1/
On @jmrphy podcast @Outsideness says something to the effect that "emancipation corresponds strictly to a process of dehumanization." He is trying to meet Murphy half way as it were. I don't think that the term dehumanization means shooting ppl and throwing them in ditches in
-
-
5/ The result is starvation, disease, death, malnutrition, high infant mortality, no medial care, etc. There is a reason that societies that undergo communist revolution have these problems: as a civilization approaches its "natural state" it dies.
Show this thread -
6/ Trouble is, it is human nature to want to go back there. We are genetically programmed to try to go back. This is why you can never put humans a the center of anything politically and get a positive outcome. It is also why emancipation is "dehumanizing" because it must not
Show this thread -
7/ really give people what they want: to kill people and take their stuff. Capitalism then, is superior to human nature, and it is accelerating and will deliver human beings from themselves.
Show this thread -
8/ Capitalism is more ethical that human nature. Power is the condition of one human being "above" another. Equality is liberation from other human beings. Only productive forces can liberate us from our "betters" who try to enslave us in monkey status hierarchies.
Show this thread -
9/ Thus, liberation is "dehumanizating" in the sense of no longer putting sociopathic status monkeys in positions of power at the center of everything. Capitalism subsumes the Will to Power to the Desire to Consume.
Show this thread -
10/ Capitalism forces people to produce valued in order to be valued, and that is the ultimate nightmare for leftists, who talk about emancipation and freedom but really just want to indulge their will to power.
Show this thread -
11/ All communist revolutions fail because they succeed in giving power monkeys the power they crave.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
this is the stupidest shit ive ever seen lol. please read a book
-
neolithic peoples didnt have have capital because they sharwd food
-
they didn't have capital precisely because they shared (and stole in raids) each others food, and thus could not accumulate seed corn/large tracts of land to mortgage, develop modern banking, etc.
-
would that they stopped sharing their barley so they could invent literacy, wage labor, markets and double entry bookkeeping
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
yeah, in the third world anytime someone gets a job he's got a whole clan with a strong moral claim to all his hemoglobin
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.