6. Political Anthropology: When Communism Works and Why | What is Politics?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- Everywhere we look, past and present we see hierarchical societies where some people have more wealth, more power, and more rights than others. Was this always the state of the human world? Is hierarchy in our nature? Are egalitarian societies possible for human beings? If so, under what conditions? And is freedom compatible with equality?
SUGGESTED READINGS BELOW!
PLEASE SHARE AND LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS SERIES!!
I purposefully don’t monetize my channel in order to spare you the annoying ads, and it takes me weeks to make these, so please help if you can!
PATREON PER EPISODE DONATIONS: / whatispolitics
KO-FI ONE TIME OR MONTHLY DONATIONS: ko-fi.com/whatispolitics
PAYPAL ONE TIME OR MONTHLY DONATIONS: www.paypal.com...
FULL TRANSCRIPT: worldwidescrot...
AUDIO PODCAST: www.podfollow.... or search for “worbs” on your podcast app
AUDIO PODCAST RSS FEED: feeds.feedburne...
ALL MUSIC BY *69 starsixnine.bandcamp.com, except W.F. Bach’s duet for two flutes performed by Mika Putterman and Aleks Shürmer, www.autourdela...
Office Scenes from TONY EZZY GETS A JOB: • TONY EZZY GETS A JOB: ...
tweeter: @worbsintowords
SUGGESTED READINGS:
“The causes and scope of political egalitarianism during the Last Glacial” by Doron Shulnitzer et al., 2010 in Biology and Philosophy N° 25
Hierarchy in the Forest, by Christopher Boehm, 1999
The Dobe Ju/’Hoansi, by Richard Lee 1984/2012
”Eating Christmas in the Kalahari”, by Richard Lee, 1969
The Forest People, by Colin Turnbull, 1961
Wayward Servants, by Colin Turnbull, 1965
“Taming Wild-Ass Colts” by Nancy Nienhuis, 2009 in Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, Vol. 25, No 1. pp. 43-64
Myths of Male Dominance, edited by Eleanor Leacock, 1981
The Hadza Hunter-Gatherers, by Frank Marlowe, 2010
The Politics of Egalitarianism: Theory and Practice, edited by Jaqueline Soloway, 2006
Politics and History in Band Societies, edited by Eleanor Leacock & Richard Lee, 1982
Hunters and Gatherers Vol II: Property, Power and Ideology, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches & James Woodburn, 1987
The Foraging Spectrum, by Robert L. Kelly, 2013
Chimpanzee Politics, by Franz de Waal, 2007
”Farewell to the Childhood of Man”, by David Graeber & David Wengrow, 2015 (the thesis of this article conflicts with the narrative presented in this episode, and will be addressed in the next episode)
The history class I wish I'd had
imagine if everyone knew this stuff!
I've been on a marathon. I've happily given this Saturday afternoon to taking in the entirety of your Dawn of Everything critique and now I'm in a thoughtful, positive mood. Thank you.
your videos are great as always ^^ it really helps remembering that capitalism is Not a design by nature but an environment choice. waiting for part 2 !!!!
thank you! i'd say it's a bit of both, but we're definitely capable of other forms of organization, especially now in the era of mass communication which we'll see in the next episode!
Have you ever been into a forest? Stop listening to teachers who have secure jobs, do not make anything or get challenged. It is a natural system and what does it matter? It has made huge numbers of peoples' lives easy. Lastly,, Communism is not natural.
Nature is built on competition.
You werent paying attention. Communism was responsible for 300k years of the success of our species. Look at what all has happened under dominance hierarchies and capitalism - an entire world ravaged by war and famine and a planet on the brink of economic collapse. I'd much rather listen to teachers than fox news. You've arrived at an understanding that isn't deserving of the word.
Heh. Been saying that for years. What in nature for instance works like financial investing? How did ancient people "invest" in logging for instance? Before Wall street or even paper $, how did one collect their 5% of the profits from oil or mining?
Did trucks dump 5% of every quarter's take onto their front lawns? Truly, *all* of the "rules" we think of as governing anything we're told is the 'free market,' The Economy or capitalism are 100% man-made & despite equations being presented, do not follow any laws of physics or nature. Investors get whatever % of whatever they invest because. It's _all_ assigned.
I mean does some aspect of the strong nuclear force or osmosis funnel any % of any "profits" made into the vaults of the 1%? Does printed $ put guns to the heads of bankers & accountants demanding to be sent to investors' holdings? It *can't get there **_without_* human interference so how do people evolve the notion that it goes there via Natural Processes?
Beats me.
Loved the analogy behind the evolution with the grim reaper being our sculptor. Badass
🤘🏻💀🤘🏻
Amazing. And you did this before "The Dawn of Everything", which means you're plugged into the primary sources, but you managed to explain it much better than Graeber/Wendgow.
thanks! i absolutely hate what graeber and wengrow did… they had put out some preview chapters before this video, but i’m doing a chapter by chapter critique of their book because it think it’s rotting peoples’ brains. glad that you found my explanation was more coherent/convincing! and yes i know a lot about the background sources which is why their articles and books upset me so much, they really mangle them!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 can we say their heart was in the right place?
