How come that right wingers think that capitalism, which is a relatively new phenomena...

Maintaining their clearly inevitable future economic privilege, that is.

Attached: classcuck logic.jpg (500x329, 134.07K)

Simple, they have absolutely no idea what capitalism is.

Attached: 2018-11-19 17_18_30-Paul E 🖤✖️ on Twitter_ _ah yes, notable capitalist principle _checks notes_ _co.png (622x528 21.88 KB, 50.37K)

They don't. What you call capitalism is based on trading goods, which is based on a secure and healthy collective. A collective is based on blood and race, which creates morality and law. Migration attacks the collective by destabilizing the necessity of blood and race. That creates chaos, where "capitalism" can only work under totalitarian regimes of oppression.

Beeeeeep, wrong! Try again!

So you reject nature? You reject the human history of trading goods with each other, long before money was a thing?

You want to know how I know you're a red liberal who just got on here?

Hell no. Humans were trading goods with each other, which meant the providers of goods held the power to create markets of interests. Money was then created to devalue the power of these creators, because the ones who control the money, can dictate the markets. Capitalism is just the industrialization process of robbing the content provider of their influences on the market. In came the money lenders who wrestled the control of money out of the hands of greedy rulers, which created organized crime exploiting provider, goods and profits. Migrants have nothing to do with that process, they were used to expand the markets on international scale.

< omg you are a red liberal!!!
I almost asked if you were retarded but then noticed your flag. I suggest you two committing suicide together.

Trading isn't capitalism, goods aren't capitalism, and money also isn't capitalism. Capitalism is a completely distinct class system of rentier parasites and exploited workers.

Also, as alluded, none of the above were actually typical of primitive societies. You might want to read PDF related for an overview of how economies really functioned in historical nonstate societies.

anymore
anymore
anymore

What I'm getting at is that the corruption of a process does not take away the ideology of the origin. The core principles of trading goods are based on nature, and if you go against the laws of nature, you inevitably will hurt yourself, which is why what is called capitalism today is absolutely wrecking us. This same principle can be traces back to everything that is hurting us today, because by definition it is suicide to go against the laws of nature.

...

Hang on lad, it's been historically proven that migrations between people from Europe all the way to Africa were responsible for trade of ideas. You cannot say that migration is what killed off trade like the guy I replied to did, we weren't discussing what defines capitalism we were discussing the effects migration had on trade in such societies. He claimed migration somehow destroys capitalism when if you look at history the central powers of the ancient world aligned at the Mediterranean sea did so because of trading, breeding, and migrating between them.

So you believe that migration from another country was needed, for an already cultivated community/culture/civilization to come up with the idea to trade stuff with each other? You don't think a farmer asked his neighbor if he would give him some cheese for his eggs or that a harlot didn't opened her legs for some lodging? The basic is "I have this, you have that, let's trade" Migration has nothing to do with this at all.

I didn't and the other guy (which was also me) also didn't. What "killed" (a better word would be corrupted) trade was money. What I said about migration is that it attacked the collective. A collective is based on blood and race, which creates morality and laws, out of which culture and civilizations emerge. Migrating into such a collective, destabilizes the existing collective. The more people migrate into it the more chaos it will create, the more violence is needed to stabilize it. In all this chaos a fair trade cannot exist anymore, because trust and security are absent. All of this is a path towards destruction, because the law of nature dictates that only blood and race can create a stable environment.

You claimed migration harms trade.
It doesn't nor does it harm collectives.
Fair enough.
But collectives never existed in the way you think they did until the 18th century at the earliest.
Fair trade doesn't exist within capitalism anyways that's the entire point of capitalism.
So accelerationism?

A lot of political labels are used very liquidly for bait-and-switch. First, a simple, ethically and intellectually strong definition is used to get you to call yourself something. Then, once you identify as something, a convoluted, more questionable definition is used to alter your thoughts and behaviour based on your identity. (Jordan Postmodernson does this with all words, by the way.)
In the case of capitalism, several tricks are used.
Care about human nature? Capitalism is just trade.
Care about progress? Capitalism is this recent economic system.
Like something about Denmark? Well, Denmark is capitalist.
Dislike something about Denmark? Well, Denmark is socialist.
And when you finally consider yourself pro-capitalist, capitalism means that you do all the work, your surplus doesn't belong to you, and you have to obey orders.

