Stupid Marxists, thinking communism is the inevitable end of history is like a religious belief

...

Really activates your almonds, doesn't it?

...

Existence was a mistake

Whatever society naturally turns into in the future, it probably won't resemble the ideology of 19th century philosophers and, more than likely, will be something that we didn't anticipate (with a healthy amount of feudalism sprinkled in).

That's not how it works.

The transition from slave society to feudalism, and then from feudalism to capitalism wasn't so shocking an unpredictable, and in many ways, the old society had the embryo of the new society already within it.

In addition the fact that this has its roots in 19th century thought has nothing to do with the validity of the philosophy. In fact, the worldview your espousing is older by far.

there have been alpha males and leaders before we even evolved into humans.

absolute haram, we are social animals, so ofcause we are classbound

Planet of the apes isnt a documentary.

this isnt an argument

kek, i didnt disagree, i was dumbfounded why you dropped that random contextless statement

You're the most ideological by far. Especially the completely unfounded claim that all societies somehow revert to feudalism.

The most important developments was all economic. Scholars before capitalism weren't able to predict it because they were overly concerned with things like culture and religion. If one focused on things like political economy and technological development, it would have been fairly predictable.

wait….there are two people without a clue in this thread? gotta run

This is 100% confirmed. Wolves in the wild form much more complex relationships than 'alpha', 'beta', and 'omega'

If anything, that experiment confirms that organisms and the societies they form are shaped by material conditions.

The heads of the pack in the wild are almost always the parents of said pack, not "alpha males".

"Alpha males" only emerge when unrelated animals are kept together in captivity.

Examples:
Like prisons.
Or highschools.

You know, the place where you experienced the emotional trauma that makes you believe that that is natural and human nature.

Still no. It's as if you've never done biology or ever seen any documentary on animals ever.

chimpanzees form these kind of hirachies, but nice to know that wolves could pull it off

No, that's you.

This alpha, beta, omega male shit has been debunked for a while. No animal documentary I've seen recently has used it.

Yeah, and our other cousins resolve their differences by fucking. Feel free to start arguing anytime.

yee, we all know there are no leaders in packs of animals they all sort of run around, untill they find prey by exident, in that regard they are much like marxists, who aimlessly wander around untill they get their benefits by mail

That's quite a claim. Fortunately I have access to peer reviewed academic journals. Please reference some papers for me to check out.

wolves, but chimpanzees dont count?

I never said they didn't have leaders.

I said the leaders tend to be the parents of the pack, there is no "apha-beta-omega" hierarchy.

citate me then

What peer reviewed source claims that there are alpha-beta-omega hierarchies in the wild?

You first, faggot.

I'm not going to put in any effort that I don't have to for a Holla Forums troll that hasn't cited anything himself.

My point was that if that wildly biased experiment on wolves could be applied to humans, it would only prove that material conditions are the primary factor. If you want to argue the whole chimpanzee thing, then what do you have to say about bonobos, considering they are just as closely related to Homo Sapiens?

then dont, ditto i guess
kek
im not pol, this retarded this has just triggered me beyond belief

...

Heres one about Hyenas
Owens, Delia, and Mark Owens. "Social dominance and reproductive patterns in brown hyaenas,Hyaena brunnea, of the central Kalahari desert." Animal Behaviour 51, no. 3 (1996): 535-51. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0058.

Heres one about Chimps
Feldblum, Joseph T., Emily E. Wroblewski, Rebecca S. Rudicell, Beatrice H. Hahn, Thais Paiva, Mine Cetinkaya-Rundel, Anne E. Pusey, and Ian C. Gilby. "Sexually Coercive Male Chimpanzees Sire More Offspring." Current Biology 24, no. 23 (2014): 2855-860. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.039.

This isn't political at all mate, this is science.

Why are you triggered by it though. For almost all of human history, there were no states. And there were no classes because there was no mode of production that made it so, tribes had everything in common, they were communal.

There litterally was no state or classes.

Gee.

first of all, big fan, saw some in the wild, for real
to your point, its all bs humans are not chimpanzees, wolves or bonobos
so we should look at the science done concerning our own species

There's a lot more to the article than the title.
If you actually read, you'll see the data and mechanics explained thoroughly. That particular article is only 16 pages so not hard to read.

kek is that something really important to pol? wtf?!

but there were states and classes though, native americans had boarders and chiefs, wars and massacres, so did/do african tribes.
this idea of the communal natureloving tribes is just not accurate

kek, i bet this gets ignored

...

How are they not?
Leadership =President, Chairman, Executive, Manager
Non-leaders = Peasants, workers, employees

I work at a zoo and can confirm this guy is right. The wolf handlers recently got a lot of shit for still interacting with the pack using the debunked "alpha/pack leader" model

Mate, youre the one who tries to prove all his point by pointing to animals.

Also, for anthropology, due to the complexity of higher organisms, we would need to do behavioural studies in controlled environments, so we can rule out material or cultural influences. We can't do that. So we cannot say what is and isnt human nature.

Those are not states or classes by marxist defeinitions, and any other definitions of "state" such as "any form of orginisation and enforcement of rule by a community" is fine by marxist terms and not opposed. A class is distinction in society where there is a difference between the relation of people in relation to the means of production. The chieftan did not have ownership of the fields with bison to the exclusion of his tribe members. A state is an enforcement of one class over another, and as such also didnt exist.

War between two groups of people isnt class or states either, nor are massacres.
I never said "nature loving", you are just projecting your own vision of "the enemy" onto me. Tribes did have communal ownership over the means of production, the fields and the tools used for hunting and making food and things, such as forests, grass, wells, game etc. This is what communal ownership is.

Leadership is the coordination of a group to the benefit of a group. This does not mean its a class. A class is a difference between relations to the means of production. The people you are at a subgroup of leaders, but I would actually call them bosses rather than leaders, since they dont lead but order around.

