: : A socialist labeling Marx as propagandist? Interesting. : SDF: How do you know I'm a socialist? 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."
Given your reference to Marx's critique of Proudhon I'd have figured you were somewhere along that spectrum. But are you even following this debate? I didn't give my opinion that you were a socialist. Given the avilable data I had, from your writing, the most obvious classification I could give you was 'socialist'. As human beings we have to classify to keep up with the mountains of data assaulting our senses. 'Socialist' was merely the closest I could find. Give me another label for yourself, please.
: : 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. What you're doing here is changing the subject from inter-ethnic development to conquest between ethnicities (the first was your original post). The first claim is preposterously ridiculous. The second I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion about.
: : 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. My whole reference was to mostly-closed communities existing five, maybe ten, thousand years ago. If you include the Holocaust in that period, then you need to go look at a time line.
: : Thus, 'alienation' was the concious act of some past prole in order to maximize his/her personal utility.
: SDF: You have been made The Offer by the Gestapo, who seeks merely to annihilate you and your kind. Either turn in fifty of your friends, or we will kill you and the friends of yours we see here. How do you "maximize utility" in this situation?
Yes, and this happened before there was even metal working? What. Did the Gestapo go back 5000 years in time and go after the Jews while they were wandering in the desert? As a suggestion, I'd consider following the conversation a little more closely. Stop and step back, say, 5000 years and you'll actually be addressing my claims.
: : If you're referring to war, much capital has been "extracted" through conquest.
: SDF: To once again 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."
Hmmm, please tell me even once where I gave an opinion on my original post. I gave a historical narrative of the development of ancient cultures several thousand years ago. All of a sudden you jump to the Holocaust. Wait a second . . . is this just Gee trying to discredit the other side of the debate? If so, knock it off Gee.
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. Hey, next time, try sticking within a thousand years of the conversation and you might even say something that makes even the barest semblance of meaning. In fact, I might even be intrigued enough to hit the site you suggest.
