What is National Socialism to you?

not really

Yeah, I wonder why /leftpol/ does not identify with anti-communist genocidal maniacs…

It means communists get sent to death camps.

Yeah, genoicide is ok but anti-communism is going too far. I mean if you're going to kill millions of people, it's best not to be racist about it.

Orwell's book 1984.
Thats Not Socialism.

An oxymoron.

The problem with Not Socialism is that it is the worst fascism has to offer. I mean, for all shoah being the worst thing that existed, it would have been a detail of history is they won, cause they would have killed all the slavs out of Lebensraum ideology.

I understand the appeal of big rallies , hugo boss uniforms and national unity, but can't they pick some less terrible ideal leader?

They are all homos

Maybe you should get a better definition of that word. Capitalism is a postmodern ideology which like socialism reduces the world to material. Free market is not interchangeable with capitalism, the free market is a system and capitalism is an ideology. Fascism, monarchism, and traditionalism are all inherently anti-capitalist to an extreme degree because they believe in more than material (history/culture, spirituality, beauty, good and evil, etc). It is impossible to be capitalist and nationalist at the same time, a nationalist believes in his nation and will sacrifice any system for it, a capitalist only supports a nation for as long as it supports capital.

wow surprise. Capitalism is an economic model in which the means of production are owned privately and two classes exist - one who sells their labor power, and one that buys the other class's labor power. That still exists under your totallynotcapitalist fascist economy, so no matter what you say it is still capitalist.

I'm not a fascist, but I respect them because there is actually something to their ideology beyond materialism unlike capitalists and leftists. You're defining capitalism as the free market which ruins whatever meaning the term had, it's capital-ism, belief in capital. If you believe GDP growth is good, you're a capitalist/socialist. If you believe higher production and consumption are good, you're a capitalist/socialist. Belief in limited property and profit does not constitute ridiculous ideas like GDP being good, one can believe in property as something instrumental.

It's about class collaborationist/class cuckholdry and spooks.

Useful idiots for fascist aren't any better.

Why would you willingly live like a rat or a worm? If you think spooks are invalid then you're no different from the lowest lifeforms.

How does any of that sound nice to you?

He's more human than rodent. A bit of a biological barrier between you two.

Yeah, spooks.
That's retarded. Capital was part of other economic models. Holy fuck, pick up a book please.
Socialist don't set up their economy solely for the sake of GDP, tho.

The point is, production for what? Socialist don't believe higher production is good in and of itself.

Yeah, that's why we make the distinction between personal property and private/capitalist property.

Is this your new defense of spooks?

Who said I do

I think most lifeforms that are considered "low" are decent enough, so that's not really an insult.

A spook is a belief you hold that you will follow even if it is not in your self interest.

Except they're both shitty measures of prosperity. If a business sells 100 million fidget spinners to dumb kids the country isn't a better place. If Lockheed Martin sells 10,000 cluster bombs to the military the country isn't a better place.

If anything Socialism would seek to minimize consumption, gross excess and planned obsolescence to prop up endless "growth" and capitalism result in an increase in production and consumption, but the idea this is a good thing is a broken window fallacy. If things were made to last instead of being iterated pointlessly and people lived more modestly the world would be a better place.

Please be more human

Instrumentally. Capital is an intrinsic good in capitalism.

Then they're not truly socialists, they are nationalists/folkists/etc who happen to be socialist as an instrument until it is no longer convenient. A true socialist wouldn't sacrifice socialism. I was off though, socialists are not as focused on the growth of wealth as capitalists are, but they are still materially obsessed by wanting equality as an intrinsic good.

How are the two any different?

Why don't you try lurking for a second holy shit

Your toothbrush isn't a factory.

But nationalists, folkists, NutSacs, fascists, traditionalists, and monarchists would agree with you on this. They believe in handling the economy with the interests of the nation/folk or the aristocracy/elite as the highest priority and punishing capitalists who abuse their property. Fascism is hardly a protection of capitalism, it's protection of the fasces.

spooks

It could be depending on the person, but that's still not its defining feature. It's private ownership over the means of production and commodity production.

Quit talking out of your ass and read mother fucker. Barely anyone here, outside of maybe socdems, thinks centering the economy solely around GDP is a good thing.

Can you for the love of god quit spouting talking points you found watching Steven Crowder, and lurk?

The unemployment of Austria during Austrofascism, the failure of economic policy in Vichy France, the deficits of budget in Nazi Germany before the war (despite Nazi Germany getting funding by Wall Street and U.S conglomerates investing), and the Franco regime having to be supported by emigration and technocrata to actually have stability, should tell you a lot about fascism

No they don't
Fascist literally believe in class collaborationism and privatization.
Monarchist want a return to property relations between lords and serfs. The rest are spooked to death and obsessed with peripheral to the detriment of class consciousness.

it's p gay

A capitalist hurting the public is an enemy to collaboration and he needs to be removed or realigned.

How is this not a "spook"? I don't see how many things need to go wrong in someone's brain before they care more about class than art or folk.

That's one form, the other is fascistic monarchism which involves class collaboration but replaces meritocracy with hereditary determination.

From the economic perspective it has a really shitty definition of socialism, even the "socialism is when everything is coops" is better

All capitalist hurt the public and need to be removed. That's why fascist are useless. You can't collaborate with people whose intents are counter to your own.

Because an awareness of how class structures work under capitalism isn't a spook.

I care about neither, which is why I wan't to be free from both. Art I have no problem with.

Yeah, and leaving the relations of production in place, hence, nothing changes.

Not sure who george rockwell is, but sounds like a sputtering turd eater who doesn't know what he's talking about.

he's cool i guess

...

So I guess you believe my great uncle was spooked because he picked a gun and killed Anarchist who were rallying a black mod who were defending niggers who raped a white woman. I guess you think none of that benefited him?

A LARPing faggot, in other words.

Yet if you ask Veronica Clark or the Aryanists you are going to get a completely different answer. Same for Rohmists and Goebbellites.

The mistake Germans, and Whites today, make ?
// Confusing military defeat via attrition with ideological defeat.

// The Germans already won.

Look around you to see their monument

You can still have some worker ownership tho. Read Niekisch.

Yockey was better … WAY BETTER.

It's not socialism, for one thing.

Sadism sugar-coated in mysticism.

youtu.be/oOccQjts__o
youtu.be/q4av8z8WEZM

Stop. Lurk more. Capitalism is neither postmodern nor an ideology. It entered the world hand-in-hand with modernity. You can see glimmers of it in the 16th century, and by the 18th century it was an inevitability. It's also a material system; while it produces ideology, it is not itself one. There were no self-professed supporters of it in the 1700s, or even the early 1800s. It was, like most large-scale historical developments, an ad hoc thing that came together as the result of technological change, and not a deliberate or unified effort.
Just leave, or lurk more, or read Marx. Do anything that isn't posting more of this absolute drivel.

fucks sakes
yet another utter retard high on ideology with less-than-wikipedia-tier understanding of socialism coming on a socialist board to lecture socialists about socialism without even reading the FAQ

they don't 'matter more', they share interests
socialist politics are not about identities you insufferable unoriginal drone
what is it with ignorants and the burning need to unleash all these hot takes

How? Can you explain this without telling me to read a book written by someone with an I.Q. under 160?

...

Please tell me you're not serious.

what did he mean by this

Anyway-
It is in the interest of the worker to:
1) not have the product of one's work taken away from them (surplus value)
2) not die in wars (imperialism/nationalism)
3) not to be stuck in a position of powerlessness and deprivation (worker in capitalism)
all workers share these interests, regardless of 'phenotype'

It is in the interest of the bourgeois to:
1) take the surplus value of the worker's work
2) to occasionally expand markets and compete with other national bourgeois interests via military action
3) to maintain domination over society
in these things they are directly in opposition to the interests of the workers who they share a 'phenotype' with
thus it is politically expedient for the worker to ally with worker against bourgeois

Every culture and people has a story or tradition about the immorality of economic exploitation. No one wants to be a slave chattel or wage. 99% of all human population shares this sentiment and experience.

posted the same image twice FUCK

Every culture and people have experienced ethnic conflict and has suffered at the hands if other races. You guys often say "Races have mixed peafulley and naturally, it's history!!". This a fantastic demonstration of a low I.Q. dialectic. Historically miscegenation has occurred through war rape. Rape of the enemy's women has been standard practice sine the late stone age.