@@turnipsociety706 yes for sure, the goal is good, and it’s a really interesting book that will introduce you to a lot of new ideas. but in my opinion it led them to do something that achieves the opposite of its goal in imporant ways. and also they do a whole lot of lying in that book, it’s really shocking!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 On the other hand, I would never have found this podcast if not for reading Dawn of Everything. I was eating up all of the anthropological examples in the book, but like many I found the thesis (or lack thereof) and the general purpose of the book to be entirely unclear. Which is to say it left me with a lot of questions and wanting more. So when I tried to find podcasts that talked about David Graeber, I was thrilled to find you doing an in depth critique of this book that I wasn't sure was even being widely read. All that to say, thanks for your efforts and clarity of presentation. I admire people who try to tackle such gargantuan problems like the rotting of enormous numbers of people's brains. My own brain is enough of a challenge to deal with...
@@cretaceoussteve3527 thanks, love to hear it!
You know there is a Chinese folk saying that goes: "The one with the gun shoots the bird who pokes its head out above all others." The meaning is that one should not always want to stand out from the crowd and it is better to have humility. I find it an interesting parallel to the oppressive alphas getting natural de-selected theory. The saying can be used in a positive sense in teaching kids about humility but it can also be a lament when a talented person is persecuted by others due to jealousy or when an ambitious activist is shot down by an oppressive state.
nice saying thanks! another factor in this which I didn’t mention because i wasn’t aware of it as much is “sexual selection” by women to avoid having kids with bullying men. in a context where power is more evenly distributed and women can leave or be defended by relatives and allies, agressive dominators will be rejected.
I think the issue this saying is referencing is the very class issue discussed here. Why even is there such a position that affords anybody to shoot the bird? I am all for peacefulness, however don't you think that interpreting the saying as an advice to keep your head down (rather than beware of the bird-shooter and revolt (in some peaceful way preferably) against being oppressed) doesn't differ much from any other form of ruling-class (bird-shooter) propaganda?
P.s. I know that it is what you said, I just wanted to address the popular interpretation in my own way.
Great video and comments.
Peace
I’m liking what I’m hearing. Let’s make the concept of the ‘default human’ egalitarian- and then work to erode hierarchies
Goldmine of insight into how human societies organize!
I'm in a pretty financially precarious position, zero hours contract, living alone with sky high rent etc but it feels criminal not to pay for this content. I wish I could offer more. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this.
your welcome - and no worries dude, keep your money and use it to get a sandwich or start a union or something!
My primatology professor opened our class with "all primates, including us obviously, in some form or another, base their behavior off of dominance"
ha, well there is a lot of that, but it’s a lot harder when you have no means of enforcing dominance and where everyone has spears they can kill you with…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 No what she meant was that that's still a form of dominance. The threat of domination must be tempered for the good of the whole, so human behavior is still influenced by dominance. Hopefully that makes sense. Also damn you reply quickly on a 2yo upload
@@Dionaea_floridensis ooh i see, yes that makes sense. that’s why boehm calls human egalitarianism “reverse dominance” or the RAG scholars call it “counterdominance”
haha well i released a new video yesterday so i need to be on the ball to respond to comments or else they pile up too high for me to deal with!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 This may or may not surprise you, but my friend sent me this video expecting me to rip it apart because we're both Jordan Peterson fans. I must say I am very pleased I sat through all of it because you offered a very well formulated and (fucking finally) CITED retort to many ideas I've simply accepted as fact for several years now. Though I still have some hangups with a few things you said in this video, I'll show it to my primatology professor and see what she thinks! She specializes in chimps so I think she'll find it interesting
Your articulation and narrative of these topics are great. Love the attention to detail
Omg the peewee at the front of the human evolution chain is freaking brilliant, I love you for it
it’s just science yo!
This is your best episode so far🙂 Keep it up!!
thanks, love to hear it! let people know if you get the chance
This is awesome, thank you for doing this. This is right up my alley.
thanks! it’s such important stuff and not enough people know about it. let people know if you get a chance
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I will!
This is awesome, thank you so much for doing this work!
You need to write this all up into a book!!!
yes! once i finsh formulating my main set of ideas, that’s what i want to do. maybe start with some article in some left magazines first. the graeber wengrow book is a good springboard for me to work through my ideas, and then i have some episodes on property and democracy and more on how social change happens
Thank you for another amazing video. The part where you mentioned a lot of lawyers and CEOs being psychopaths is a bit funny considering you're a lawyer.
did i say most lawyers, or a higher percentage of lawyers? but as a lawyer, i see a ton of apparent psychopaths, particularly people who work for landlords and employers, and insurance companies
This is very well put together.
Hello. Just dropping this comment to say I LOVE YOU AND UR VIDEOS :D
The hierarchy relationships and patterns in our closest primate species is somewhat oversimplified and not quite accurate, but the rest is bang on! Your anthropology background, research and studies came through. PS love the scenes from your film 😂
thanks - uh oh, what’d i get wrong about the apes? i did a quick review before recording but was mostly going on memory from stuff i’d read a long time ago - i’ll do my reading properly before doing an episode on animal politics, but lemme know what i got wrong, i’ll address it next time
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I'd be very interested in the specifics too. It looks like ethology is a complicated and rapidly evolving field so I wouldn't be surprised if "hierarchy in the forest" was somewhat outdated. I can't find any sort of review about hierarchy in animal politics. Do you have any paper or book discussing it? I've heard critics by social ecologists of the use of the terme "hierarchy" to describe great apes societies, but I don't know the specifics
@@soencoda754 there’s a ton of stuff on great ape hierarchies. Chimpanzee Politics is a good one by de Waal. Hierarchy in the Forest isn’t outdated, but it’s incomplete - you want to read that with Mothers and Others by Sarah Hrdy, it tells a whole other side of the story that Boehm wasn’t aware of. And then there’s some stuff by Camilla Power and I think Morna Finnegan that expands on that as well I think in Human Origins
"Form follows function" a term created in architecture. We can also say the opposite: a specific function (environment, evolutionary pressure) will produce the same (or similar) form. That's why different people under the same environment or evolutionary pressure will end up the same way.
Problem: Egalitarianism only works with people we know. Share with friends, trade with strangers. Modern systems ask us to share with strangers. Problems arise when a system is at such scale that a tribes is made up of millions of people we don't know.
there’s someting to that, but there are other egalitarian socities with large tribes where people don’t know eachother. it’s largely just about having the right incentives built into the system to make people cooperate out of self interest even if they don’t have warm feelings for eachother (even if that helps)
This is why I think Communism could never work on a large scale
Mindblowing awesome material! The wanna-read list keeps growing!
learning so much thanks
One of those core questions to both anthropology and political philosphy is how did states develop, or how did chiefdoms develop from bands. But perhaps we should spin it around and ask how egalitarianism developed. We also have to ask how much culture has influenced our biology, which is something I've been intrigued by for a bit. When we study human variation, the culturally caused adaptations are smaller scale things such as canine size or concerning the gut, but could it be even more transformative, for instance, with things like bipedalism or neural anatomy? It undoubtedly shapes behaviors and psychology, which would in turn change the culture, and cause a recurring loop. It really makes me wonder if we really are like a weathered statue of Glaucus like Rousseau theorized
the important books theoriezing on how we developed egalitarianism are Hierarchy in the Forest and (indirectly) Mothers and Others, then there’s stuff that Camilla Power has been doing more recently expanding on that
Another interesting and informative video. Foraging societies, their economies and polities and cultures, has been a topic of interest to me for many years but I still learned new things here, mainly the part about the role murder played in human evolution and shaping us into a relatively egalitarian species (at least for a few hundred thousand years or so). That really blew my mind.
Alternate title for this video: Why Murder Is Good, Actually
Question: You say that a general cultural feature of simple / immediate return foraging societies
is that anger is taboo. I remember reading this about the Inuit, but I don't remember reading this as being a general/universal cultural feature of simple foraging societies. I'm not disputing you on this, but could you point me to which source discusses this being a universal cultural trait for simple foragers?
A couple claims you made I'm not so sure about:
1. That there is no hierarchy between men and women in simple / immediate return foraging societies
As far as I remember from reading I did years ago, this is controversial. Although some scholars make this claim, others dispute it. There is general consensus that gender relations in these societies are relatively egalitarian, and it wouldn't be accurate to say that women are oppressed, but some point out that there is still a degree of male privilege in at least some of these societies, like in only allowing men to have special spiritual/shamanistic roles. Admittedly, as I mentioned it's been years since I read about this, so I could be getting it wrong.
2. Back to the issue of anger, you say:
10:36
in societies where social
harmony and cooperation are essential to
survival
like in hunter-gatherer bands where the
wrong kind of conflict at the wrong time
of year
can potentially lead to collapse of the
band and hunger for everyone
you will usually see a huge emphasis on
restraining anger and on avoiding
conflict
I don't find this a convincing explanation because this same need for social harmony and cooperation exists in semi-nomadic complex foragers in the amazon rain-forest, and tribes in this region tend to be unusually violent, aggressive, and quick to anger. The example I'm most familiar with are the Yanomami. I realize these aren't immediate return / simple foragers, but the need for social harmony and cooperation seems every bit as necessary in their social context.
I know I've written a lot here and I don't expect a detailed reply or anything (I'm sure you're busy), especially on topics that are of debate and uncertainty even among experts; I mainly wanted to sort out my own thoughts in writing.
deep in the weeds questions, excellent!
I will answer each point here ASAP and address some in a video as well where i’m responding to a bunch of questions.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Cool! About the tribes of the amazon rainforest, a theory for why they're so violent is that they've been impacted by traumatic exposure to violence from state societies. Not just during European colonization, but also before that, from the neighboring Incan civilization.
Of course this is true of any foraging band or tribal society in the modern world, all have been altered to some extent by contact with state societies, though some contact was more traumatic than others.
@@LuckyBlackCat fuck i wrote i giant response and it only prints the first paragraph - the same thing happened with someone else i was responding to - im going to try from my desktop this drives me nuts
@@LuckyBlackCat OK this is amazing I love these questions and discussions.
About state societies causing violence in the Amazon, the theory about immediate return foragers is the opposite - some anthropologists insist that the reason that they’re so peaceful and non hierarchical is because they’re surrounded and encapsulated by more powerful non hunters including state societies and that palaeolithic foragers would have been more hierarchical and warlike. It’s usually people who haven’t lived among immediate return foragers who think that stuff.
About the emphasis on controlling anger as a universal among immediate return foragers:
It’s not an actual taboo, just an important value - and no, I can’t think of a particular source for this, though there might be one. Like a lot of things in my videos, I put that together from reading *all* the bo-oks!
But you can still check it out for yourself - there are only a handful of existing groups of immediate return foragers today: Hadza, Batek, various central african rainforest Pygmy groups (Mbuti, Aka, Efe, Twa, etc), various Kalahari desert people (Ju/‘Hoansi, Gwi, Khwe etc, though I think the Ju/‘hoansi have all be forced to settle by now), and some from the mountainous forests in southern India (Nayaka, Malapandaram, Paliyan), plus we have some historical examples, like the Naskapi (which is honestly the only historical example I’m aware of) - so it’s not that hard to get to know about all of them and make some generalizations about that whole type of economy.
If you read an ethnographies or some academic articles about each of those 6 groups of people you’ll notice at least a passing mention of there being a strong value on controlling anger, as well as all of the other traits I listed. People have definitely written about the universality of some of the other traits like lack of authority figures - Woodburn’s article Egalitarian Societies comes to mind, I can send it to you, but I’m sure there are others.
1. About male dominance in immediate return forager societies:
Your comments are pretty much correct. It’s been a long time since I’ve read those debates, but if I remember, it’s just like you said, there are some indications of men possibly having some advantages or else some exclusive roles in some of the societies.
I think it was mostly about there not being female big game hunters in some societies, and occasionally some men have two wives, and women aren’t known to even have multiple husbands (but both men and women do often have multiple lovers). Maybe also charismatic informal leaders tend to be men (but Batek do have female leaders) and maybe Shamans too, but I know the Kalarahi peoples have female religious healers.
But the reason there’s a debate is that (if I remember) it’s not super clear that women aren’t allowed to do those things, that there’s any rules or sanctions or peer pressure not to do them - just that they don’t seem to do them. So in general there’s a sexual division of labour that’s not very rigid - men and women often do eachother’s type of work rather frequently when convenient. But whereas women will hunt big game among the Batek and participate in the communal net hunt among the Mbuti, there aren’t any female Hadza or Kalihari big game hunters at all.
But there’s no indication that women in those societies want to do those things but aren’t allowed to so some anthopologists were saying that clearly a level of gender hierarchy and others sayings it’s a matter of preference and convenience. However I’ve never read an anthropologist who asked people directly if they want to hunt but can’t so I’d be really curious to know how women (and men) would respond to those types of inquiries, and if there’s anything along those lines that’s been published since I was reading this stuff.
There is a video on youtube of an anthropologist talking about how Mbuti mythology seems to be getting more patriarchal as their economy is changing, but I haven’t seen it yet: ua-cam.com/video/LEMlAbEVo-8/v-deo.html.
The one thing that stuck out in my mind as more of a clear sign that male hunters have an unfair advantage in one society at least is that in all the other societies, the male big game hunters never touch meat until it’s been divided, but Hadza hunters seem to take their pick and eat first before even bringing the animal back to camp. But maybe that’s a function of the distance between a kill and the camp, and scarcity of other available food en route, or maybe the you men have disproportionate bargaining power and are flexing it, I don’t remember.
2. The Yanomamo aren’t foragers at all, they’re slash and burn horticulturalists, which is a kind of small plot agriculture. The incentives are totally different and while they do cooperate on some things, their main economy is by nuclear family in competition with eachother. And they’re constantly killing eachother and fighting one another. They would have collapsed long ago if conflict was a threat to their existence!
I’ll talk about this in the next episode, and I don’t remember the specifics of Yanomamo economy, but in many horticultural societies (there are different type of horticultural economies) there is huge competition over plots of land, and people go and kill members of neighbouring villages to take their gardens or animals, people are always feuding and they’re basically at war with their environment in all sorts of ways on top of being at war with eachother.
They don’t have the abililty to just take off and go somewhere else if they have a conflict and conflicts and feuds fester for years.
And if I remember correctly Yanomamo are relatively egalitarian in terms of wealth and political power, except for a high degree of gender inequality? And I’ll explain gender inequality in those types of societies next time, but it’s very often about patrilocality - adult women leave home to get married, and are surrounded by related men who know eachother and support eachother and unrelated women, who are as isolated as they are, and have no one to defend them if their husband dominates or abuses them, and they can’t just go off somewhere else as they’re dependant on their garden plots to live.
Therefore the balance if power is heavily skewed towards men. Not sure if this applies to the Yanomamo but it does to many other horticultural societies.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks for your detailed reply. I remember that the Yanomamo practice horticulture of plantains but they're also hunters and semi-nomadic. I think they share their meat, too. Doesn't that indicate they're cooperative? I didn't know that families compete over land. I thought the competition was between different bands within the tribe. But I dunno, it's been years since I read about them.
Another good one!
thank you!
Woah. This is amazing content.
These videos are incredible. Thanks for this work.
These alpha bullies getting killed reminds me of the death of Caesar 🙈🙈
ha sort if except in that case, caesar was a big alpha keeping all the aristocratic senatorial alphas in check! you should check out Parenti’s the Death of Caesar if you get a chance, easy read great book
Alpha bullies built the cities. If you were in the bush, surrounded by lions, bears, wolves, tigers and a whole host of creatures, you would be screaming for an Alpha bully.
@@aBRUSHforCONFUCIUS that’s not true, cities were built out of necessity and convenience not forced by some leader. and imgiess you missed the part of the video on how hunting and gathering is generally preferrable to farming or even urban life for all but the richest citizens. it’s only until recent times when the health and life expectancy of average urban people went higher than hunter gatherers.
24:28 wow, brilliant, grim metaphor.
Hi, I am finding your videos super useful for bringing clarity to my otherwise fuzzy understanding/interpretation of many of the things you have been discussing in vids 1-6. Thank-you! Can't wait to see some more.
I've only just started this video, but I highly, highly recommend to you the book "Mother's and Other's" by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy to better inform your discussion of human evolution and primates, and then maybe you could edit the intro to this video to be more reflective of evolutionary theory. I think this would be very powerful because it's a super interesting example from "nature"/evolutionary theory and genetics where entrenched hierarchies (of reproductive success and sexual selection) based on individual performance (often centered on male dominance), which are typical of mammalian mating systems are subverted in favour of what I would call a much more egalitarian-based reproductive success of a group/collective of variously statused cooperating individuals (she also clearly demonstrates how we're not the only primates to do this by examining relatively recent research on some species of new world monkies).
In the book, Hrdy describes genetic selective/evolutionary processes that operated in our primate ancestors wherein various genetic mechanisms arose that favoured cooperative child-rearing strategies (and the survival of adults past reproductive age- see grandmother hypothesis). Allo-parental care (care of enfants by other individuals than the mother) provided a powerful evolutionary driver of inter-individual social-cooperative skills, which facilitated group survival and advanced group fitness (over individual survival and individual fitness arising from individual-scaled dominance hierarchies). Selection favouring allo-parental care and social co-operation were positively re-enforcing to the point where human cooperative ability, empathy, mutual understanding, communication, and accurate intention assessment (and hightened intention hiding) skills turned us into the big-brained, cooperating, and cooking species we are today, relatively distinct from our nearest relatives. (As an aside, I think these dynamics also drove selection for the diversity and plasticity of cognitive and physical skills that human beings exhibit, which also contribute to cooperative survival of variously skilled group members, somewhat independently of individual competences at any particular ability).
Anywho, the take-home message is that the dynamics you discuss in regards to the benefits and costs of egalitarianism vs. hierarchical organization of human groups are semi- analagous to processes observed and described in the natural sciences about the organization and structure of biological systems in relation to individual or interacting groups of things at different scales (e.g., genetic, cellular, organismal, species/populations, ecological communities, ecosystems, etc.) within which life has had 4 billion years in the school of hard knocks to figure out ways to adapt, persist, and thrive over the long term.... that is until brains came along, which enabled "learning " to take place at scales beyond that of genes and molecular/developmental processes, and particularly human brains and our ability to culturally diversify, learn, and evolve, where we now have to figure a bunch of this stuff out all over again culturally, actually culturally-genetically (or die off..., or evolve out of our "bad" habits...)... to which, I think your videos make good ground in helping us in western modern society arrive at a more comprehensive and informed collective understanding of what the hell is going on.... Thanks.
hi - thank you! there’s only so much time in these videos, so while I am aware of Mothers and Others and do agree with it, I didn’t include it in here. I will probably talk about some of Hrdy’s ideas as I continue my critique of Graeber and Wengrow’s book The Dawn of Everything, since it’s relevant there
I've often thought of the line from Dave Chappelle that stand-up comedy is a distinctly American art form. it is in a sense one of the greatest aspects of US culture that works to check the heirarchy, or to violate the supposed sanctity of victims or the oppressed. the comedic rebellion against the protected classes of the so called left is well earned by the vague inference that the oppressed can do no wrong. by sparing nobody the American comedian works to keep everything and everybody grounded.
laughter has always been a good levelling mechanism, and it’s probably why hierarchical institutions and hierarchically minded people are so dull and humourless, and why right wing comedy tends to be such a flop… though there’s definitely a lot of punching down humour which reinforces hierarchy - like watch any 80s movie - though you do tend to see a lot less of that in stand up comedy. the “protected classes” stuff gets complicated because you have real struggles and people legitimately pushing back against things that they feel offense to or that perpetuates oppression, and then like with any anti authoritarian movement, you have people who use those causes as an excuse to impose their own dominance, and where the line is, isn’t always clear. that’s why these debates are so important to have and air out.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I do think that any anti-majoritarian view goes against democracy, and I like democracy because I believe ideas should be allowed to propagate on their own merit. the majority can be wrong yes, but a tyranny of the minority is no good either. subjecting arguments to public review and debate in the Islamic tradition is one of the means of spreading the religion, its how Imam Abu Hanifa got famous. Freedom of religion and voluntary conversion to Islam appears to me to have done a much better job at ending the killing of female babies and kids in the middle east than the CCP with their imposition of state propaganda and performative gesturing. since it was one of the first causes the Muslims advocated for they got a decent amount of repentent converts.
Sir, I will buy your book and preach your good words
haha thanks
Counter point: a society without hierarchy has very very low living standards… & prob has higher chance to collapse. Just a thought
hunter gatherer societies are much mroe stable and usually last a lot longer than most civilizations - and their standard of living is usually higher than most other types of subsistence societies (but not most civilizations after the 19th century)
I’m curious do you know of any good critiques of cultural biases in observations of the natural world. I can’t help but feel like these observations of nature almost always in some capacity reflect the biases of the writer. I think of how the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” was countered by that social scientist (I can’t remember names) who argued that survival was based on cooperation and communalism instead. So I do feel humans who come from hierarchical societies project that lens onto the rest of the natural world.
To Jordan Peterson, a man who’s broad framework centres individualism and sexism; he looks at the natural world and sees inevitable sex based hierarchies and social climbing as a key motivation and innate to individual wellbeing.
There has been so much work done to debunk concepts such as phrenology, IQ, sex binary, other eugenicist concepts, and many of these ideas are debunked and “outdated”.
I’m curious will people in the future look back and view these ‘natural hierarchies’ as nothing more than another justification for domination and subjugation the way that 20th century scientists saw IQ as inevitable in justifying why some (with higher IQs) will naturally be on top of the social hierarchy as they have the “intelligence” to reach such a status
this is a very real concern. one of the main tasks of biology has been to unlearn all the ideological hogwash obscuring our ability to really see and understand our environment. importing antihierarchichal ideology, however much i agree with it in the social sphere, will only impair our ability to understand what hierarchichal relations do in fact occur, and obtain an accurate idea of ecological networks and dynamics. there isnt really a need to critique jordan peterson for example , we simply ignore him as he has no factual basis for his mythologising.
@@MrX-yr6py yes. I’m not saying we should ignore hierarchies that do exist just that, who is to determine the social relationships between say an animal species far off from our own. Not to bring Peterson up again but I’m sure there are other people who have made counter arguments about lobsters and their social relations. I think there is some value in acknowledging the biases of the academic. I also don’t care for “Facts for the sake of Facts” approach. There is nothing we can meaningfully do to rearrange the social structures of lobsters and its not really of concern to humans. So I would also question the relevance and intended outcome of this analysis. Material analysis is an important foundation, but every person is innately biased and no one can see Reality 100% Objectively all the time. The best we can do is look to the structures in our own society, their material outcomes, and strategize for change,
I agree with the principle of science, but not this fetishized idea of Science; which is to say a transcendental , timeless set of objective facts which can never be challenged,, which is actually counterintuitive to the very process of science as a study.
good question - but no i can’t think of any off hand. usually when someone comes up with a new idea or observation, others will attack it or criticize it, so you always want to read both sides of any debate, but i don’t know a book or article that looks into that phenomenon in general. i think when it comes to things like this which isn’t hard science, it’s only natural that people will have takes based on their politics and prejudices. i discuss this a bit in the episode i’m about to put out, 10.1 about the history of hunter gatherer studies.
oh and I think you mean Kropotkin?
well i think it’s inevitable that everyone will interpret what they observe throught their biases - but i do agree that you need to be willing to challenge your own prejudices if you want to understand something. that’s why you want to read debates that arise over any issue. usually there’s someone ready to pounce on whatever your position is, so you want to read the back and forth to get a sense of who’s closer to the facts and whose ideology is obscuring their view.
i love your videos
I'm starting to wonder if having a system, in which individuals would own nothing and everyone would be free to use anything they want, isn't currently attached to someone else's body would help with starting and maintaining an egalitarian society for those of us who aren't hunter gatherers.
i think the key is just making sure no one owns property that someone else depends on to survive. anything that many people depend on is owned or controlled by the people who depend on it
Bro how the fuck do you catch a gorilla? @14:14?
fantastic content.
love to hear it!
Can we all just live like montagnie/scappi? They sound like a more highly developed civilisation.
Dammit now I don't get to show the "right vs left" video to anti-communists without them getting upset that this channel is communist and instantly disregarding all other claims. Based channel though
oops, sorry! michael malice and jordan peterson are both rare right winger who actually understand what left and right mean so you can probably find something from them that gives you the right definitions, then show them my video to illustrate?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks for the info!
Why did immediate return societies not practice visual art? Does this say something about the original function of visual art? This video is amazing. I read a book called The Fall by Steve Taylor that spoke about this...have you heard of it?
The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era
i haven’t heard of it - did i mention in this episode that they don’t do visual art? no one really knows why, but the one place where I read someone with expertise theorizing about it is Nurit Bird-David, article is called “Animistic epistemology: Why do some hunter- gatherers not depict animals” and if i remember, basically she says that they don’t really see themselves as alienated of distanced from other people or animals. They are interested in body art and depicting animals in dance, but not as POV subjects. I have some ideas about it but don’t know how reasonable they are.
@@ruthpower4892 i’ll check it out thanks
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Oh wow, I'd love to hear a podcast/video about your ideas!! Maybe someday ha!
The book is great! Speaks about language and the word 'I'. I read it in 2009, I need to read it again as I've learned a lot more since. Thank you so much for your replies.
