• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Capitalists aren't individualists

der_einzige said:
It bothers me how capitalists always claim to be individualists, they clearly are not.

Now I am not saying that they are collectivists either, they aren't really either.

Individualism prioritizes the individual. At first glance, you could say that capitalism does this as well, thus capitalism would be individualist.

Individualism requires that the individual may violate things that are in way of the individual. Such as property rights.

Capitalism and individualism are incompatible become capitalism requires property rights, which are counter-intuitive if you want to be an individualist.

Capitalism isn't individualist, capitalism isn't collectivist, capitalism prioritizes property rights before the individual or the collective.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is an economic system.

Individualism is a social policy.

Most capitalists happen to be individualists because that's more in line with the personal authority and responsibility inherent to capitalism, or at least to the capitalists themselves.
 
soylentgreen said:
I was referring to economic systems not some lame poets view of morality.
Click to expand...

Your (and their) claim is Noble Savage, nothing more. There was no economic system free of the state. There was no time of free bliss. There has always and there will always be authority. And injustice. And everything costs. Take your "blissful and free primitive communist" fantasy to a nursery school where it belongs.
 
ecofarm said:
Your claim is Noble Savage, nothing more. There was no economic system free of the state. There was no time of free bliss. There has always and there will always be authority. And injustice. And everything costs. Take your "blissful and free primitive communist" fantasy to a nursery school where it belongs.
Click to expand...

Of course there was no economic system. That requires government. And there was no government.
Nor does marxist economics suggest any such thing as free bliss. Again you confuse an economic theory with some know nothing poets grandiose view of the world. Nor does primitive communism suggest that some kind of leadership did not exist. It was about the sharing of resources not about the sharing of leadership.

And of course everything costs. that is the whole point behind the primitive communist set up. There was no excess of things for private ownership to develop. The cost was the time and energy hunting and gathering. Survivl depended upon the sharing of the food.

Your fantasy primitive communism that belongs to poets demonstrates your own ignorance of economics, nothing more.
 
soylentgreen said:
Of course there was no economic system. That requires government. And there was no government.
Nor does marxist economics suggest any such thing as free bliss. Again you confuse an economic theory with some know nothing poets grandiose view of the world. Nor does primitive communism suggest that some kind of leadership did not exist. It was about the sharing of resources not about the sharing of leadership.

And of course everything costs. that is the whole point behind the primitive communist set up. There was no excess of things for private ownership to develop. The cost was the time and energy hunting and gathering. Survivl depended upon the sharing of the food.

Your fantasy primitive communism that belongs to poets demonstrates your own ignorance of economics, nothing more.
Click to expand...

The whole conversation started based on capitalism being a requirement for economic freedom from the state, and you bust out an antiquated communist theory about stateless Noble Savage? Nah.

Let me tell you something. It wasn't from those who can to those who need in the fire and club days. It was from those who are weak to those who can take. It wasn't sharing and drum circles. It was bloody hell and only the most ruthless and sociopathic survived. That natural selection is why man is still a mess today. Don't romanticize the ancient past, it's pathetic political rhetoric.
 
ecofarm said:
Does anyone here speak cannabis?
Click to expand...

Sometimes. But when I do it can come out a little crazy sounding.

Made a note to see if Grandaddy Purple has something to say to me.
 
ecofarm said:
The whole conversation started based on capitalism being a requirement for economic freedom from the state, and you bust out an antiquated communist theory about stateless Noble Savage? Nah.

Let me tell you something. It wasn't from those who can to those who need in the fire and club days. It was from those who are weak to those who can take. It wasn't sharing and drum circles. It was bloody hell and only the most ruthless and sociopathic survived. That natural selection is why man is still a mess today. Don't romanticize the ancient past, it's pathetic political rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You asked for an example, your words.
ecofarm said:
Show me the model of independence from state without capitalism. Or, if you prefer, independence from state without the movement of capital.
Click to expand...
So, i gave you that example.

It is not diminished simply because you choose to follow the words of poets instead of looking at economic theories. Your view of primitive life is your subjective opinion. Nothing more.
 
soylentgreen said:
You asked for an example, your words.

So, i gave you that example.
Click to expand...

No, you did not. You gave me an example of "stateless" "primitive communism". It's a fantasy. It's not a model of anything. Ancient man had private property and collected resources. Ancient man had authority structure. Ancient man suffered injustice, poverty and crime.

A fantasy, deeply flawed in many ways, does not constitute a model.

It is not diminished simply because you choose to follow the words of poets instead of looking at economic theories. Your view of primitive life is your subjective opinion. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

The words of poets? That's how you describe the concept of Noble Savage? Pathetic. Economic theories? Primitive communism is a noble savage fantasy set to political rhetoric, not an economic theory. My view of primitive life is based on anthropology, not antiquated political rhetoric.
 
ecofarm said:
No, you did not. You gave me an example of "stateless" "primitive communism". It's a fantasy. It's not a model of anything. Ancient man had private property and collected resources. Ancient man had authority structure. Ancient man suffered injustice, poverty and crime.

A fantasy, deeply flawed in many ways, does not constitute a model.



The words of poets? That's how you describe the concept of Noble Savage? Pathetic. Economic theories? Primitive communism is a noble savage fantasy set to political rhetoric, not an economic theory. My view of primitive life is based on anthropology, not antiquated political rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You simply dwell on the negative. Of course they had those things, you left out slavery as well. We still have them today.

That does not change the idea of a primitive communist set up. No legal money just barter. A sharing of resources because it was needed for the survival of the tribe rather than any one individual gaining economic wealth for their own personal use.

Stop conflating human nature with economic theory and you might finally have an understanding.
 
soylentgreen said:
You simply dwell on the negative. Of course they had those things, you left out slavery as well. We still have them today.

That does not change the idea of a primitive communist set up. No legal money just barter. A sharing of resources because it was needed for the survival of the tribe rather than any one individual gaining economic wealth for their own personal use.

Stop conflating human nature with economic theory and you might finally have an understanding.
Click to expand...

Primitive communism is not an economic theory. It's noble savage political rhetoric, "our system is natural, it works long term and is the best, but evil authority ruined our paradise. It's our moral and ethical obligation to return towards that system of peace and prosperity". It's malarkey based on BS.


Richard Borshay Lee criticizes the mainstream and dominant culture's long-time bias against the possible existence of primitive communism, deriding "Bourgeois ideology [that] would have us believe that primitive communism doesn't exist. In popular consciousness it is lumped with romanticism, exoticism: the noble savage."[16]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism


Now, I'm not generally a "mainstream, dominant culture, popular consciousness" guy. But when it comes to communist fantasy flying in the face of archaeology and anthropology, yeah.

Regardless, it's not a system or a model. It's not even a theory in the scientific sense. It's only a theory in the fantasy sense, like, "I have a theory that neanderthals rode mammoths to pull carts".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom