How do we debunk this argument?
Nature is inherently unequal
Simply calling it unequal is too vague a statement, which type of inequality is he reffering too?
You can try as much as you want but reality always wins
Bookchin never said this. I'm talking about inequality in nature. Bookchin said that nature had different functions rather than inherent inequalities.
Yes, I repeat what kind of inequality?
Bakunin and Marx already adressed this issue over 150 years ago yet reactionaries keep bringing it up.
And it's not like class society is the result of innate differences in muscle mass or intelligence in persons.
If you press them hard enough sometimes they will admit that what they call "inequality" is not the cause of the differences, but the differences itself. It's a completely meaningless word.
No, but smarter people are more likely to move up in a class society.
read nietzsche, if you were just an ape meant to abide by "nature" you wouldn't have invented language or tools.
Bookchin's argument against this sort of sophistry rests on dialectical naturalism. First we should establish that there is no hierarchy in nature. Hierarchy is a strictly social term that refers to institutionalised systems of command and obedience (emphasis on institutionalised), and these do not exist outside of human society. Unless hierarchy is understood in this specific way, it means whatever people want it to mean and refers to varying and basically incomparable phenomenon. This is what the right does: they define hierarchy however they want and apply it to everything. Next, we should understand that nature is fundamentally complementary. It's a web of different parts which make up the whole. Bookchin gives his arguments against this sort of right-wing nonsense in his books Re-Enchanting Humanity and Which Way for the Ecology Movement?
True, you maybe smarter than someone else and more likely to advance but that doesn’t mean your entitled to the products of someone else’s labor simply because their less intelligent inb4 le spookman replies
nature as a term barely even works in this context; bluntly put, we've been changing the natural enviroment since we first stumbled into consciousness
Nature has no concept of equality so it need not be considered.
We live in civilisation, not nature.
… You dumbfuck idiot OP.
The grammar hurt to read
Nature is equally indifferent to everything. How is that not equality?
All intelligences are equal.
You don't because it's true. Society isn't naturally unequal; nature, however, is.
The fact of symbiosis does not refute the inequality of nature, only that an organism can be an all niche filler; thus, different beings fill the niches that they can in the system. To say ecology disproves this is like saying that because energy is conserved no one truly dies - it's just sophistry. The same goes for the word hierarchy, it no longer means simpy a social order, but just any order having an above. This makes speaking of a metaphysical hierarchy possible. It is clear that there are higher orders subsuming lower ones. Animals are on a higher order than matter, and even Bookchin acknowledges this.
Marx/Engels acknowledge natural inequality up to their late age. They explicitly reject material egalitarianism and call it a foolish idea since it is obvious some beings are better than others simply by the ease of their natural capacities. Some people are smarter, faster, stronger, and can go beyond what the normal person can. Nothing wrong with that.
what do you mean by that, exactly?
if it is that humans are different and if you evaluate traits of individuals based on some value system you end up with people ranking differently on that system
then why do we need to debunk it?
I feel like they're just as likely to realize that it's all bullshit and spend their days smoking weed and reading theory tbh
The whole of human history has consisted of humans saying "fuck you," to nature and doing things they were never 'meant' to do.
What the fuck does "unequal" mean
Queen ant, worker ants. Queen bee, worker bees. Even your "real communism" is still autocratic and has no regard for the worker, outside of labor and utilizing the dead as a resource. there is no debunking said argument.
You do realise that in an insect colony, the queen is as much of a worker as the rest of them: just performing a different role.
That I am entitled to have power over your life.
This could be debunked by grade 4 zoology
videos of larger rams being 100% equal with smaller rams
you're just projecting human society onto nature m8
Oh course that's my point, I was just disputing the other guy's claim that there isn't an intellectual difference between those who lead and those who follow.
What I'm saying is that class society is not a result of what you just mentioned. Capitalists are at best smarter than the average person (education playing a big role). They're not stronger, better or faster than us.
The working class will shape the future.
Someone needs to read about both socialism and entomology.
Define this now.
Talking about hierarchy in terms of the food chain is a false application of definitions. The correct assessment is hierarchical organization may or may not exist depending on the species.
The working class is content with capitalism.
some of them are, yes.
but in dysfunctional societies such as the USA, great masses of people are very very discontent with capitalism
they just can't see the forest from the trees - that their personal problems are inseparably linked with systemic reasons, think long-term unemployment, opioid crisis, police brutality and so on
instead they place blame within the liberal-bourgeois framework: the problems exist because of overt state intervention, niggers, stupid people, racism, not enough welfare, commie infiltration and so on.
the systemic reasons can be alleviated, but not solved without a fundamental change in the system itself
yeah well in nature your body gets pulled apart by wolves while your still alive. what of it? its a naturalistic fallacy. only tards make that argument
Because as humans, pride ourselves in being "ethical" and following morals. Sure nature may have "inequalities" (totally vague), but that doesn't mean as humans we should lower our selves down to the level of animals. Equality doesn't have to necessarily mean everybody is the same physically/mentally, obviously.
Nature would be far more equal than what we have now. In nature you win your food and safety through your own skills and abilities. In society you do that, but then your boss takes half and the state takes the rest.
It is true that nature is unequal. But nature is also struggle. Do prey simply accept that "oh, the predator is superior, let me just lay down and die for him." No, they fight, and in doing so they can actually make life pretty difficult for the predator. Of course predator/prey isn't a perfect analogy for bourgeois/proletariat but you get my point.
Society is part of nature.
I fail to see how "people aren't literally equal" is some sort of armor-piercing revelation against socialism or communism. No shit literal equality isn't real, so what?
We aren't aspiring to make everyone equal. That's not the point of leftism, if it is to you, read more.
There's no such thing as an economy in nature.
So you admit you're wrong, just playing sophistic word turning. The issue was he inequality of nature, not the inequality of society. In my very post I say society is not unequal by nature (though it can be in fact). You need to read what posted.
You need to read my post, cretin. Innate differences between people do exist but they are not the source of our society's inequality.
Bookchin talks a bit about this in this lecture:
What did he mean by "unequal"?
a lot of Communists are de facto red monarchists anyway
that isnt an argument tho