No, never. "Capitalism" is a term coined by socialists to describe the then-novel economic system being imposed on them at the time, and has no exclusive claim on any of the activities you're referring to.

Ahistorical fairytale concocted by capitalist historians totally contradicted by anthropological evidence, barter is a myth. Read the PDF I posted.

THIS! It's the classic sophist dodge that characterizes PoMo scoundrels, the "motte & bailey" argument.
MP4 related, listen to him stumbling over his own words attempting not to offend the Zig Forumsyp Christards and New Atheist fedoras that share his audience, but "not in a postmodern way"

Attached: Am I Christian_Timothy Lott and Jordan B Peterson-RIB05YeMiW8.mp4 (960x270, 2.62M)

Always trace your statements back to the point of origin, based on natural law, because the law of nature predates humanity. Anyways, the first human groups/collectives emerged from one race, carrying one line of blood.

That's correct, because capitalism is industrialized corruption of fair trade. But using migration to attack race and blood of a collective that is already struggling with consequences of corrupted trade only makes it worse. There is no redeeming value to it. It's just another attack from a different direction.

It's suicide. If we don't stop them, they are going to destroy planet earth by defiling nature with cascading catastrophes.

So we literally agree with each other and argued because of a misunderstanding, got it.

Human nature existed before capitalism and civilization

Yes, eating, shitting, and fucking were characteristic behaviors of men prior to the Agricultural Revolution.

…based on nature. They can change the names all they want, but the principles of it can always be traced back to the laws of nature.

It's a 540 pages book, I will, but gimme a break.

It's based on sharing. Have you ever fed a child and then make a sad face before the spoon reaches it's mouth, after which the child will push the spoon towards you to make you happy again? Sharing is an instinctual trade of intelligence. And in the baby's case it's also a trade, because it wants you smiling again in exchange for the spoonful of baby food.

Cheers to that.

No, based on unprecedented historical upheaval from industrialization against feudal monarchies.
Politics aside, it's an outstanding history book. I would not call it socialist in any orthodox sense, though.
Sharing and trade are in fact very different, the latter emerging from ingroup/outgroup dynamics beyond the communal village level, imposed by violent class domination long before the advent of capitalism.

My calibre library has like a little over 20k titles in it. Life is just too short to read them all, but damn it if I'm not gonna try it anyway.

Sharing means I already see value into my possession, and want something in return for it. That can very well be by narcissistic demand for gratification I get for giving up my valuable possession to a person that feels good about it. In doing that he gives me the feeling of gratification. We just made a trade. Animals share shit all the time to play with each other. Why? Because they want something. Attention or just a good time and the other animal makes the trade by participation. All natural trades. No prerequisite education process necessary. Not even a consciousnesses. Just the basic instinct of achieving what you want by offering something.

It's impressive how he presses Peterson for a straightforward answer yet he still manages to avoid answering it.

I just came up with a better one…when a man grabs his junk to impress a woman, he's offering a trade. That is about a purely natural as it gets.

The biggest difference is that sharing is an extension of psychology that occurs between people you know the character of, because they're your family, neighbors, friends, enemies, etc.

Trade, on the other hand, is transactional, something alienated from sociology or psychology to such a degree that you don't even have to directly interact with the other party, let alone consult your personal knowledge of them to determine their trustworthiness or motives.

What if I share my money with a random homeless dude to make myself feel better? How about the Plover bird who flies into the mouth of crocodiles to clean up their teeth? Sharing with the unknown and trading by natural instinct.

That still relies on an empathetic mental mirror-model of someone's personality, life, and situation, for part of the same social organism as you. Trade can be (and, at its core, always is) completely impersonal.

But it was born out of a healthy collective that overproduced goods to trustworthy members of their tribes. The key point here is "healthy collective", which is the very natural principle of race and blood that created human stability. Out of this came the human perception for value, sharing, trust.

No, it was most often born out of a need for tyrants to impose taxes and force subjects to pay soldiers. Economic activity between tribes mostly took the form of vaguely reckoned debts and obligations.
Republican/nationalist neologism which has changed almost unrecognizably over the course of every century over its existence from the 1600s to the present ahistorically mapped onto class societies that cared more about cultural characteristics such as language, military allegiance, or religious affiliation. Before class society, even those were syncretic, vague, and unimportant, in favor of…
The conception of which for most of history revolved around familial intermarriage and adoption clan structures, which did not necessarily place any special privilege on genetic descent.

Because right wing ideology is the defence of the status quo and enforcement of the interests of the ruling class. They will lie and brainwash people to fit that goal.

Small tribes have produced food to share and trade with each other long before the size of their groups made tyrants out of their leader. Tyranny comes from greed when your power gets too big, which relates to the size of people you control.

Wrong! Biggest mistake of humanity to assume this. The correct term is yet again corruption. Every action we take against the nature of blood and race has consequences. Dwindling intelligence, receding hairlines, weaker immune systems, shorter life expediencies etc. It's not nature adapting to it, but nature rejecting it. A downward spiral of our health in direct correlation to the state of our all natural biosphere. Deluding blood and mixing race will always end in a child that is inferior to it's parents. That is especially fatal in humans who are not supervised in their breeding constellation. This why animal breeder have to undergo meticulously specific routines to create a "momentarily" superior creature. Momentarily because life expectancy and gen makeup are shortened and damaged. Ergo the consequence of committing a crime against nature.

Yes, but this was invariably done on a social, rather than transactional, basis. Even along lengthy routes where people never came into direct contact with those on the far ends of an item's journey, it was a continuous web of understandings, rather than a discrete chain of deals.
Not really the major phase change that kicked it off. The main differentiator of tyranny is precisely its distortion of the structure and mechanics of societies it imposes itself on, further perpetuating itself by altering those conditions.
That's true of anything that lightens selective pressures, i.e.: Civilization itself. Reverence of "blood and race" (not to mention other "tradcon" spooks, like religion) has historically played host to numerous disgenic effects, such as inbreeding and war.

Further, the ideas of "nature" and "genes" are increasingly incoherent, when the distinctive trait unique to humanity, our sapience, has given us the power to increasingly reshape the world to our whims, and depreciated the value of the human genome in favor of our societal evolution as memeplexes.

"Eugenics", for humans in any serious sense, must be based around our unique conscious will, not the fading relevance of "natural" selection.

When I read it I noticed that Graeber doesn't appear to have a good grasp on what capitalism is himself.

Your definition is still a little vague. The rentier class existed during feudalism and scooped off the surplus labor of serfs. Adam Smith talked about "freeing up" markets from the grasp of the rentier class to finally eliminate the last vestiges of feudalism.

A definition of capitalism starts with a definition of capital. Capital is the process of doing something with shit that leaves with more shit than you started with. There's basically three types:
money-lending capital - making more shit by lending it to others and making them back you back with interest

merchant capital - trading shit for goods and then trading those goods to someone else for more shit than you started

industrial capital - using shit to buy means of production and pay wages in order for workers to make commodities which are then exchanged to get back more shit than you started with

The first two have been around for most of the history of civilization. Lending systems with interest exists at the dawn of methods to quantify the debt (money) and was the impetus for ancient debt jubilees to periodically free people from debt bondage so that they can serve in armies or perform state infrastructure labor. Merchant capital is at least as old as ancient Greece and probably longer; Aristotle wrote about how much he hated merchants and markets.

It is industrial capital that defines the economic system (capital-ism) which overthrew feudalism in the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries.

But this is born out of the social exchanges of goods between individuals. It was just given another name. Also I don't think we're getting anywhere with this line of discussion. So let's agree to disagree, and I'm gonna see to push that debt book into my schedules.

You're describing what tyranny does, not how it came to be. Also "imposing itself on" requires to be an outside tyrant (which is just a criminal who aims to be one), a real tyrant already has power, just too much of it, which is why he falls for greed and exploits the shit out of his people.

That is just the human perception of it. The laws of nature are as clear as it gets and also unshakable without suffering consequences. We were born with the ability to judge these laws. That ability is called common sense, and it instinctively helps us to judge right from wrong based on the laws of nature. It always works, problem is, humans tend to spend the majority of their existence with making up excuses as to why they are not listening to it.

Already irrelevant. We did so much damage to humanity and nature, especially the animal kingdom that any way of improving us would just be a short term prolonging of our survival. because that's what we are now, survivalists, we lost the ability to be the creators of our own paradise and becoming a super-species (lol). The massive pollution of air, soil and water is a death sentence for everything, and the recent push for the deconstruction of race, culture, religion and nationality is just another massive nail in the coffin.

After violence failed to control large groups of humans civilizations, religion was created by exploiting the natural human traits superstition, faith and morality. It's such a powerful indoctrination that it's effects can be seen in non believers thousands of years later. You as an atheist (I get that from the spooks line) are falling for symbolism and the worshiping of false idols just as hard as true believer, which is why atheists are such good whores of capitalism. Worshiping mega-industries and falling for propaganda symbolism.

Tyranny came to be when surplus production allowed a society to maintain a permanent class of warriors who in turn allowed a chief to become a warlord.

What nonsense. Laws, patterns, causal relationships are all learned and discovered, which is why there are no infant physicists.

If right and wrong were based upon nature, then they would appear to be universal, which they screamingly obviously are not. I am honestly curious as to how you are able to suss a univeral "right and wrong" out of the wildly disparate systems of morality that are apparent across human societies. That is unless your theory is not based on observable reality.

When exactly did the human species supposedly have such transcendant ability? Dates and places.

…only slightly more recent than their respective creations

That is a textbook explanation made by a human who observed a similar situation before. You don't need so many constants to create bad behavior. Just some dude who wants to exploit his underlings. If you want to really understand the fabric of life itself, you need to learn how to ignore human explanations of things they mimicked from nature. Why? Because humans always exaggerate things or lie to make themselves look better. Always do the extra step to find the origin of the human statement and then try to find an explanation for it by the laws of nature. Works like a charm to expose all the bullshit of human philosophy.

You think knowledge, I say instinct. Knowledge is human wisdom, instinct is natural law. An infant has the ability from birth to rudimentary judge good and bad, which is why a baby starts screaming the first time it sets eyes on light, because that is the first taste of a negative perception (sensory overload).

Yin and yang, good and evil, 0 and 1, life and death…that is the very core of what nature represents; opposites. Everything that exists navigates in between those two. Common sense is our instinct to not overstep the boundaries. And I said boundaries because temptation exists, which means we are being tested.

Human morality is corruption of natures morality, because humans made the critical error to misjudge the importance of the conciseness, this led to them getting full of themselves, which led to ignoring common sense, which initiated our all downfall by not working within nature to elevate us all to the next level, but instead exploit nature for our own benefits. At this point one has to put the clues together…the natural boundaries to test us and the unique layout that only humans have a conciseness. That means we had a purpose and a creator. Now you think God, but that's a human construct, so yet again one has to find the natural explanation. So let's see…who created us, what connects all life on earth, who is responsible for all the wonders in the world, who has the ability to sense all our thoughts, what do we end up as when we die? All this is how religions describe gods abilities, you know what it also describes? NATURE itself. Now imagine a God that is so righteous, so holy, so good that it puts his own existence into the hands of it's creation. Now you learned about the reason of humanities existence, and you just found out that we are killing our own God. Cheers.

We will never know. A clean race and bloodline create a stable collective that has the means to breed fantastic individuals who create wonders that help the collective to grow and prosper. Humans corrupted that all at the very beginning, by defiling nature. We only ever saw glimpses of what we could've created.

Well, race is not a recent creation.

In abstract through the lens of history.

Let's put aside the classic anarchist argument that there is no such thing as a top-down system wherein the subordinate party is not exploited for the sake of making a more historical point, namely that nobody has underlings until he can control a surplus of wealth. In order to do that he has to have the support of scary armed men who can force people to continue providing him with that surplus. This makes him a tyrant. There is no moral choice to be made; it is simply the inevitable result of a given set of material circumstances.

Amino acids.

What in the wide world of sports does that have to do with the genesis of tyranny?

Instinct is mindless reaction, like the spasms of a headless chicken.

They do not all do that, you know. It is not a universal response.

That's just Plato's a priori bullshit. It was never based on any observations of reality, just a claim made without supporting evidence. Nature can be seen and observed and analyzed. Compare the predictions that Aristotle made regarding nature in Physics with those made by Epicurus in his letters (because somebody destroyed all his books), and tell me which look more like what we now know of nature.

That is one hell of a lot of logic leaps. First you equate common sense with instinct for no apparent reason, and then you declare both to be reflections of a universal "nature" even though there is nothing consistent or universal about either of them. Then, out of nowhere, there is something invisible testing us for, once again, no apparent reason.

People ruined themselves by thinking about things instead of just acting on instinct like dumb animals? Even Plato didn't take his Forms to that conclusion. I take it you don't like his notion of "remembering" truth through thinking.

Attached: It'sMagic.jpg (720x479, 78.72K)

This crazy train is a spectacular example of how it is folly to ignore a posteri reasoning in favor of pure thought wankery.

Our parents with their gentials.

Water and carbon.

Matter and energy in motion.

The World-Wide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer God can, because it has our real brains in the brain bank cities on the far side of the moon we never see.

Carbon, water, iron, calcium, and several other minerals.

Millions of years ago a comet collided with the dead rock that was the Earth creating a liquid hydrosphere in which amino acids combined into protiens which accumulated into organisms from which various species evolved.

If this world has a God, then he deserves to die.

So, "never" and "nowhere."

And yet they never did. Maybe because they never existed in the first place?

If humans are a product of nature, then nature defiled itself.

What you are trying to pass off as "race" most certainly is a recent creation.

Attached: Epicurus.jpg (485x634, 44.11K)

Can't answer the second part but people think Capitalism is inseperable because they are literally taught since birth that Capitalism is trading things and nothing else.
You know how Joey at school traded his PB&J for your Bologna Sandwich? That's Capitalism, it's just human nature!

Fuck off, NazBol.

No one listen to this guy, he's a moron.

I don't really give that much of a fuck about immigration myself but do you actually have a argument besides "he dumb"

Get the fuck off my board

Attached: 1427258268020.jpg (924x3068, 530.55K)

Didn't like the third column, huh?

Attached: TheThreeCamps.jpg (1500x3400, 2.12M)

This board is for leftists, not fascists pretending to be leftists.

The edit was a decent idea, but I didn't like the execution. The parallel between the two flavors of idpol isn't blatant enough, and the copy of the first two columns still reads too rough. We have better propaganda to tweak idpol'ers with, anyway.

Attached: socjus-nazis.jpg (512x278 385.52 KB, 90.9K)

Attached: politicalspectrum..png (877x556, 40.97K)

He isn't wrong about the idpol liberals and the aut-right. Their economics are damn near identical (a powerful state supposedly directs the capitalist economy and ensures that business acts inthe public's interests), and the only difference between their respective social programs is which identity group should be in charge.

Idpol leftoids don't really have a unified economic theory they subscribe to, and tbh neither do hwhite nationalists

Lmao.

Was that sarcasm?

Attached: 52553590_10215430772857408_2452689246733991936_n.jpg (800x800, 79.98K)

It's not for red liberals either ya fag

Attached: FB_IMG_1547749896156.jpg (450x648, 40.1K)

Attached: trump saudi orb.jpg (850x521, 103.25K)

Liberalism is the new phenomena capitalism isn't. It's because there always is a hierarchy in human society in wealth distribution and people who have more say in matters than others, sometimes to laughably unfair proportions. Even the communist countries had such a social hierarchy which was tied to your party standing.

Migration is just a symptom of a global economy that seeks maximum optimization, that includes hiring foreign working and mass outsourcing. Both which hurt local workers, and often is unfair to the ones who migrate. In US there's a whole business of underpaying h1b workers for example.

Feudalism was pretty much worse than post 1600's capitalism though in terms of inequality.

Was it really? I've heard credible people compare the inequality we have now to that of ancient Egypt's.

A myth, unfortunately. But there are other symbiotic relationships in the animal kingdom so your point stands.