Because if you do think about it, you would realize that a wide variety of species shows a wide variety of different behaviours. Which in turn means that all these opposing ways of behaviour are indeed natural, but not necessary natural for humans, as they are contradictory to each other.
Or if you want to follow your proposed line of thought to the logical end, I await your proof of human males attaching to the much bigger female and atrophying to a simple ball of sacks for insemination as angler fishes are proven to do.
Or to make the point even more direct: the whole concept of laws to give or take ownership is in itself so counter to all other animals behaviour that it is ludicrous to try and argue any part of that is in any kind of way natural. Or by definition of ‘humans as animals’ would mean any political system we adopt is natural by design.
Anything you don’t like is capitalism. You can even apply it to your feelings and bodily ailments. “I’ve been feeling horribly capitalism today after my knee went all capitalism.”
Capitalism as a mode of production is only a few hundred years old. It’s essentially a mode of production where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and capital owners control the state. Before capitalism was feudalism, and before feudalism came slave societies, and before those came tribal communalism.
Human nature is incredibly malleable and depends most upon how we produce and distribute, how we live and how our environment shapes us.
capitalism being a system that promotes the accumulation of wealth / power by few to exert over many? So like… nature? Yeah, that would be everyone.
Everyone that has ever died ever is due to capitalism. :)
Capitalism is not human nature.
what is capitalism?
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.
There are special subdivisions with certain extra features, but the bare bones definition is just that.
Isn’t private ownership kind of an extension of territorialism which is present in many species? Makes you think, huh?
No? Private ownership began to dominate society after feudalism. Turtles aren’t compelling others to labor for them through capital ownership.
hey cowbee. How’s it going?
Decent, busy.
I hear that. Hope you have a good weekend!
No, not really.
Because if you do think about it, you would realize that a wide variety of species shows a wide variety of different behaviours. Which in turn means that all these opposing ways of behaviour are indeed natural, but not necessary natural for humans, as they are contradictory to each other. Or if you want to follow your proposed line of thought to the logical end, I await your proof of human males attaching to the much bigger female and atrophying to a simple ball of sacks for insemination as angler fishes are proven to do.
Or to make the point even more direct: the whole concept of laws to give or take ownership is in itself so counter to all other animals behaviour that it is ludicrous to try and argue any part of that is in any kind of way natural. Or by definition of ‘humans as animals’ would mean any political system we adopt is natural by design.
Took you long enough
THIS IS CAPITALISM?
Anything you don’t like is capitalism. You can even apply it to your feelings and bodily ailments. “I’ve been feeling horribly capitalism today after my knee went all capitalism.”
this is lowercase
thanks
we are a societal race, that thrives on empathy and community.
social animals, yes.
yes, as I said.
Capitalism as a mode of production is only a few hundred years old. It’s essentially a mode of production where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and capital owners control the state. Before capitalism was feudalism, and before feudalism came slave societies, and before those came tribal communalism.
Human nature is incredibly malleable and depends most upon how we produce and distribute, how we live and how our environment shapes us.
how is it different if you substitute economic capital with political capital?
I mean the means of production and distribution.
ok but why is it different if those that control these things accumulated economic capital or if they accumulated political capital?
I don’t see what you mean. The means of production and who own them are both political and economic inherently.
Yes, they are. Then you do see.