You shouldn't use a word unless you know its meaning.
Even if that were true, so what? Dying in childhood was the norm for most children for most of humanity's existence; that doesn't make it normal, right, or good.
You fascists all come back to the same weak bullshit. You have no understanding of the plasticity of human nature, or of social systems. Nothing is permanent. You're like a cargo cult to history, infatuated with these long-term structures without understanding what they really are.

When done incorrectly, as you do, it is a sign of limited intellect.
You have no understanding of how humans operate. For a "materialist" you have a very romantic view of humans, which are just a "higher" form of animal. Our nature is not very flexible at all. Even when the modes of production change, and technology advances we still retain some innate characteristics from the times when we stopped be anarchic apes who only ventured down from the trees to feed off of rotten carcasses, or pick beetles from the dung of animals larger animals. We have always had hierarchy, and necessary violence.

That's the "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" part. Conflict more often than not manufactured by and or for capital and oppressor class interests.
What does dialectic mean in this sentence?
How is this even relevant to the topic? Did the pic I posted wiggle your dick or something?

The dictionary definition.
Very rarely in the past 10000 years. Most conflicts in history were not done at the behest of the property owning class. Most conflict were ethnic/tribal in nature.

...

Cute. Unless you're talking about the Greeks or using it in comparison to eristics, that's not how it's used here, or in most modern philosophical contexts. I'll help you out: it's the unity of opposites, the process of the reconciliation of opposed theses.
Tell me more.
I'm not the guy you were arguing with. I'll namefag now to prevent further confusion.
I agree.
It's relative, I guess. Most people think that the way of thinking and acting that they and their peers experience is some kind of universal norm. I'm not full Foucault; I do think there is such a thing as human nature, a part that is largely unchanging between historical contexts. But the part of our experience that this constitutes, I think, is quite small, compared to the rest. Religion, sexuality, race, government, and many other issues exhibit extreme diversities when examined over long periods or vast distances, to the point that most ancient societies didn't even identify them as distinct concepts. A 12th century peasant had a mind that, while similar in some important fundamental ways, was in practice fundamentally alien to that of a prehistoric hunter-gatherer. People living in the 30th century will be just as alien to us.
Again, the go-to line of all fascists: the violence that you wish to inflict upon others is part of nature, and therefore right. Hunter-gatherer societies were very egalitarian–not because they were enlightened, but because they had little material means of enforcing sustained social hierarchy. When the height of your technology is whatever you can carry with you, people who don't want to be lorded over by others can (and did) just leave. Even the "big man" model of consensus-forming in prehistoric bands was an informal influence, not a cut-and-dry imposition of authority.
I do agree that some violence will always be necessary. I just have a deep skepticism when people characterize the violence that they advocate as necessary, because it's an easy (and frequent) excuse.

That ain't actually Evalion, right?

His daughter married a Jap and had a hapa son.

Wrong.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjT89fPm7DWAhXK7oMKHZG2DnkQFggoMAA&url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145448.htm&usg=AFQjCNHaBJUmRARQJHDRUoUdjngviQpaCQ

Hunter gatherers in Africa and the amazon are far more violent than modern societies. I'm sorry Kropotkin was a retard, but someone had to tell you.

Not what I said. Establishing and maintaining a social hierarchy is not the same as waging war on an enemy. War is a complete absence of social relations. Hierarchy, on the other hand, is a social feature.
Don't try to twist my words.

A little more.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOz9Gbm7DWAhWk5IMKHXQjDVYQFgg1MAI&url=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/10000-year-old-massacre-suggests-hunter-gatherers-went-war&usg=AFQjCNFU34r4HfSPHIaItxX1mu5E83VgoA

C'mon, be a man and own up to being wrong. Nobody here knows you.
How much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you? War is a social relation. You are interacting with others. Both with your allies and enemies. You are cooperating with members of your force to harm your enemy. This involves hierarchy.

I thought you might go the route of conflating all violence with violence in service of hierarchy, but I guess I didn't want to go down that road unless you made it necessary. Since you have, here we go.
The point of war is to destroy your enemy. Maybe you're doing this in the service of attaining resources, maybe it's to prevent them from carrying out some specific act that you object to–hell, maybe it's even so that you can establish a hierarchy within their society that suits you, or even to abolish one.
The act of waging war is not the same as the goal of that war, though. Two soldiers on a battlefield, firing at each other from opposing sides or swiping at each other with spears, is not a social relationship. Not all interactions between people are "social." You don't have a social relationship when you jostle through a crowded street to reach your destination, or when you rob someone at gunpoint, for example–social relationships are mutual and regular. War is a pure absence of social relations; it is probably the least social way that humans can interact. The immediate objective is to destroy the other, which removes any possibility of association, once it is attained. You can't have a social relationship with a dead man.
Hierarchies are sustained. They are permanent, or at least long-term, systems in which one person has real power over another, for the benefit of the party with power. Masters don't want to kill all their slaves, lords don't want to kill all their serfs, and employers don't want to kill all their employees–otherwise they would no longer receive the benefits of the hierarchy that the oppressed group is continually forced to provide.
That bears little resemblance to the waging of war.

Forgot to include a pic.

It is a social relation. Just because someone is being harmed doesn't mean it isn't social. Social =/= mutual benefit. All interaction between people are social. Even if someone i getting hurt. Social does not mean relationships.

Well shit, you convinced me.
I know. I didn't say social relationships require mutual benefit, just that they are mutual–as in, there's a two-sided relationship. The interaction has to frame the other person as something more than simply an obstacle that you are meant to overcome. Even the master-slave relationship, as violent and antagonistic and exploitative a social relationship as any other, is not formed for the purpose of one party destroying the other.
Fighting a robot is exactly as "social" as fighting a man. The goals are the same, the framework is the same.
I guess, in a weird way, this explains a lot. If you think that anything involving two people is a social relationship, there's really no room for any conception of alienation. Maybe fascism is just an outgrowth of autism. It would explain a lot, actually.

Not to mention you are cooperating with your buddies during war. Weather they are providing covering fire, or helping you carry off women from a burning village, it is a mutual effort.
Only if that robot is part of a vast "ecosystem" and has motives behind its violence. Going back to this post you ignored the interactions between allied individuals during war. Your post implied heavily that war is completely a social when it is in fact a very social ordeal. organizing and mobilizing a force comprised of people with the same goal in mind is very social. Why don't you understand that?

Because I wasn't talking about them; I was talking about the interactions between enemies on a battlefield. Are you deliberately missing the point, or just dense?
Read the thread. I was disputing his (wrong) take that, because hunter-gatherer societies were violent, this meant they were hierarchical. Killing someone in war is not establishing a hierarchy, because hierarchies are deliberately constructed social relationships.
Unless you're talking about fratricide in a very confused and roundabout way, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

C'mon, we both know you're just playing dodge ball. And if you think hunter gatherers were anarchist, you must not be as well read as you think, or you're reading books written by morons.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjY9NL1prDWAhWr8YMKHSOwCdkQFghLMAU&url=http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1622/2195&usg=AFQjCNHwyD-4ia_Nhxn2_MeP1G7fSyib2A

Not to mention this fictitious notion that they're egalitarian. Infanticide was practices frequently, and those who could not contribute to the survival of the tribe were killed, or shunned That doesn't sound like a belief in equal right and opportunities. .

Capitalism is not an ideology, it is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by a class, while they are worked by a separate class. The free market is not necessarily an economic system. As an example, the free market existed under mercantilism, it is simply a means by which goods are exchanged. Capitalism can also exist under what ancaps call "crony capitalism" as well.
What separates mercantilism and capitalism is the means of production. Under mercantilism people and guilds owned various tools, and subsequently they worked with them. This is very much so distinct from capitalism. So capitalism as a economic system requires private property and features exasperbated wealth accumulation as compared to earlier free market systems, which are no longer possible

No, I just have a very different view on the matter than you, and it turns out that Holla Forums's reputation for being incapable of grasping nuance is well-earned.
I don't.
They were, as long as they were hunter-gatherers. It was simply out of practicality rather than principle, and not something that they even considered–if you're illiterate and have never known anything else, it's not really possible to conceive of egalitarianism as a concept, even if your society generally possesses it. Anyway, that kind of egalitarianism ended with the development of food production. Material conditions determine social conditions, etc.
True. But that was usually out of necessity; if you don't have a settled home to return to, it's impossible for a woman to care for more than one child at a time, since she has to carry it when the band relocates; there's no other option. Same goes for the crippled, and for those who were habitual trouble-makers.
You're right, because it wasn't a belief. The general, uncodified, pre-conceptual egalitarianism of hunter-gatherer bands was a direct result of their destitution, their material inability to continually exploit people. Re-read my post where I first talked about this; it had nothing to do with what they believed or wanted. That's a good example of history in a nutshell: the physical realities of your existence preempt and determine the characteristics of the society that you live in.

