: Given your reference to Marx's critique of Proudhon I'd have figured you were somewhere along that spectrum. SDF: You're still passing off your opinions as fact, as you have been ever since you started posting to this forum. If there's an appeal to emotion in your every post, its an appeal to the emotions felt by you yourself -- "I'm such a great guy who knows everything." You don't give references, your philosophy of science has holes I could drive a truck through, and your criticisms are often childish.
: Give me another label for yourself, please.
SDF: No. Get lost.
: : : Maybe socialism is evolving past Marxism. A good paradigm shift and an excitingly heady one to contemplate.
: : : Which tens of thousands of years ago included everyone. Remember, no per-social individual means no pre-modern tribalism. Which means that at one time lines of property were drawn because people managed better when they could define a sphere that was their responsibility, although still a unified tribal collective.
: : SDF: Euro-Americans did NOT propertize the current territory of the United States of America "because people managed better when they could define a sphere that was their responsibility" -- they did it because they wanted to TAKE AWAY the land from First Nations stewardship and use it for their own purposes. People "managed better" in early imperialist societies (Greek, Roman etc.) when they could take what they wanted from other people -- there's no "responsibility" about it. Again, to quote the always-correct Joel Jacobson, who defends the Regime of Truth against the egregious errors of those stupider than he, "you are passing off your opinions as objective fact."
: You're not even reading what I write are you. Later on, that very post, I specifically stated that conquest had taken much land through warfare and that this was definitely a viable issue worth discussing. However, the beginnings of discrete property and the price system within specific regions was the onus of your claim. Given the development within tribal units your claim simply does not hold up.
SDF: Joel Jacobson is using his royal prerogative to avoid submitting examples, examples for instance of propertartian tribal societies without intertribal conflict, examples in the anthropological or historical records -- instead, we are supposed to find them.
: : : This 'alienation', as you next suggest, was conciously and activly accepted by some past prole at one time or another.
: : SDF: By this definition of "accepted," we can also say that the Holocaust was "consciously and activly (sic) accepted" by the Jews. Does that justify anything?
: Yeah, your definitely not following the conversation.
SDF: Joel Jacobson claims his monopoly on the right to define what a conversation is about. My point is that the "maximization of utility" is a nonsense phrase saying nothing about social conditions.
: Go back and read Marx, find out what alienation is.
: Why? You're complete lack of any meaningful dialogue probably represents what I'd find there.
SDF: Then continue to bandy the word about without half a clue about its meaning, discrediting yourself even further.
