Russell Brand vs Jeremy Paxman

daviesee

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

We could argue about the number of years, but my point is that capitalism is only 300 years old roughly,

So there was no greed before the 1700s then? :shock:

Yes, during slavery and feudalism. Any mode where there is private property.

I finally get you're point.
You think human's can live in a society without private property.
I dont. I also doubt I will see you're point proven.

rjsterry

meursault wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

Yes, Orwell wrote an excellent novel on how Stalinism corrupted The Soviet Union. The pigs became a bureaucracy due to restricting democracy by altering the constitution as they wanted. A genuine democracy protects itself against this happening. We learn from the past and improve.

It's not an idealistic notion, greed is caused by capitalism, you are not trying to breathe more air than me, because air is not a commodity. Humans are not greedy by nature. Humans lived in a mode of production, primitive communism, or tribalism, with no private property, working as groups for over three hundred thousand years, many many more than capitalism.

This is fantasy: the oldest known Homo sapiens sapiens fossils are 'only' 200,000 years old. There's also academic disagreement as to whether these early humans were behaviourally modern, or just anatomically modern. I'm interested to know how you've been able to deduce such complex social structures as primitive communism from a few fragments of fossilised skeleton.

By the way, there is evidence of the practice of slavery in Shang dynasty China (18th-12th century BCE), Sumer, Ancient Egypt, Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient India, Rome, Greece, the pre-Columbian. Americas, in fact most places there were people, and all the way up to the present day. No private property? If you can own another human being, the rest of it is pretty easy.

Thought I was being conservative (extra small c)

It is estimated that the first members of the human family (hominins) lived in Africa about 6 or 7 million years ago. They are believed to have been forest-dwelling, perhaps walking upright in the trees or when on the ground.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/human-origins/modern-human-evolution/when/index.html

Slavery was one mode of production, but primitive communism was before that, and for many thousands of years. Private property generally refers to material objects or commodities.

Hominins weren't modern humans; applying 19th century anthropological theory to other species is a hell of a leap, but that's by the by. My point was that slavery, and by definition the notion of private property, dates from at least the emergence of agriculture, and has been seen throughout the world. It isn't an 18th century phenomenon.

DesB3rd

Entertaining to see people trying to challenge the communist theory of history; appreciate that the latter is not history, but rather a 19thC construct created to substantiate a political philosophy narrative.

Back in 1850 a historian *might* have been able to understand Marx’s history as merely heavily simplified and very liberal in its interpretations – in the early 20thC we can’t do the same in good conscience.

meursault

daviesee wrote:

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

We could argue about the number of years, but my point is that capitalism is only 300 years old roughly,

So there was no greed before the 1700s then? :shock:

Yes, during slavery and feudalism. Any mode where there is private property.

I finally get you're point.
You think human's can live in a society without private property.
I dont. I also doubt I will see you're point proven.

Yes, I suppose that's the gist of it, and it's implications. Who knows what the future holds?

daviesee

meursault wrote:

daviesee wrote:

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

We could argue about the number of years, but my point is that capitalism is only 300 years old roughly,

So there was no greed before the 1700s then? :shock:

Yes, during slavery and feudalism. Any mode where there is private property.

I finally get you're point.
You think human's can live in a society without private property.
I dont. I also doubt I will see you're point proven.

Yes, I suppose that's the gist of it, and it's implications. Who knows what the future holds?

I very much doubt it involves a society without any private property.
No one knows the future, but I doubt it.
By the way, is your bike better than mine? Can I have it?

meursault

daviesee wrote:

meursault wrote:

daviesee wrote:

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

We could argue about the number of years, but my point is that capitalism is only 300 years old roughly,

So there was no greed before the 1700s then? :shock:

Yes, during slavery and feudalism. Any mode where there is private property.

I finally get you're point.
You think human's can live in a society without private property.
I dont. I also doubt I will see you're point proven.

Yes, I suppose that's the gist of it, and it's implications. Who knows what the future holds?

I very much doubt it involves a society without any private property.
No one knows the future, but I doubt it.
By the way, is your bike better than mine? Can I have it?

I very much doubt you want a Team Boardman. Having said that, I am very happy with it, not put a wheel wrong in the year and half I have had it, and my ability doesn't require anything better.

What have you got?

daviesee

meursault wrote:

I very much doubt you want a Team Boardman. Having said that, I am very happy with it, not put a wheel wrong in the year and half I have had it, and my ability doesn't require anything better.

What have you got?

In that case, I will just keep the Colnago.
I hope you can see my point though.

meursault

OIC, only just got your point. The reality is we live under capitalism, I am under no illusions. I am merely proposing a concept, I don't expect to live a socialist life during capitalism.

ballysmate

meursault wrote:

OIC, only just got your point. The reality is we live under capitalism, I am under no illusions. I am merely proposing a concept, I don't expect to live a socialist life during capitalism.

As history tells us, socialist leaders don't expect to live a socialist life under socialism either.

Mikey23

This discussion needs to be put out of its misery... I think it's suffered enough :-)

ballysmate

I could do with Brand being put out of my misery. Don't like or rate him at all.
Really, I am just bumping the thread to please Mikey.

daviesee

Bump.

Mikey23

Well I'm kind of starting to like brand now. It seems that his revolution is a quiet and peaceful one in the style of Gandhi. Besides, I like the Hare Krishna look...

meursault

I'm done arguing against capitalism, possibly too much of a stretch of peoples imagination, but nice article here about how the ruling class can't even run their own banks.

http://jacobinmag.com/2013/11/wall-street-isnt-worth-it/

ballysmate

The first few lines from the article:-

David Graeber’s denunciation of “bullshit jobs” resonated with many, producing a string of responses. Alex Tabarrok and Brad DeLong have suggested that the apparent inverse relationship between earnings and the social value of work done

Looking at the occupations of the author of this article and the others linked to it, you have to be made of stone, not to see the irony.

meursault

Good point, but I would argue anthropology is a worthwhile job, not so sure about an economist. Then again, who of us could really justify the importance of our jobs? A surgeon maybe?

Anyways, the tide has started to turn

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/longshot-winner-seattle-city-council-seat-warns-st/nbwhK/