbosulus shells were used for beads in North Africa and southwest Asia. However, it is clear that the practice of bead manufacture was geographically widespread and occurred in regions >5,000 km apart. The discoveries also challenge the notion that the transition to complex behaviors associated with recent humans was focused solely around the MSA–Late Stone Age (LSA) transition in Africa."

-Bouzouggar A, et al. 82,000-year-old shell beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007

That's interesting, however, in the primitive tribes observed during the 20th century, and even in the last current primitive tribe, there is no trade, inside the tribe. Especially INSIDE the tribe, between the members of the tribe, there is no trade. Everything is shared.
Trade only exist since the neolithic revolution.

(...) and trade is used to exchange value between different tribes.

in which capitalist countries are these deaths occurring?

There's still a hierarchical distribution of labour, though, which is one of the keystones of Marx's theories.

We cannot derive any specific mode of production from the fundamental capitalistic axioms,

>Capitalism is a mode of production which is a normative reality and not a conceptual apparatus aimed at understanding reality.

It is still beholden on you to prove that the axioms are normative and not empirical descriptivist in the humean sense.

But to answer your question it is because of the very fact that capitalism is the "reality" (in whatever limited/skeptical sense you want to take it) rather than a mere conceptual apparatus like marxism, that I call it the most beautiful and sublime science.

Thanks I do acknowledge the evidence for the paleolithic is very slight. I would need to see an paper for modern tribes because I am not familiar with anthropology but remember I am referring to any exchange of labour/land/capital/human capital e.g. time.

Marx was debunked not by the failures of Soviet socialism, but by recent discoveries in archeology that disproves many of his assumptions about the origins of human contingency, specially religion and violence, and therefore invalidates his theory of alienation. Without alienation, there is no teleological significance to communism, no end of history, no restoration of man to his "species essence". Even if communist revolution happens exactly according to the plan, the result will not be the displa of individual possibilities in socially constructive ways but a war of worker's council against worker's council until the best organized one, with the most disciplined soldiers and competent leaders ends up ruling over all (which is pretty much what happened in Russia, the revolution and civil war being the conquest of the country by the Petrograd Soviet).

You can still be a communist under these new foundations, of course, just stop pretending that you have history on your side, that the development of communism after capitalism is the result of the immutable laws of history that can be discovered by applying the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism. You are just a militant desiring of more power to your social group and nothing more.

Kinda cringe bruh. Your charlatan is showing.

>The protection of individual property rights, enforcement of contract law and allowance of trade for profit has killed 10x as many people as communism.
The absolute state of lefties.

>It is still beholden on you to prove that the axioms are normative and not empirical descriptivist in the humean sense.
By normative i'm not even referring to propositions of how something should be, but to the actual imposition of a certain order.
Some axioms that are wrong:
Individuals are discrete entities that make choices based in rational calculation.
Which follows into the assumption of free will, and therefore freedom is understood as absence of coercion. And then build all the structure of "capitalism" over those "axioms" to justify why it's human's natural system. All of this is pretty ingenuous and ignorant since nietzsche and structuralism. Where the problem in fact is if the subject actually exists.
>But to answer your question it is because of the very fact that capitalism is the "reality" (in whatever limited/skeptical sense you want to take it) rather than a mere conceptual apparatus like marxism, that I call it the most beautiful and sublime science.
This i find pretty stupid and loose to say the less.
>Because of the very fact that feudalism was the "reality" that I call it the most beautiful and sublime science.
>Because of the very fact that man has dominated woman and has been the "reality" for long periods of human history, that i call patriarchy the most beautiful and sublime science.

>but by recent discoveries in archeology that disproves many of his assumptions about the origins of human contingency, specially religion and violence, and therefore invalidates his theory of alienation.
Can I have a quick rundown on these discoveries?

>no one has any actual discussion on Thomas Carlyle

Communists have known that the teleology oftentimes (though not always, and not one-sidedly) pushed by Marx wasn't ironclad though. The idea that history is just a linear sequence of feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism is in fact generally considered simplistic by Marxists. The rest of your post is simply assertion.

Shit definition retard. Capitalism is private ownership of MoP + sale of commodities in market system + employment of wage-labour + capital accumulation as driving force of the economy. This system is 'responsible' for far far more deaths than socialism, though as I said before, the bodycount game is pure faggotry whoever is indulging in it.

Attached: modes.png (616x344, 40K)

Gobekli Tepe, a temple complex predating the development of agriculture (something that wasn't supposed to exist according to historical materialism) is the more prominent one. Its antiquity and location near to where, thousands of years after its building, agriculture was first developed strongly suggests that not only organized religion predates civilization, it led to it. Using Marxist terminology: the superstructure precedes the base.

