Hello leftypol, I'm not exactly sure what ideological lens I subscribe to...

Hello leftypol, I'm not exactly sure what ideological lens I subscribe to, but I certainly don't consider myself a leftist. Quite frankly, I have much more sympathies with the Holla Forums and the "alt-right" (reactionaries in an internet age context), though I have drifted further and further from agreeing with them on anything more than an emotional level as I exit my teenage years. I think like yourselves I have an immense disgust for the modern world, but I don't place the blame for it on its various injustices and inequalities like a leftist would - the death of spirituality, the dissolving of group identity and belonging, and the lack of belief in positive, life affirming values are among some of the things which I give as my diagnosis.

What I would like to ask all of you is, what happens the day after the revolution? Do you really think that life under a consumerist, atomized, amoral, relativist, and postmodern condition is sustainable if we just change who has the means of production, would it justify all the passion and beliefs that you put into your daily thoughts?

To be clear, I certainly agree with a lot of leftist economics, but that simply isn't enough to fix the modern world, and it confuses me how economic issues (or ideologies which support such economic issues - any psychological or cultural analysis from the left always has to be tied to materialistic problems) are often the only point of critique that leftists offer against it.

TL;DR I just don't understand how Marxism and its derivative became sources of so much ideological devotion and inspiration for its followers, and I would like to understand your psychologies better.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Late_Upper_Paleolithic_Model_or_.22Revolution.22
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=2882020A778FD24392B22F368756680C

Fuck off le alt-RGHT XXXDDDD.

good post

Go read some of the books in the sticky.

Thanks.

which ones? Forgive me for being lazy

Former leftist here. The left and the mainstream right share the same consumerist, atomized, amoral, relativist, and postmodern condition.

I'll admit the wording was a little too much but I got my point across at least.

Reading Hegel, the Ego and its own is a good way for despooking yourself.

After that, it's free game.


Lel, read Debord.

You are too smart to be here, but not smart enough to know it.

I'll admit I need to read Stirner, but as far as I know he's alot more on the "despooking" side of things than the putting forth of something constructive. Critiques are great and all, but what I am asking for is what drives the left - what does it strive for, not what does it want to avoid, you feel?

How does spirituality fix the modern world? Medicine has done more for us than shaman and priest have ever done? Most commies are staunchly pro science and pro medicine. I just ask because a lot of spirituality is nonsense. I'm not saying I am blatantly anti religious but read the Bible. God does objectively evil shit in there, and the Bible condones laws that are fucked up, as examples
What do you think this stems from? Capitalism itself results in alienation. In order for the system to function we must be in competition with one another. Us anarcho commies, on the other hand believe in something called mutual aid, which is a concept which can largely be boiled down to a collective in which the members believe we are better off when we cooperate, such as in cities or small towns to help each other survive. Sound exactly what you are describing unless what you are talking about is identity politics
Which are what, exactly? Christian "moral"? I sure as fuck hope not.
Recognize that what you consider to be positive doesn't necessarily translate to another person. I instead think people need to decide what's best for them or their families. As for any other thing, idk exactly what you mean

Also there's no way I'm ever going to put in the effort to read undistilled Hegel

Because for most of those problems the Left hasn't grown past tired 19th century philosophical navel-gazing that operates on the assumption of the Blank Slate, i.e. there is no human nature, the current mode of production > ~200,000 years of evolution (when it isn't indulging in psychoanalytical pseudobabble YEAH WELL FREUD NEVER INTENDED IT TO BE A "SCIENCE", DAD).

Unfortunately you bring up anything remotely related to "human nature" and Holla Forums spergs out, because there's apparently no middle ground between
or

see pic

Your spirituality and "life-affirming values" are nonsense, kid, hate to break it to you. You know, for a bunch of people claiming to be superior to the feelie weelies and all about muh logic and reason, rightists are some of the most emotionally fragile creatures on this fucking planet.


The emancipation of mankind and

t. needs to read an anthro textbook written after the year 1970.
by a reputable academic not some alt right racist hack
btw ~200,000 years is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Human beings genetic differences fall way below the level needed to define subspecies

Thanks, could you talk more about what you find alienating about capitalism, and why you think that "mutual aid" will end this alienation?

