There is what I like to call natural freedom and morality in contrast to unnatural freedom or morality. Natural freedom and morality is innate that people are born with naturally while the other is a socio cultural construct. In the socio cultural construct model of morality or freedom both are commodifications that revolve around socio economic, monetary, and occupational status.
The fact that you have to earn, buy, or labor towards having any freedom at all in order to have some sort of a semblance in acquiring moral agency shows just how much of an illusion it all really is. It’s not based upon anything that is real, natural, or even tangible, it’s based upon an ideal often enough controlled by others to subjugate people.
It isn’t real or genuine, this reduces human existence or freedom to economic output. Is freedom and morality solely dependent on economic output or activity? Well, that’s not real, natural, or genuine. That sounds like a prisoner dilemma where a prisoner is put into a position forcefully to bargain for their entire existence or life. If the prisoner cannot afford anything they cannot afford freedom and interacting morally with others becomes an absurd notion, a luxury they cannot afford. How is one to act morally if they themselves don’t even have the luxury of freedom? The fact that others subject the prisoner to their moral ideals while they have no freedom and cannot afford to be moral themselves becomes equally absurd. This insanity breeds hostile immoral people and is a majority of the time the root of all immorality or at least a very large part of it. This is something unfortunately all the moral theoreticians of today seem to be at a loss with and I find that puzzling because it really isn’t a hard thing to understand.
It is a slavish carrot and stick model…that’s what this thread is about, right? Do you support that?
In some ways this unnatural freedom and morality imposed on the world is actually immorality disguised as being morality which becomes very insidious.
Most people of course don’t question or criticize it where instead they accept it as a mere given which explains quite a bit about the sad state of affairs in post modernity on human beings.
I think it was a mistake to reduce all human interactions materially based upon economic materialism yet here we are today. Economics should of never came to where it is now dominating all of humanity but since it does very perversely as it does currently it will undoubtedly be the very thing that unravels post modernity itself which we are witnessing now in real time. I give it a few more decades or less depending on a variety of variables…
Economics fails to account for all the various human complexities, desires, and aspirations, because of that failure economic materialism will also fail inevitably.
I’m gonna go all '00s and answer inline because we agree except for where we don’t.
I’ll make a concession to modern posting styles though.
tl;dr: Anarcha-primitivism is awesome and real. Primitive abundance is a thing. Agriculture is a tragedy. But we aren’t going back, so the question isn’t “what could have been?” instead it’s “what’s next?”
I mean, part of me agrees with this. Part of me thinks this reads like Toblerone Triangle’s attempt at trolling where he gave himself a psychotic break.
No disagreement. Greek philosophers recognized that slaves made their circle jerk possible. It is no accident that the shi class in China was also the philosopher class. Etc. Capitalism accelerates the problem but it doesn’t originate with capitalism.
One of my favorite books is Revolutionary Suicide by Huey Newton. Have you read it? If you haven’t, you should. If you have, meditate on Brother Huey vs Brother Bobby. I’m 100% on team Huey but I’ve also broken bread with Brother Bobby. Living a life of loud desperation is cool, but what does it get you?
I don’t. That’s why I said your questions were good.
The natural vs unnatural distinction is where TT went crazy. You’ve got the right idea but you reify things.
I think most people do, but the metaphor you are looking for is the broken tool.
Agreed. But that’s why this topic is proactive. John Smith’s big innovation was to crib from Hume and separate “is” from “ought” and try to describe the “is”. That’s the invention of Capitalism. He also provided solutions to what he saw since the “is” stood in contrast to his “ought”.
Economics is an “is”. You are talking about an “ought”.
Now, economics is actually closer to an “ought”. It has it’s own totally perverse incentives and is super broken. But it has also conquered the world. Debsian inevitablism is fine and very on brand for a frustrated American Midwesterner. But Debsianism is also a massive fucking failure. Leninism, Maoism, Juche, fuck man, even Kampucheaism and Hoxhaism had entire countries behind them and internationalist movements. Debsianism is an absolute failson. Personally, I blame the millennialism you are exhibiting here for that failure.
I’m not an anarchist anymore either, don’t support anarcho primitivism. The anarcho nihilist of yesteryear went away a few years ago where all of that has become past history of my youth. You’ve been gone a long time Xunzian, let us just say that in my deep ideological evolution I have evolved into an authoritarian social idealist.
What’s next? Total destruction, chaos, and social upheaval where we’ll be lucky if anybody survives this global cataclysm of events.
No, we can’t go back although part of me perhaps some leftover of my youth wishes we could go back to a more idyllic primitive landscape where life was basic, primal, and simplistic.
No, what I am talking about is the breakdown of complex societies largely from within with some external environmental factors also to be sure. For me the future of civilization is self destruction through numerous variables where I am all about its rebirth and changing dynamics from its ruins. Future societies built out of the ashes of former ones. I believe currently we’re at the late stages of this transformation that will in effect blossom into all of that.
For me this will happen through world war, economic collapse, societal breakdown, artificial intelligence, automation, resource depletion, or through a combination of all simultaneously.
All I know is that economic materialism by itself is incapable of supporting freedom and morality, some may call me a moral idealist or whatever but I truly believe in that. To be sure my sense of morality is a bit unorthodox in that it differs quite a bit from the majority of people.
A majority might find my own morality repulsive and perhaps vulgar.
I am always interested in Asian cultures because I must admit my ignorance and lack of knowledge concerning them. I find eastern philosophies interesting. For instance I was reading up a few months ago on a Chinese philosophy known as a kind of legalism where I found its position on human nature to my liking. I believe it is called Fajia with such individuals like Han Fei and Xunzi.
What was the shi class?
Capitalism of course exacerbates problems but you’re right they have existed even before capitalism and dwells into the topic of human nature itself. It’s not just capitalism of course exacerbating the problems but industrialization and technology also. World changes too fast for human beings to adapt to which causes problems and in order to maintain this changing environment more demands are compounded onto human beings. It is all a recipe for disaster.
I’ve never heard of this book revolutionary suicide, I’ll have to look into that as it sounds interesting.
Who is this TT that went crazy? You keep saying I reify things? What is that suppose to mean?
Broken tool?
I don’t think John Smith could fathom his creation evolving into the oligarchic crony capitalism that it is today run by international lunatics.
Economics might of conquered the world but I would argue it is also in the process of destroying it too.
Well it’s a good thing as a socialist I don’t expound the Marxist variety, I will say this to the day I die, we live in a post capitalist and communist world. While I have disdain for communism I believe moderate socialism is more favorable over capitalism. I support a mixed economy.
I really hope you’re not some boomer that wants to explain how worthless millennials are because I have heard enough of that garbage for a small lifetime already.