Concerning violence, there is increased evidence of prehistoric warfare, Lawrence Keeley's work "War Before Civilization" is a good work on the subject. This is important because Marx based a lot of his assumptions on the work of Lewis Morgan, an ethnographer who presented the Iroquois as an unique peaceful culture unmarred by civilization, which led Marx to believe that all violence was a result of the alienation brought by class society, and would end with it. Now we know better so there is no reason to believe that even a successful communist revolution would put an end to human conflict.

Really interesting. Thanks, user.

I have not used the historical story you present to "justify" capitalism how could it? The arguments over free will/ determinism and the discreetness/ oneness of being are as hot now as they were 2,500 years ago not one single step forward has been made that could justify or condemn anything. Exchange both predates these argument and has continued in 99% of cases blissfully ignorant of them. I do have faith that human beings exist, can make rational choices and have a right both to do so and effect those choices but that's beside the point.

Both these phenomenon are results of axiom 1) people have desires, for domination, sex power ect. if we take axiom 3) as valid we can see they are illogical societies e.g. imperfectly capitalistic societies. It is easy to envisage reality without feudal laws or sexual oppression, but impossible without desires, exchanges and the cogito.

> It is easy to envisage reality without feudal laws or sexual oppression, but impossible without desires, exchanges and the cogito.
Desires, sure, exchanges, not so sure, the fact that a collective, however reduced it is, can live without the existence of exchange proves that society without exchange is posible and perfectly logical. Also you're assuming that exchange leads neccesarily to capitalism. What's symbolic exchange? What's a socialist market? The cogito, wathever.
It's easy to envisage a society without the private ownership of the means of production, exploitation of labour force and accumulation of capital.
And actually capitalism in your retarded terms would actually be opposed to the free flow of the commodities and exchange as a huge part of those "individual rational human beings" are being excluded from it. So it would ultimately be "illogical". Contradictory.
Is all this some kind of bait or do you really think what you're saying?
Anyway this is getting to a point that's beyond sanity. "imperfect" systems. kek.

In the primitive tribe, absolutely not. No hierarchical distribution of work in the paleolithic era, and in current last primitive tribes. In fact, there is no hierarchical distrubution of labor in the primitive tribe, because there is not hierarchy in the primitive tribe. Labor in the primitive tribe is distributed by gender, and by age, not by hierarchy, which doesn't exist in it.
Sometime, i wonder if we really have the same scientific material about primitive tribes, or if reality creates different material for people like you, and other material for people like me.
Maybe i'm schizo, or an other possibility, people pro exchange value and pro private property, have huge cognitive dissonance when we talk about the primitive tribe, and the fact that they don't have private property of the means of production, and no hierarchy.

Theyd be useless in any system than. Unless you want to go full luddite, machines are going to dab on like 90% of humanity no matter what.

>Gobekli Tepe, a temple complex predating the development of agriculture (something that wasn't supposed to exist according to historical materialism) is the more prominent one. Its antiquity and location near to where, thousands of years after its building, agriculture was first developed strongly suggests that not only organized religion predates civilization, it led to it. Using Marxist terminology: the superstructure precedes the base.
I've read Graham Hancock and i'm a little interested in alternative archeology.
The fact that Gobekli Tepe was built by hunter gatherer doesn't mean that the material living condition of those hunter gatherers were not specific. Maybe they had an excess of game in the area, so lots of available and easy food, maybe they had a nearby lake which was full of fish, maybe some other civilization helped them (Atlantis?).
In any case, regarding historical materialism, it seems it is always the production that is decisive in the way of life, and not the way around. E.G, muslims don't act like muslims because they are crazy. They act like this because in the 7th century CE, it was the best way to organize their society, according to their living condition in the desert.

> Concerning violence, there is increased evidence of prehistoric warfare, Lawrence Keeley's work "War Before Civilization" is a good work on the subject. This is important because Marx based a lot of his assumptions on the work of Lewis Morgan, an ethnographer who presented the Iroquois as an unique peaceful culture unmarred by civilization, which led Marx to believe that all violence was a result of the alienation brought by class society, and would end with it. Now we know better so there is no reason to believe that even a successful communist revolution would put an end to human conflict.
You didn't read Engels, origin of family, private property and the state correctly. Engels specifically says that primitive tribes did war against each other, tribes against tribes, and in a very violent way. Engels even said that modern warfare was softer, mostly because the necessity of production needed it (however, Engels didn't see the first and second world war, maybe he would have changed his mind about war being softer in modern era...).
Marx and Engels never stated that violence didn't exist between primitive tribes. Marx even prophetized that Capitalism will unite the world throught exchange value, and that this is the sole benefit of exchange value: dissolving the antagonism between humans. Then humanity will be ready for superior communism.
It's a hard path, but we are currently walking it. Mass immigration is exactly this. Capitalism is dissolving identities. The irony of the situation is that traditionalists defend a mode of production, when this mode of production is their worst enemy. Even worse than Bolshevism. Indeed tradition still had some strength in USSR. But not in wall street, Paris or Los Angeles.

Yes they would be useless, but don't you know that more and more people are, and will be useless? It's already happening, and many will realize it in the 2020 decade. That's exactly the point (fragment on machines). Since productivity increased so much, Capitalism is not the best mode of production anymore. It's even inefficient and unstable in our era. A mode of production rationalized, not around a market, but rather around natural resources consumption, by computerization of production, according to the needs of different category of people (for example, education would have more ressource than a single billionaire having a gigantic yacht) would probably be a better mode of production.

Yeah it seems to me that Gobekli Tepe developed alongside agriculture, as part of a transitional period, not before it.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215214

Agriculture developing out of the necessity of supplying food to a religious center stills put the superstructure predating the base, debunking the main claim of historical materialism. Of course, you can still salvage it by claiming that the development of religion was brought by material changes in hunter-gatherer society itself, maybe an excess of game, maybe the development of some new tool. We just don't know yet and until we know better we must assume that the scientific assumptions of historical materialism to find a rigid law of history on the development of cultural artifacts by changing methods of production to be bogus.

Concerning violence, wasn't that the basis of Engels polemic with Duhring? My understand was always that Duhring claimed that property was founded on the use of violence, and Engels wrote "Anti-Duhring" to refute this position, claiming that the opposite was true, that violence was a result of the development of property among the exploiters after the division of labour. And now that we have archeological evidence of violence in societies with no known divisions of labour, it seems to me that Duhring was right and Engels (and therefore Orthodox Marxist doctrine based on him) was wrong.

Quote from Engels, in the origin of the family. Chapter about Iroquois gens (translated from French copy). "What was outside the tribe was outside law. Where a peace treaty didn't exist, there was war between tribes, and war was done with animal like cruelty, and was only softened later because of interest."

>no one has any actual discussion on Thomas Carlyle
to be fair, OP asked for this by insulting Marx, although a thread on Carlyle alone probably would have been dead a long time ago.

>I've read his Dr Francia via Moldbug

ok, read this now

Attached: yo-el-supremo-augusto-roa-bastos-D_NQ_NP_929966-MLA27397504256_052018-F.jpg (600x789, 134K)

Historical materialism (post-Marx anyway) doesn't claim the superstructure can never ever lead the base, just that it's not the norm, but I still don't think 'the necessity of supplying food to a religious center' (Gobekli Tepe) is a fully accurate picture anyway. There was a pre-agricultural transition period that wasn't quite hunter-gatherer proper, but not fully agricultural yet either. As the paper I linked puts it
>The establishment of agricultural economies at the end of the later part of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPNB, c. 8800–7000 cal BC), comprising the deliberate, large-scale cultivation of domesticated cereals and other domesticated plants [1, 13–16], was predated by a longer period of experimentation and technological modifications that led to the development of a specialized tool kit for plant food processing.
Or:
>Kinzel argues that the design experimentation found at Göbekli Tepe should encourage us to avoid chicken-and-egg arguments about the primacy of architecture or agriculture. Instead, the site illustrates a cusp period, with architecture emerging alongside more complex organisations that produced surpluses and gradually shifted from gathering wild crops to farming. Some of the earliest domesticated wheat was found in the area and the Göbekli Tepe stones feature depictions of dogs—the first animal to be domesticated by humans. It was a trial and error period, an age of architectural and societal experiment at the beginnings of the Agricultural Revolution rather than one preceding the other.
theartnewspaper.com/news/is-this-the-world-s-first-architecture
To me these developments in technique are the 'new tools' you mention.

Read the rules.
If you want to talk politics go to pol
If you want to talk philosophy go to /his/

Yes symbolic exchange is a thriving sub branch of capitalist theory at the moment.

Do people not talk to each other in collectives? That is exchange. Many more heroic attempts to escape the underlying capitalist reality have been made, they not only fail but are an expression of that reality.

Capitalism has nothing to do with the free flow of commodities.

You are simply not familiar with the scientific terminology and the latest works of capitalist science I recommend J. Jakowitzki's works as a "relatively" easy introduction.