...

No, in primitive communism, some people, ie. chiefs and shamans, held a degree of authority, but it wasn't derived from their economic position. There were no classes.

...

Well first off I'm not an animal handler. Second off the people you see scooping animal shit are all fully educated animal handlers that have yet to work themselves up the hierarchy. Second off I'm still right, and you're wrong.

Because its not relevant, nature is not a society as much as you wish it to be. How is the fact that the lion eats other animals proof that hierachy is "natural" and how are relationships among groups of animals any different from other ecological relationships? Especially when anarchist thought mainly deals with institutionalised hierachy and domination, which is clearly lacking among animals. Really using some massivly humanised and reduced understanding of ecology to justify completely noncomparable social institutions is fash af. Also anthropology btfo this whole muh "hierachical" nature = domination is natural ages ago.

oh fuck me then i guess, as long as every word or phrase has to be defined in the context of some random ideology, i doubt we will come far

than some random idiot on the internet.
*with a degree, zookeeper

kek. you sound insecure, defending yourself against such a stupid joke makes me look correct

good point.

No buddy, you should read the sentence following that again.
We, as communists, oppose this concept we call classes and states, which we define as I did.
If you happen to use the same word for a different concept, thats not our problem. We do not oppose your definition of state then, but ours. And you can't just say "well my definition is right", because this definition has been used for centuries, almost from the beginning of the existance of true sovereign states.

You can't just barge into a communist board, say "this pink elephant is communism so you must defend it" and act like you won.

Saying people sound insecure and that therefore you are right actually makes you look like you are just grasping for any way to save face.

so user said:
then this user replyd:

and then…..nothing

Mate you can keep replying to your own comment but I can't read a 16 page paper in 25 minutes while also posting replies here and doing actual important things.

...

? we are anonymous, that face to save

i wish this board had IDs so the retard could see hes not responding to 1 guy. then again, i'm not sure how retarded this user is.

Listen here buddy. The topic of this thread is:
"Capitalism, characterised by marxist states and marxist classes isnt human nature"
And then you say
That isnt what this thread was about. The existance of leadership is not a class, any form of organisation isnt a state.

We have no interest whatsoever in your sneaky wordgames, where you twist and turn definitions to try and include any kind of normal behaviour that will also be found and is actually part of communism, into states or classes.

Boy you better be trolling right now

i can tell, its not like we did that for a while,
also i love how my intent has to be malicious, i couldnt have come around this board and thought:" well g, i dont agree with that statement, lets kill some time, debate" no i came here from /pol to deploy my ray of hate, in order to keep my masterrace oriented worldview in check

So from your shitty chimp paper

in chimpanzees, it remains to be seen whether coercion is a ubiquitous phenomenon, and whether alternative strategies exist. Further work is also needed to determine the mechanism by which long-term patterns of aggression increase paternity probability. Understanding the context in which nonswollen aggression by high-ranking males occurs and how those males interact with female recipients of coercion during swollen periods may shed light on why this strategy is effective for only some individuals.
I am very curious where I am supposed to find something that supports your claims. Nowhere does it say alpha-beta is a ubiquitous thing. In fact, the article actually says it is unclear if this alpha-beta behaviour is common in all chimps or just in some populations.

I wish you good day, I got more important things to do than discuss whether or not property rights enforced by police and renting is part of the natural pecking order seen in chimps.

the only difference between pol and regular leftism is that pol focuses on the nation state where as most leftists focus on global enlightenment.

yee well i know, two pol guys, a nazi and a bunch of local antifa/schwarzer block/etc. people
and i wish youd all die in a fire

Gee, a board that is litterally called lefty-pol on the same site as pol has the same kind of structure as pol?

I don't see how that disproves that anons statement. It states that females go for the Alphas without coercion being required. Thus Alphas as a concept exists and that they don't even need to coerce females. It's uncertain whether coercion is required or necessary and in what conditions this may manifest.

How the hell do you read the correct answer which counters your statement and somehow interpret it as supporting your statement?

It litterally states that chimps in ivory coast employ mate picking, rather than the alpha coercing them into it.
>By contrast, research on western chimpanzees (P. t. verus) in Taı National Park, Coˆte d’Ivoire, found no evidence for sexual coercion, suggesting instead that females success-fully employ mate choice [4–6].
Do you just purposefully ignore the two paragraphs i posted?

we are reading and interpreting it exactly the same. This counters your statement on the concept of Alpha, beta society structures etc.

How they hell are you interpreting this as supporting your stance?

this, both boardmascotts are mass murderers

Nowhere does it say that those chimps willingly go for "the alpha male". It says they pick their own mates.

Also, since it states that there is mate choice, it means that the "alpha male" IE the male that fights all the other males and claims all the females, doesnt exist in that group. Hence, it is not inherent "chimp nature" to have alpha males.

Hence, your argument falls apart.

From the first paragraph that you quoted.

...

Seems to be a lot of chimp talk going on in this thread. Here's a radical thought:

Maybe we shouldn't base our social organization on the behaviour of small hairy apes that fling shit and drink their own pee. Maybe human relationships and culture are a lot more complex and formable than that.

...

ALLRIGHT, the topic of this thread is extremely autistic
and the solution is easy as fuck
lets colectivize woman, the state will give you 1 or 2 deppending on how good your genetics are

It'll probably be the latter. The good guys winning is a porkie meme to make you work harder. It was never meant for us

Welcome to 8ch

It isn't about the "good guy winning", it's the fact that class systems are unstable and contradictory and doomed to an eventual collapse.

how about state enforced monogamy, with a really great matefinding algorithm for people who suck at finding people the normal way? There's about 50% percent of each gender usually, so if it's planned right it should work out.