I know this is a shit book, but I can't help but think of Brave New World when I think of the communist: everyone's material needs are perfectly provided for, conflict is reduced to its absolute minimum, sex and socializing is quick and easy, etc. etc. However, the people of the society live absolutely meaningless lives, no one strives for anything greater, they all simply exist in this worthless desert devoid of genuine values. I just don't see how a more just economic system or a more cooperative group collective can avoid this, and to me, both modern capitalism and most forms of communist thought (including yours) want nothing less than approaching this dystopia.

Forgive me if its not clear what I'm advocating for, I'm not entirely sure either. I just want to know what values and goals underly all the ideology and fluff of the left.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man

I'm terrible with typos - I meant to say "when I think of the communist utopia" on the second line

Stop spreading pseudoscience.

What you have to understand is that Marxism was the first philosophy to blend science and mythology. Marx basically wanted to do to history, what newton had done to physics - to describe it's 'laws of motion'. Therefore he invented historical materialism, which is a historical theory that says the logical endpoint of history is a society which is the ultimate embodiment of freedom and equality (socialism or 'communism'). Think of it like Christianity where judgement day = the revolution and heaven = socialism. Your question is wrongly formulated as its as silly as saying to a Christian, hey, wont heaven be boring?

...

But do you really see people living lives any more meaningful in the commie utopia? I consider myself a muh privileged person whose been surrounded by muh privileged people, socially successful and whatnot, yet I still feel an inherent disgust towards the yuppie culture and the generic shallowness that pervades society. I really don't feel all that removed from the utopian picture in your image macro, but I simply don't want to live there anymore.

bullshit
a lot has happened in the last 200,000 years

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity#Late_Upper_Paleolithic_Model_or_.22Revolution.22

All human biodiversity is contained within that yellow box at the top. Read a god damn physical anthropology or biology textbook

good to know that threads can get derailed by pseuds discussing race on Holla Forums too

Wow, you're a fucking idiot. How about actually reading Marx.

assimilate to christcom gang. Socialism is God's plan.

the lines between sub species, breed, race, and species are blurry
those definitions are socially constructed and not quantitatively defined

But socialism offers literally nothing else besides the revolution. At least Christianity, in its own flawed way, offered unique ethics, a goal beyond one's own self to strive for, a sense of weight for one's actions and a group identity. Marxism is just based on the same rationalized utilitarian ethics that the Eternal Anglo and porky used to bring about capitalism.

no one gives a shit, fuck off.

if you want to talk about this start another thread, you're derailing this one

...

Read literally any work that may give an idea of how socialism works. libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=2882020A778FD24392B22F368756680C

What you're doing is baselessly say that with people's needs satisfied, nobody does nothing. False, almost everyone finds things to do with their times, and this system will give place to different subjectivities than those produced in capitalism.

This better be shitposting.

I wasn't even referring to race, I was referring to certain behavioral patterns that are almost instinctive to humanity, which the Left generally can't address beyond "its capitalism's fault…somehow" - with proposed solutions that are either utopian delusions or cargo cultist (well, why can't a city of millions in a socialist society treat and raise children like a 300 strong hunter gatherer band?)

Well, I deeply disagree with you, but there really isn't any point in debating something like this. I need to sleep anyway.

Well good. It's better if you leave the board rather than use idiotic assumptions.


kys.

Literally what is your obsession with this "a goal greater and beyond oneself" and "group identity" stuff? Every single time I ask a fashy-lite this it devolves into BECAUSE MUH ETERNAL IDEA bullshit. The universe doesn't give a fuck about you or your mythos about some Nietzschian superman or pleasure-seeker. Humans ultimately eat, fuck, and die, not live whatever glorious inner struggle right-wingers think we do.

...

…you do realise that there are parallels between the overman and the communist postcapitalist man, right?

not him, but humans seem to have an inborn desire for some sort of purpose, particularly a communal one
read Aristotle and modern communitarians

said the political extremist while arguing on a revolutionary political discussion forum

Read Badiou, my friend. In communism the guiding Idea will be that of the True.

This is the hardest thing to understand about right-wingers tbh. It's like their mindset is completely different.

You could always challenge someone to an honourable samurai swordfight under communism where you both have to fight until one kills each other. Problem solved. No need to prolong human suffering for the sake of your feels.

regarding the group identity stuff
fashy goys like myself believe that natural selection has strongly favored a strategy of in-group favoritism in humans
humans in the current year are still the tribal animals that we were 100,000 years ago and we still have the same evolutionary drives
we form into groups and we derive happiness and spooky purpose from them

Negation of consumerism and de-throning ownership as an ideology via trivialisation on material need is the exact opposite of this. A socialist society is about being-becoming instead of having-amassing. Improvement of both the tangible and intangible self will be the centre of existence.

I wish Karl Marx could say that and NOT borrow Engels's money.

Jesus christ, what a fucking hedonistic loser.

Yea, a hedonistic loser who devoted whole his life on study and would eventually make revolutionary critiques that would change how certain subjects would be interpreted-forever.

And lived on borrowed money.

Literally a dependent parasite.

How is that your conclusion? Are you dumb?`He could either live austerely in squalor while working as a persecuted author and journalist or he could borrow money and actually enjoy art and other things that elevate the human condition.
You are free to be a spartan philistine but it makes you live less, not more.

That's a fucking conclusion because when you encourage people to spend money on leisure, don't go around fucking borrow money yourself, that means you are a parasitic scum who lives off other people's money.

What a charitable interpretation. Ignoring the fact that your little critique amounts to nothing than an adolescent sperging out with ad hominems, he is still right. He doesn't even encourage people to spend money of leisure. Consult a psychologist, you may be having delusions.

No, he isn't fucking right.

Until you have a decent income and can live off independently, then you can spend money such as "eat, drink, read books, the dance hall, the public house, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc"…

Until then, you are gonna make yourself poorer and poorer, and you have to either beg someone else or the government to give you money.

That is no way to live.

Capitalism is largely responsible for the atomization of society, just because you happen to be relatively high in the existing social hierarchy doesn't change the fact that you're still trapped in and restricted by it. If you want things to change you have to destroy the system so people can be free

Oh get real, nowadays the tribalism that people like you cling to tends to be shit like "the white race" yet you completely ignore the centuries of war and conflict between Europeans of different nationalities, and often even the same nationality. For fuck's sake, the fascists you so idolize burned half the continent to the ground as they looted and pillaged their way across it- and even then, they were also allied with Japan despite not even remotely being part of the same "tribe". The fact that people like you were able to ignore the history of European conflict to unite under some ridiculous notion of "whiteness" just demonstrates that nationalism is simply a tool for the ruling class to manipulate the people by blaming all their troubles on some "other". Its also hilarious that one of the most prominent boogiemen for the aut-right is Muslims, despite the fact that the nazis viewed Islam positively and considered the people of many middle eastern countries to be "white".
You're being played like a damn fiddle, my dude.

But you can do many of those things in any case. The majority of the things mentioned don't need money: books, theorizing, love, singing, painting, going to the theater. You're either trolling or being deliberately autistic and/or retarded.

….are you fucking kidding?

Books, theorizing, painting and going to the theater all need money.

Love needs money as well, even in Marx's times, how well are you gonna treat your girlfriend? By letting her pay for your?

Only "theorizing" doesn't cost fucking money, and surprisingly, that's what Marx excels at. Too bad theorizing doesn't give you money either.

That is exactly his point you moron, that quote is about the logic of capital concentration and how any consumption at all reduces the available capital and thus is detrimental to personal finance.
Exactly, which is why confining all the things that make living great and improve humans and humanity as a whole to the moneyed class is rephrehensible. This is why class society has to be eliminated.

...

They don't. I can get books for free from the internet. I can love without money being involved. I can sing at home, no money. I can paint, no money. I can go to open theaters and concerts too. What now?

Then his point is fucking wrong, because it encourages poor people to be even poorer.
There's nothing in this world that is free, that is natural's laws, existing beyond politics.
So class society has to be eliminated so people can live off free food and doesn't have to work to eat? Sounds exactly like a society of lazy losers.

Free wifi I presume?
Good of you, but how?
You need a home first, does that require money?
With your shit and piss, I guess?
Which requires transportation fee, unless you can freely walk there and walk back.
You are a hedonistic loser?

You are a moron. This quote is directed at the capitalist class - the poor of his time didn't have the means to attain loans or money to spare for luxuries. Why do you feel the need to comment on things you are completely ignorant of?

Enslavement to capital isn't anything close to 'natural laws'.

In the current society and in Marx's time it is the capitalist leisure class that doesn't work and leeches off others. Supporting a rentier economy while crying about 'lazy losers' is extremely absurd.

Get better at doing sophistry, or even better, at reading. You have completely misinterpreted what he was talking about.

Будь осторожен.

The quote in particular does not direct at any particular class, so you have to point at context here. The working class sure can spend their labour money on all that trite, and get fucking poorer.
Natural laws is that nothing is fucking free.
The capitalist class sure works more than Marx did, after all, Engels worked so that Marx could borrow his money.
Just ask Engels, he was a bourgeois, did you think he live like a king? Nope.

...

So you borrow someone else's properties, exactly like Marx did.
Very good and noble, I hope your mother and girlfriend don't pay for your lunch as well?
Public disturbance.
Shit and piss I presume?
Which makes you fatigue, and want to eat and drink, which require money.
In what way?

Did Engels work or not work?

Did Marx borrow his money or not?

Yes or not.

Why are you so obsessed with what Marx did? Did he touch you as a child? Goddamn, whether he was a worker or not is irrelevant you spastic.

Did you want to say anything relevant?

False. I can sing at different places, moderating my sing if need be.

Did you want to say anything relevant?

I can get food by other means, or pay them with my own money: I have not necessarily ceased working.


Why are you so obsessed with what Marx did? Did he touch you as a child? Goddamn, whether he was a worker or not is irrelevant you spastic.

Because Marx said some stupid shit and doing stupid shit?
Answer the question, did they pay for your lunch? Because that needs money.
So in other word, lower your damn voice.
Well, you can always shit and piss and paint with those, for free, because other things cost money.
That is the whole point: work and fucking save money, do not fucking spend your precious money until you have secured a stable income.

Do not be Marx. Don't be a fucking pararistic loser who borrows money from the bourgeois to eat, drink and fucking "theorize".

You don't have any idea what is being talked about, you are just here high on ideology, crusading away. The point of the original quote is that even the moneyed leisure class - that is the capitalist class - suffers from alienation, should they perfectly follow the logic of capital accumulation. Pic related

Natural laws is that everything is free. The commons have to be expicitly enclosed.

This comment is so stupid I'm not sure if I'm engaging with a troll or not. Are you trying to say that because Marx borrowed from Engels this means that Engels worked more? Are you equating capital accumulation with work? What is work you don't get paid for?

How does this relate to anything?


One of the greatest theorists and the origin of great many social sciences shouldn't have 'theorised', but wage-slaved away at some meaningless job for drones to 'save money' instead? You capitalists are the enemy of civilisation.

Except the leisure class, even at Marx's time, were the aristocrats and rich dudes, they were the guys who spend time drinking, painting, singing, painting, and they did all that because they had fucking money. The quote is fucking useless if it directs at those fucking bourgeois.
If everything is free, then conjure yourself electricity right now, because that shit is free right?
No, it means fucking Engels worked more than Marx.
What Engels did was more than what Marx did, considering all Marx did was to beg Engels for money, while Engels was leeching a fucking factory.
It relates to the fact that the leecher class still has to work, and Marx was leeching off money from the leecher class.
Yes, he should work and have his own money, instead of borrowing someone else's money to live a leisure life.
Civilization is built of working, not being a parasistic scum.

Don't bother. This is one sophist who evades his ban every day and appears in random threads. The post formatting and excessive levels of pedantery are immediate giveaways. At least he shows that he can get actually get buttmad.

This is high class butthurt. Are you done being the 12 year old you are deep in your soul?

Indeed, I'm very buttmad that there are genuine people who would follow Marx's mode i.e. borrowing money instead of working.

In fact, I'm super buttmad and I'm glad that I didn't pay attention to whatever Marx was saying.

Nah, I'm not done butthurting, m8.

I probably wouldn't stop before that stupid ass quote is fucking mocked for all eternity.

Well, thank you for showing the unironic extent of your autism. Now go to bed, Timmy.

Nah, buddy, I think I'm gonna stay right here and debate.

Where or what did you use to become who you are?

Playing video games.

...

Truly, this world needs more people playing video games instead of TALKING about them.

>>>Holla Forums.

It is to clarify that capitalism alienates even those in a position to accumulate.

Dumb child.

So let's reiterate, having money = working?

Collecting rent isn't work, user.

Philosophers, scientists and artists should just go dig ditches instead, after all user on imageboard told them to get a real job.

Yes, division of labour, which allows for some people to spend their time with intellectual work.


Autistic screeching hardly qualifies as debate.

Btw, playing video game is one of those things you can get for free, dawg.

You are using energy, consoles and games made by labour, thereby they are not free. Ещё раз.

Except these capitalists weren't lacking in drinking, eating, theatering, singing, painting, etc
Conjure electricity before calling me a child.
Yes, considering you have to do something in order to get the money.
Then maybe Marx should go collect rent for Engels, instead of borrowing his money.
Scientists have a job, philosophers and artists who don't have a job should indeed go dig a ditch.
SOME of their time for intellectual work, not all of it, not to point of borrow money in order to live.
Well, I don't autistic screech, so?

Who cares? I can get them for free, thus shit's free, dawg.

...

I'd say you should go read books, but I think your education has far more fundamental flaws. I wish you luck in life.

I'd say you should go work instead of spending time to read useless books.

And thank you for your kind word, I guess, I wouldn't pass up on any luck.

He's being rude but he aint really wrong. If you want I can adress your questions without being snarky but please don't waste my time to "troll".

He's deeply fucking wrong, and I have explained my position.

Please do, there's no trolling here.

It's my genuine that people take that Marx's quote seriously.

...

Please formulate an actual question, I'm not going to go through this shit-flinging argument between you and the other user.

There's no fucking question.

There's a statement:

I will admit that I didn't understand the quote the first time either. You seem to misunderstand what Marx meant.
The statement:

Here's what is wrong with Marx's mentality.

People create more wealth in order to have money to spend at leisure, this is why the rich dudes are the ones who donate to the poor artists so they can make paintings.

Creating money is not the goal, it is to use those money in order to better secure himself, physically as well as spiritually.

Marx never worked, when he's hungry, he just asked for money from his friend, Engels, thus he wanted everyone to be like him, a worthless parasite who enjoys the high art yet never work a single day in his life.

Google Frankfurt school, thats the reason

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Engels could have denied Marx's request. The reason why Engels gave Marx money, was exactly because Engels wanted Marx to focus on writing Capital and furthering the socialist cause. Engels was a patron. Which means that Marx wasn't a parasite, but someone who was unofficially hired to write about socialism and capitalism. Which is exactly the same thing Marx would have done if he kept his job as a journalist or decided to become a teacher in philosophy. Someone who gets money for writing and/or teaching. With the only difference that he wouldn't be able to write favourable about socialism or critique capitalism.

If you don't agree with Marx. Fine, then that's that. Nothing we can do to change your mind. However, stop acting like a prune.

But he didn't, that's the point, he decided to lend his friend and sustained a parasite.
So did Marx finish his "job"? Nope, he fucking didn't finish writing shit either. In fact, he spent time writing useless shit instead of finishing his socialism writing. How exactly does that say about Marx?
Shoulda, coulda, in fact, he would be far more respected if he did that, because he would have survived on his own without relying on borrowed money.
How am I acting like a prune? Because I point out that Marx is a hedonistic loser who never had a job?

No-ones going to just read a book because you tell them to.
Communism is much more than just our relations to things (the means of production), it's about how we relate to each other. Changing the nature of how we reproduce each other (labor) from a hierarchical, capitalist way to a communist way based on mutual aid and solidarity would break the atomization we experience.

I also think postmodernity is a symptom of neoliberalism and it's imposition of capitalist realism(aka the mantra of "there is no alternative"). Having lost the ideals of constant progress, and the ability to change the world, we have instead begun deconstructing our ability to understand the world. I think a post revolution society would need to constantly aim for improvement and change, almost according to a capitalist logic, or else the stagnation and despair we experience now will just be inherited.

It's the way you write. You act like anything he wrote doesn't have any meaning. You outright deny his claims based on his personality and work-ethic. You have no argument other than, he was a parasite. And that would never sway anyone with a proper understanding of logic or argumentation. Someone who doesn't know what the implications of Capital (Even just Vol. I) are, would never understand how even this single book can totally undermine the ethical and logical foundation of capitalism. Even if someone else would have written it eventually, there is no denying that Marx actually was the one to do this. Everything else about him doesn't matter. No one cares that he might have been a "parasite". Because he was also the one who guided the socialist movement in a meaningful way.

can you substantiate your claim that these are in fact genetic behavioral traits, let alone if they poise a problem to the socialist experiment?

just because you don't know of any or haven't read anything doesn't mean that he "didn't finish writing shit"
even if that were true it doesn't matter and we don't care

yes

nah, he came later and frequently

this is your brain on capitalist ideology.

Even in the earliest hunter gatherer societies, men would attract females by showing their ability to gather and control resources.

Our problem lies in capitalism, not the "modern world".

Why not?

What is that spirituality you speak of?

Capitalism causes social atomization, that's true. Do note however that certain frameworks of belonging (notably nationalism) are contemporary constructions that emerged because of capitalism.

Life-affirming values such as?

Well, you're an idealist: you believe ideas have a life of their own and are the primary factor shaping history. We are materialists: we believe these very ideas are first and foremost shaped by material conditions. Changes in the social organization of society if what produces cultural shifts, not the opposite.

Imagine being so much of a cuck to ideology you started to fight porkys battles for him on anonymous Communist image boards by crying about poorly formed value statements.

And?


even in marx's time public libraries were a thing
if you gotta pay then it ain't love
something just about everyone knew how to do because it was a social activity and a common pass time
alright yeah you need money for that
depending on the theater, admission might be little or free and funded mainly by concessions or donations

Surprisingly enough there's this magic thing called "The Internet" where you can do all five.

Magic, isn't it?

Marx worked as a journalist throughout his life all the while devoting his life to one the single most important body of work in human history. It's also worthy of note that he was barred from regular employment pretty much anywhere he went because he had all of Europe's police forces on his tail.

wtf I love capitalism now?

Elaborate then

And therefore it obviously predates capitalism.

I love the internet

Food collection and "resource control" doesn't equate to "having money," nor was it a requirement for "love," you absolute joke of a clown of a person.

this is not an argument

Of coarse wealth can attract potential mates, but it is not the only prerequisite to gaining a mate, or else the poor shouldn't be breeding at all.

can't say this is however different from your other """""arguments""""" in this trash thread.
Quite sad tbh.

Marx worked as a journalist. A writer. If you don't think that's work, especially then? Got ocean front property to sell you in fucking Utah. That's a lot of god damn work.

Such a horse shit myth.

Secondly, the real "unemployed philosophers" are the people libertarians idolize. Never actually fucking worked either. But they weren't journalists in the 19th century.

The earliest Paleolithic societies seemed to actually

worship women,

which comes as no surprise because of the importance of women to the functioning of society at that point. No women, no population, no tribe.

Misbehave and act, let's say not too nicely, they could just kill themselves. It's not like Paleolithic life was fun.

It's why you see Venus figures everywhere. And lack of descriptive figure of the masculine form. When you do see it, it's skinny, skrawny. And the universal Eurasian nature of this phenomenon means that at some point in time, this became norm somehow, through hundreds and hundreds of miles.

Fascinating to think about, no?

In the Epic of Gilgamesh too you can see the special emphasis women and fertility played in society. There's a passage where Enkidu has sex with a woman, a fertility priestess/sacred prostitute iirc, for 7 days before he eventually just passes out, after which he can no longer run and communicate with the animals, exhibiting a civilizing effect of that sort of holy intercourse.

YOU KNOW FUCKING WHAT
HONESTLY
I missed having you here Hoochie ;^)

I'm glad I still have my fans

I only made that one comment about showing off your abundance of resources to attract a mate.

(Heiled)

Yeah its very interesting to look at the differing roles of the sexes throughout history.

Recently I was reading about the transition from hunter gatherers to an agrarian society in ancient Britain.
Archaeologists have found bodies of females whose skeletal development suggested a hunter gatherer upbringing but their stomachs contents showed they ate a farmed diet before they died. But no males were found with this same pattern.

They concluded these were women from hunter gatherer societies who had 'married up' to join agrarian societies. But it never happened to males. They were stuck in the society they were born in to. Fascinating as you say.

solid theorizing here

it was the paleolithic

wow

For all we know the statues were just figurines without any religious significance.

...

The Venus Figures are a well documented movement of art, one of the earliest. They range from as far West as France, to as Far East as Russia and the Mediterranean, all dating not from one point, but thousands of years apart in some cases. Across such vast distance

It does imply religious significance if not cultural significance. Worship, might be hyperbole. But the lack of male figure in Paleolithic art as opposed to the hyper commonality of the feminine figure goes along with what anthropologists believe was crucial to pre agricultural cultures, and that was reproduction

Without women, no tribe. And without scientific or medical information about birth, it would appear, almost miraculous or supernatural. The death of a mother or a child would be tragedy beyond compare.

So this goes without saying they, for lack of a better term, worshipped them. You can call it "dud just figures xD" all you like but it apart from animal painting was among the first recorded art movements or even kind of language. Spread across vast distance. You forget what even a hundred miles means to someone in the Paleolithic, the fact it was so vast, is astonishing.

But at the same time very predictable.

You don't have to fight me on every point, this is common knowledge, you're not even using some of the criticisms of this hypothesis, few and far between they may be

I hate to get bogged down in semantics but without men there would be no reproduction or tribe either.

Two womyn cant just scissor their vaginas together and produce babies.

With the energy analogy, he is stating the laws of nature of energy being a trade off, one cannot create energy, only transform it. It's impossible to make matter or energy out of nothing.

True, but infant mortality those days was short, and it does take a mother to raise an infant to health in that context. Breast milk, the like.

If you just forced women to be baby machines then they likely just kill themselves. So reverence was not only required, but also probably a reaction to the creation of life itself.

Im not convinced.
If you look at the poorest regions of earth today women are baby machines.
Your best survival tactic for any tribe is to find a woman that has no trouble giving birth and produce babies continually until she dies most likely or her fanny dries up.


I guess it depends on your precise definition of reverence.
Would you say a porn star is revered?
Because that is the modern equivalent of one of those venus statues. Its something that appeals to your subconscious brain because its more fit for reproduction than your wife Younger, bigger tits, healthier, fewer flaws and deformities

If you call that reverence then fine.

What changed the equation was agriculture.

Does it cheer you up knowing that your great great great great great great grandfather thinks you have shit taste

Does it cheer you up to know that overweight women were once objects of worship by fit, rugged hunter gatherer men?

Why do you delete your posts dumby

I went to the doctor complaining of a broken leg and a knife stuck in my eye. His diagnosis was that my leg was broken because I couldn't walk and the knife got stuck in my eye because I couldn't see where I was going. He was a great doctor.

"lean, hardy" reminded me of microwavable meals, and there were better words anyways.

I genuinely hope your conditions improve enough that you don't have to read about speculative prehistory to imagine being important.

None of us are important you dumb bitch

Poor Hoochie

-Soren Kierkegaard

Plenty of people feel important and can tell you what they're living for, what they do for the world, and what people need them. There's a difference between feeling important and being important, and plenty of people feel important. There's no fact of the matter with being important regardless.