I keep forgetting to include an image.

People were heavily exploited in hunter-gatherer society. Rape was very common. Women who were captured from other tribes were basically brood mares.

Being purely scientific is not ignoring nuance. Try and detach yourself emotionally from the argument and you will not hallucinate any nuances that are not there.

Racial realism isn't a science though. It's an ideology infused pseudo science, that jumps to conclusions at any sign of correlation.

Also, the fact that nationalism is all about "the feels" is pretty ironic.

If you read capital you will find a lot of feels and falsified data.

When did I bring up race realism? It is more scientific than Lysenkoism. The only "rebuttals" or "debunkings I've seen were some poorly citied blogs and Gould's feelsy "refutation" where he opens up with "I don't believe you can measure intelligence with a test." Which right off the bat is un-scientific and emotionally charged. A classic demonstration of the left's inability to be un-romantic and completely objective.

Name one

Yeah, you just need to have faith that ever correlation is a causation.

You don't have to. We all know in what direction you are going.

...

Demand going up with price. Only applies to giffen goods. And treating use value and exchange value as largely separate. Not to mention discounting consumer psychology in terms of demand.

This isn't even counting the absolute autism of Chiang Kai-Shek

It's not socialism.

commodities that can be reproduced without limitations or restrictions are the domain of Marx. He makes this known in his discussion of monopoly price.

Because they are. Even fucking Adam Smith identified it as such.

[citation needed]

You still haven't given evidence he falsified data or he "put feels>reals". So far, you're just saying he's wrong in theory, but lack any evidence he was intellectually dishonest. Your feels are getting the better of you, I think.

Oh, so you're a fedora too. Your arguments are pure and scientific and unemotional, while mine, because they disagree with you, must have their source in bias and emotion.
You're a perfect posterchild for the fedora-turned-Nazi phenomenon.
Anyway, even if you were right, and hunter-gatherer societies were largely exploitative (they weren't), what would be the implication? You're not arguing about the plasticity of society anymore.
You're clearly just doing the typical uninformed Holla Forums thing, where prehistoric man is somehow the "purest" man, and the phantasm of "corrupting influences" is absent. This is, quite literally, ideology, and it's what you guys always turn to when push comes to shove. It's also a lie; human societies were just as informed by their material conditions today as they were fifty thousand years ago.
You are not a serious student of history, you are uninterested in truth for its own sake and instead wish to subordinate it to your preconceived ideology, and you need to fucking lurk more.

The fuck are you even talking about?
I'm sorry you can't detach yourself from your ideology and study history in an objective matter and realize that societies that commonly practiced cannibalism, rape, and infanticide were not egalitarian. Your level of projection is astounding.
You have no clue what egalitarianism is. Egaltarism involves self sacrifice in order to help other. A lack of violent hierarchy let's assume this actually applies to hunter gathers. does not make a society egalitarian just like helping someone for your own benefit is not egalitarian. You see a primitive society and assume it is egaltarian because there is no economic exploitation. [spioler] I never said they were largely exploitative. But that exploitation existed, and you denied this vehemently [/spoiler]. You are clearly projecting your ideology in an effort to romanticize them. Classic Holla Forums projecting their ideology that was formulated by 95ish I.Q. thinkers from the 19th century onto history in order to justify themselves. Now for further correction of your fuckery.

Not only can you not tell that you are still talking to the same person, you said something that made Marx look intelligent. You said organized violence with a command structure is not hierarchical. You act like because jungle savges aren't shooting people with arrows to make money for porky they must not be hierarchical. You ignore the fact that they still have a command structure and follow orders.

I recommend that read research papers instead old books.
Raw information> information filtered through unreliable author who can twist the facts, or even make up his own

Your ideology. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but that's the route you people usually take. Cavemen are somehow more indicative of human nature than modern society is, etc.
Will some hair-splitting make you feel better? Hunter-gatherer societies did not have class. Put it in those terms if it soothes your autism.
Is all violence exploitation, too? I'm learning so much about this. Apparently every complex social structure is reducible to simple violence.
I don't romanticize them in the slightest. They weren't any better or worse than people at any other time. They just didn't have the material means to create a stratified society. The moment those means existed, with the development of food production, exploitation and hierarchy immediately developed. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this before you stop pretending that I'm spouting the "noble savage" line.
As if you would know.
You return to this a lot. It's clearly very important to you.
Did I? Quote it. I said no such thing. I was talking about the interaction between enemies on a battlefield. Also, it's amusing that you think war necessitates a command structure. Even into the late Roman empire, you had bands of Germanic men conducting raids in largely unstructured groups. And certainly in primitive wars, there was nothing like a "command structure."
You really are projecting current social norms and experiences backwards in history. This only reaffirms my theory that Holla Forumsyps fetishize history without understanding it, and–more importantly–without even a desire to understand it.

Lack of class does not mean egalitarian either.
Nope, but violence was common throughout all of history, and often necessary.
They still had some form of organization and hierarchy. They were still following orders of some kind. Again you are following the typical leftist path of thought by romanticizing the past instead of looking at it with no filters.
Replace Holla Forumsyps with /leftypoc/ and you'd be dead on the money. Once again your projections are astounding.

Sick. Well, since classless society is by definition more egalitarian than class society, and since we're apparently splitting hairs now, let's just say "classless" instead of "egalitarian."
So what? Do you get a boner every time you say that?
Saying it repeatedly won't make it true. I would much rather live in today's world, as shit as it is, than in the past. The future will be an even better place to live probably.
Using "projection" as a longer way of saying "no u" seems to be a favorite hobby of yours.
Hey, what do you think is the average I.Q. of someone engaging in necessary violence in order to dispel someone's projections? Am I doing it right?

Being specific isn't splitting hairs. If I say I saw something with fur running around my yard it could be one several thousand mammals. There's a huge difference between classless and egalitarian. If you want me to be more specific when I say romanticizing I don;t necessarily mean you want to live in the amazon with some loin cloth wearing spear chuckers. What I mean is you're ascribing traits to them that they did not have. Not all cooperation is egalitarian. Hunter gathers would never help each other if there was a risk of it not benefiting them.

doubt.jpg

Nice name, bad ideology.

They wouldn't risk starvation by wasting resources on useless eater. If you broke your leg and couldn't contribute they'd leave you to die instead of wasting food on you. The only prehistoric evidence of healing broken legs, or other serious injuries comes from the neolithic er where hierarchy emerged from sedentary agricultural societies.

My dude you might be severely cognitively impaired.

...

Don't hurt yourself hauling those goalposts my man. You might break your leg and starve to death.

Didn't move goalposts, bud. I just pointed out that healing a sever injury requires several orders of magnitude more effort and resources than putting corpse in a hole.

severe*
Just fixing that before someone jumps on my ass for it since I've spanked you guys enough to where were at the point when you start bitching about typos.

You are dumb as shit and don't know what the fuck you're talking about my fellaguy. Consider killing yourself.

heh

...

Nope its not, she has got a sex tape up on xvideos tho

...

Point out where I changed the subject.

...

You can still cut your balls off and quit.

>waste food

>wasting resources

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/

Next you're going to say "lol that doesn't count I'm talking about broken legs not hip problems."

Put the sauce in the bag and nobody gets hurt.

But they are. Hunter-gatherer tribes were constantly on the move. If they were unwilling to care for someone who was sick or injured, they wouldn't stick around long enough to be there when that person died. Which means they wouldn't have an opportunity to bury the dead person.
Take your flag's advice.

Again. Resetting a bone and letting it heal takes more energy and time than a burial. That's like comparing the serious time and energy put into assembling bicycle to building a skyscraper.

Using synonymy is not moving goalposts.
I specifically mentioned severe injures that would render you immobile. Sore back and hips are nothing compared to a pulverized femur.

Those people usually died before they went on the move again. There are plenty of corpses that were left in the middle of nowhere. Paying respect to the dead is not the same as healing a mortally wounded man.

youtube.com/watch?v=IADngkpsjKo
Oh jeez you're right look at how much time and effort this takes. There's no way primitive man could have managed.

You're pathetic.