Skip to main content

Humans Are Neither Bears Nor Tigers

To keep the full value that you produce you must produce only for your own consumption. That's about as absurdly anti-social as you can get without being outright hostile toward others.

Such a level of primitivism would render humans unable to clothe themselves, learn how to read the land and sky to predict animal movements and weather, or anything else much beyond scratching sticks and stones together to make them pointy.

Hunting would be out of the question, so only gathering would take place, and death due to predation by other species or more pro-active labour-value-keepers would keep the global population likely in the high hundreds of thousands or low millions.

In other words, the solution advocated by anarchists according to their own religious metaphysics will leave humans living like tigers or bears.

No thanks. I'll keep muh division of labur.

Popular posts from this blog

So I was reading a piece on The Outline about identity politics when the author, Sean McElwee, brought up a survey he had penned and collated to establish how positions on economic and racial issues align;
Could Democrats win over racially conservative whites with economic populism? It’s unlikely, because people who oppose racial justice also tend to oppose liberal economic policies.  To test this, I created scales of economic and racial liberalism, using two questions that have been on the American National Election Studies surveys since 1972. One question asks respondents to place themselves on a one-to-seven point scale on government aid to black Americans, the other on a one-to-seven scale on guaranteeing jobs and income for all Americans. In 1972, only 54 percent of white Americans who took the racially liberal position (supporting aid to black Americans) also took the economically liberal position (guaranteeing jobs and income).  By 2016, 74 percent did. And in 1972, 77 perce…

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …