You're viewing a single thread.
Option 1 is something we haven't been able to figure out since agriculture went mainstream thousands of years ago despite the average person desiring it for the entire period of time. Option 2 helps some people deal with this system the way it is right now when it would be excessively difficult otherwise. Maybe Option 2 won't be as important once this system collapses, maybe it will become more important. It would be nice if we could eventually figure out Option 1, but Option 2 is helping a lot of people right now. In fact, there are plenty of people who wouldn't be able to work toward Option 1 without that aid of Option 2 regardless that the cause and solution to the problems addressed by Option 2 are only relevant to this system we live in now.
I think you fell right into the trap of modern capitalist realism claiming that we live in the "best of all possible worlds" despite of how horrible it actually is. You don't have to go back to pre-agrarian times to find societies which were vastly better to live in. I recommend reading The Dawn of Everything to update your understanding of relatively recent history.
This is interesting to bring up because I'm coming from about as opposite a point of view as I can. Capitalism contains in itself the seeds of its own destruction which is as clear today as it was in the nineteenth century. It inevitably trends toward the centralization of power and the most any government has ever been able to do about that is slow it down or reverse it temporarily. For the last few decades the global nature of capital has made it a supernational force which is above regulation, even determining who is allowed into government at all throughout much of the world. Either Capitalism will end when the winners close the door behind them and some kind of neo-feudalism on a world scale will happen or the infrastructure supporting Capitalism will collapse prior to that point. Capitalist Realism is absurd unless one has been conditioned to assume it as self-evidently the best possible system which can exist and actively dismiss any criticism of any kind of economy at all.
I have not read the referenced book, so I'll address the general idea I got from the wikipedia summary. It is absolutely true that there have been models for settled society which were vastly superior in terms of average quality of life than anything based on European Feudalism, including Capitalism. There are clear examples from history and existing today (The Zapatista movement is a favorite of mine). The issue is that these cultures don't exist in a vacuum and can only exist for as long as they don't have to contend with an amount of violence which threatens to supersede their sovereignty, and collecting the volence to wield themselves undermines the pro-social nature of their own society. The power of global capital has been wielded with impunity for the last few centuries directly undermining many of the pro-social societies. Many of these societies collapsed not because they failed their people but because they failed to defend them. If they had changed fundamentally to repel violence, they would have lost their society in doing so anyway. In 2024 technology and the centralization of wealth to a few places on the planet has made it possible for a few people to run a global empire, and everyone on earth must deal with this reality in some way. Either they conform to it or resist it, but they must deal with it. I don't like the nature of the system that we live in but as long as it is possible to inflict the will of power using violence and there are people around who are willing to believe that people wielding power like this are legitimate, we will continue to have this problem.
I'm not even arguing that this scale of violence is natural. Like agriculture itself, it developed gradually by complete accident. For most of human history the level of violence one needed to prepare for was vastly different in different parts of the world, allowing for many of these societies to flourish without worry. In 2024 everyone is vulnerable to capital. After capitalism, we could have a socialist system we developed intentionally which hopefully covers all the important variables this time but most likely our intentions will meet with millions to billions of people testing the new system in all kinds of ways the designers could never have predicted. We could also simply have warlordism, as there would still be plenty game theory types feeling obligated to take everything they can get before they get overrun by not growing fast enough from the myriad others thinking exactly the same thing. My preferred end to history is a series of autonomous communities run democratically with no violence whatsoever, but we have a lot of development to do as a species before we can settle into that.
You might not have realized it yourself, but you again failed to truly imagine that a better world than capitalism is possible. In your own words it's either neo-feudalism or warlords. Imagining that changing this is only possible through evolutionary change of the entire species is transhumanist territory, and I hope I don't have to lay out the negative implications of that.
I think you should look at the actually defining characteristic of humanity, which is culture and being able to reinvent itself through it. Culture doesn't need huge species wide developments to happen, but it does need imagination of real possible alternatives.
Thanks for the opportunity for some positive clarifications. Neo-feudalism or warlordism is the inevitable fate of capitalism if nothing is done. I support that something can indeed be done if we are prepared to implement socialist systems. I only mean to say that whatever form these systems take is going to be highly compromised compared to the form they may eventually take with further development, especially considering that defense must be a consideration immediately post-capitalism. When I say “development” regarding people I certainly don’t mean in any way biological or eugenic. I am talking about the building of our collective wisdom which is our true human strength. Optimally, everyone will understand why it’s a bad idea to use violence for selfish ends and for that reason would choose to abstain because what can be yielded through pro-social means will be universally understood as obviously better for all. I think this is something to be taught and learned by all people rather than something we might evolve somehow to believe.
I already think that humans killing humans is unnatural since every I account I’ve read indicates there is a massive mental cost to doing this, the alternative being to depersonalize or dehumanise which is a different cost to mental and social health. I think the main reason violence is happening now at such a scale is because of the momentum of the kind of societies established in Europe whose successors today today can project their violence on a scale never before seen. Without this specific cultural force and knowing that it’s possible for such a cultural force to be built, I think we will have a much better idea as to how to avoid it and why we shouldn’t have things like nobility, race, or allow any disproportionate power anywhere. Hopefully we get rid of the concept of hierarchy altogether and live more naturally. I think all this is possible for humans to do but I can’t be sure of the path or the timeline.
Well, I think you are getting there 😊 But believing that you can educate people into pro-social means is a classic mistake that Marxists and related socialists often make. Culture is not so much about what you are taught but rather the social substrate we find ourselves in, often without realizing the effect it has on us.
Glad we're on the same page. I'm even using the phrases "taught" and "learned" very generally. We have obviously not yet figured out how to successfully impart these pro-social values universally. Pending the utopian future, I'll be ok with the early form of a system most of us want to work and are prepared to work on in the absence of hegemons and class distinctions.