: : This 'alienation', as you next suggest, was conciously and activly accepted by some past prole at one time or another. Thus, 'alienation' was the concious act of some past prole in order to maximize his/her personal utility. Remember, there was still co-operation and tribal altuism, however, the very faint beginnings of the labor and price system had begun to coagulate.: this utterly neglects the role of warfare,
Tribes with better social survival mechanisms out-competing other tribes for scarce resources.
: of merging tribes,
Impossible to avoid unless you're saying "Planned Parenthood" evolved a couple thousand years too late. Tribes increasing in population needed expansion of territory and this put them directly at odds with other expanding tribes.
: or psychology
You're the Skinnerian Behaviorist, not me. Human psychology does not change at the whim of the environment. Culture and sentiments evolve and change over generations.
: and the myths of Kingship.
Good point. However, research into ancient evolution shows taht the King was not a supreme overlord but probably a bully who managed to gather enough interests to enforce enough of their commands to call themselves this title. Read the Indian Epics and you'll find that if a king acted against the popular sentiment of his subjects he'd be in serious danger. Such an act would massively weaken the support among his own people and kings who acted less forcefully towards their subjects would have willing warriors and logistical support necessary to defeat them. Kingdoms that played havoc with their peasants toppled and fell.
Also, go read the full comprehensive version of Sun-Tzu's 'Art of War'; find the one containing the narrative of the three kingdoms. Time and again the rulers that did not heavily tax their subjects and had smaller beauraucracies fared much better than kings opposing them. We're not sure who's addressing the ruler in one of the dialogues but he states that the only rulers who will survive the onslaught of the hordes will be the one's who rule by wisdom, with the moral sentiments of the people, and not by force. Elsewhere, the Tao states that few laws make a strong people implying to the king that his rulership will be strong if he allows the people to follow their own ways. Remember, this narrative was from one who actually lived under a king and not second-hand hypothesis.
: The Working class had to be FORCED to be working class at sword and gun point,
Yes. And cultures evolve. You're saying that past actions should conform to our present conceptions of morality and ethics. Since this path is not possible then your next suggestion is to overthrow the structures and customs that have spontaneously evolved and replace them with new ones complete, and "rationally" pre-planned.
: it was not a rational utility decision. : Likewise capitalists became so by dint of theft and force, not by natural ability.
You're making the classification error again. You simply gloss over the fact that the price mechanism, liquidity, discrete property and other things you call 'capitalist' have had a massively long history of evolution. They did not just appear overnight, but, instead, show a continuous, gradual process of discovery.
Implicit in this whole discussion is that classifications (such as 'capitalism') have discrete, specific references taht come to us through our senses. They do not. Our senses do give us information regarding phenomena of the extenal, real world. But the classifications are trial and error processes our brains use to handle these senses and decided upon courses of action relating to these phenomena.
Capitalism is a fairly recent made-up word (Die Kapitalismus was a book written in 1903 and really solidified the word's common usage among Marxists) and is really referencing nothing but a person's dislike of the very class their mind develops. Maybe you're referring to capitalism as when one person owns capital and purchases another's labor to produce goods. Okay, but historians and economists (myself included in this very room) show that such arrangements will arise out of states of complete anarchy or democratic control of property. The term 'capitalism' is a complete euphamism used to support opinion.
Human beings function best when they have particular, discrete spheres of personal influence that allows them to interact socially while still having a place that they can claim to the community is theirs to control.
One more thing . . . society comes from the Latin "societus" and means individual companionship. If individual is synonymous with 'idiote' as you posted ealier then society simply means "a bunch of idiots fucking around". So much for the mystically holistic properties associated with 'society' by so many in this room.
None.