@@ruthpower4892 well all the episodes are usually an original synthesis of stuff that’s out there to a certain extent! episode 7.1 is pretty original, and i’ll also be giving a somewhat original updated explanation of hierarchy and equality from prehistory today at the end of my review of the David Graeber book that i’ve been doing
12:57 thats Giannis from the Bucks on the left
is there a way for these types of egalitarian societies to exist in a more urban or suburban setting? I'm just wondering if it is still possible to host this type of material and practical equality within a society that still contains industrialized goods.
we can’t know for sure, but i’d think so - it would be a matter of crafting institutions that keep everyone’s bargaining power relatively equal don’t allow anyone to accumulate a disproportionate amount of power. what the spanish anarchists were doing in the 1930s seem like something that in that direction and it had some success until it was crushed in the civil war.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 ok thank you for taking the time to answer and these were some nice videos. I’m really enjoying the series this far.
Wait, so Italians busting balls with each other is their egalitarianism? 21:30
Awesome
Why did the Iroquois hate the Montagnaine(is that how you spell it?)
Weren't the Iroquois also pretty egalitarian?
they were relatively egalitarian among themselves, but as horticulturalists they were also expansionist and also very agressive warriors. it’s the montagnais who hated the iroquois more than the other way around, because they were encroaching on their lands and pushing them out.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Ah. Herrenvolk democracy.
great work.
thank you!
16:02
having an equal say doesn't then necessarily mean that no one is being bossed around.
both the left and right agree on this:
Republics are wary of pure democracy, since two wolves and a sheep voting for what's dinner is going to result in the sheep being bossed around, despite having an equal say.
Communism literally endorses the "dictatorship of the working class"...
What actually DOES mean no one is being bossed around is if the rights of each individual always take precedence over another's desire.
no rape, murder, slavery, or theft, but also no eminent domain, no "appropriation for the collective good", no conscription, no legal imposition as long as problems with consent and delegating exist (e.g. gerrymandering, first passed the post dynamics, etc).
you’re making this more complicated than it is. the wolf and sheep analogy would represent people of different classes with opposing interests and different levels of power. if everyone has an equal say that implies there aren’t imbalances of power like that. equal decision making power requires at least relative economic equality
i will edit (hopefully) after i finish watching the video but could we get a source for the lovely woodwind arrangement at @1:05 - sorry if i am being unduly presumptive in thinking this wasn't one of yours (yours for sure do bop, but in different ways so i thought this may be another musician)
hey you’re right i forgot to credit them - it’s wilhelm friedmann bach’s duets for two flutes - this version was performed by Mika Putterman and Aleks Shürmer and you can find them at www.autourdelaflute.com/ - you won’t find this exact recording because I made it at Mika’s house or they played at my apartment, I forget but you can find other recordings of this piece and many baroque and other pieces performed by mika and aleks on autour de la flute’s website
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 thank uuu
I have been binging your videos to better understand your seasonal politics (10.3 video better) I really enjoy your content. I have proselytized the gospel of worbs to all my friends. The mystery event 12,000 years ago (could it be the emergence of a Penis-centered “father” god figure as opposed to the already established fertility-centered mother goddess). I enjoy cultural anthropology and your research (nice blend of theatrics, satire, and reality). Please keep up the amazing work
glad you’re getting a lot out of it! I think the mystery of 12,000 years ago us solved by now - the climate changed drastically just then, such that agriculture had been impossible before then, but after that it was an option to people who were too squeezed to continue hunting and gathering (vs just dying or else going to war). eventually with agriculture population explodes and you end up with some people being able to control resources that other people need and that’s the recipe for hierarchy
Are all delayed return hunter-gatherer hierarchical or there are examples of egalitarian delayed return hunter-gatherer?
i can’t think of any that are *as* egalitarian as the most egalitarian immediate return societies, but most delayed return hunter gatherers are still very egalitarian compared to most other societies. so for example the traditional inuit were delayed return but also very egalitarian, though they had male domination in the summer season
So, where do we go from here? We have a complex web of hierarchies that do not necessarily have borders.
I.e Jeff having more power in Japan than the average Japanese person because he runs Amazon.
How can we re distribute resources when people with no power who insist they deserve most of the resources because they are at the top of the hierarchy as “white males” verses everyone deserves an equal shot at resources because they contribute to society and are human beings.
Neither group has resources, and yet both are popular af.
Moreover how do you even BEGIN to redistribute when most of Jeff’s dollars are tied up in assets whose only clue to the existence of exists on a balance sheet within a balance sheet within a balance sheet.
i’m not sure i understand - are you asking how do you redistribute when people are divided by various kinds of discrimination and national borders etc?
the answer is as it always was large majorities joining together to exert their power over tiny powerful minorities.
there are a bunch of things we need to do to get there, and one big one is to get people to see what they have to gain by joining together vs by being divided against eachother by all sorts of cultural categories (race, religion, nationality, etc) which is one big way that elites are able to rule.
my tiny part in working on this is making political words make sense so we can actually communicate - like the terms left and right today are used to divide tons of people who want the same things, into hostile camps over cultural styles, and people are lumped into the same category as those who exploit them - when if you define them property, they should be uniting people by class and policy goals.
Stuff like the secrecy of Jeff Bezos’ books is just a matter of laws that can be changed.
when you said “both groups have no resources but are popular” i don’t know which groups you mean
Very nice. Better is speach were more paused. Too fast
Confused about the title versus the content related to ordered relationshis. Is their an essential link of 'communism' (as ideology) to the concept of 'hierarchy'?
i don’t understand what you’re saying - rephrase?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 The title says, "When Communism Works and Why?" when your content expresses both hierarchy and egalitarian roots within tribes. I understand "Communism" to at least mean, "no one (or everyone) owns properties communally." Are you aligning tribal 'communities' as communes that are 'Communistic' by this definition?
Hierarchy within tribes automatically empowers a kind of 'ownership" division of responsibilities within a family. But 'ownership' of property requires settlements derived by later evolution of society among tribes (or families) of multiple families or groups at first. So the title doesn't fit with the presentation or is at best just incomplete.
@@scottmayers2438 if i remember i was talking about egalitarian hunter gatherers (they aren’t organized into tribes) and then i also mentioned hierarchical pacific northwest coast chiefdoms (who are organized into tribes, clans etc), very different types of cultures and structures.
communism is where everyone has equal rights to resources, which is the case in the egalitarian hunter gatherers, but not the chiefdoms.
I’m explaining the conditions that make the egalitarianism (communism) possible and sustainable.
What do you think about the strategy of developing prefigurative anarchist communities (means/ends unity) based on mutual aid? Is that a way to bypass capitalism and establish durable horizontal relations?
Along those lines, what do you think about the One Small Town initiative? Is it too capitalistic to result in horizontalism, or is it a possible starting place?
i don’t know anything about the one small town thing, so give me an elevator pitch, but if you can somehow manage to make functional anarchist communities work in the context of a world where most of the resources that you’ll need in those communities are controlled by markets where big corporations have all the power , then great, but that’s going to be a huge obstacle.
but you always want to try to make everything as democratic as possible, and however far you can get in that goal, then you’re setting examples for institutions that work, etc
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 essentially, One Small Town would start as many businesses as possible in a small community. They would exist under a nonprofit or cooperative structure.
Participants would provide a small amount of free labor in exchange for a share of the proceeds. Since labor would be "free" and there's limited capitalist overhead (profit extraction) the new businesses would be able to compete with any producer operating under the traditional model. Essentially it gets rid of wages in favor of socialized ownership and control.
There's a lot in this model that makes me nervous, including leaning into crypto, and the privileged place of investors in the process. I'm not advocating for it, just looking for other viewpoints.
@@LongDefiant hmm, ok i just don’t know enough to say anything intelligent about it.
Those video clips that parody office life are hilarious! What are they from?
It’s from the greatest film of all time, Tony Ezzy Gets a Job: ua-cam.com/play/PL18D913E158EA6286.html
Well, good thing for our Republic
what do you mean?
Sooooooooo, what you're saying is "The Agricultural Revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race"?
in terms of hierarchy yes - it’s eventually come to have benefits in terms of civilization - and it was a solution to overpopulation, so it’s all relative - but it’s the big reason (along with overpopulation) why we went from egalitarians to so hierarchical
Hello! Do you have a biography somewhere? I'm likely going to cite you in my Bio Ant Research Project!
there’s a link to the bibliography in the video notes! what’s the bio ant research project?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 thank you!
I'm discussing the ethics of puberty suppression in gender-dysphoric youth
@@sierraluers4543 i see - how does that relate to this video?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 gender dysphoria/disorder stems from a braid of cultural & biological factors- your insights on the origins of male dominated hierarchy - agriculture - equality - HG societies compared to our primate cousins reinforces and builds to that environmental pressures and biological adaptations are occurring simultaneously with industrialization - our bodies biological processes react to the toxic environment we are creating - industrialization leads to climate change - example of how biology and culture are closely tied with ecology - gender dysphoria needs to be studied with environmental and biological perspectives simultaneously and treatments must employ both simultaneously or risk perpetuating detrimental hierarchies - modern gender & sex roles
Great video. Would you classify parent/child or student/teacher roles as inherently hierarchical? If so, is it a dominance hierarchy?
If we’re solely looking at who has more decision-making power, one would think the dependency of the student/child gives the teacher/parent stable power over their decisions, no?
Many anarchists say the parent/teacher, ideally, has a relationship with the dependent where they’re obligated to care for, and thus empower them. Is this enough to make these relationships potentially egalitarian?
good question - there are very different parenting styles and practices across cultures ranging from extreme domination to extreme “laissez-faire” to the point of letting 3 year olds play with machetes - but usually there’s a point where the parent intervenes. Yes, i’d say there’s always an element of dominance hierarchy, but it’s a necessary and a good thing where it’s necessary, and beyond that, probably not a good thing. Same with teaching, you can have different styles and institutions, like where you’re forcing or not forcing kids to learn for one thing - i know less about teaching methods in different cultures (i have some stuff i’m about to read on teaching in egalitarian foragers societies) but I think there may be an element of dominance hierarchy that might be necessary there as well, but not a confident in saying that as i am with parenting. basically i think that you always want to aim for the least hierarchy possible while remaining functional, and the burden of proof is always on the person advocating for hierarchy to prove that their hierarchy isn’t excessive or beyond what’s necessary etc.
I haven't been able to find the bonus episode, about the nazis and the communists, I believe, that you mentioned in episode 5. Did you ever make it?
i haven’t! every time i want to do one of those bonuses i get sucked into something else, like this endless book critique - when i finish the book (chapter 5) i think the communists vs nazis will be the next one because it will be easy and i will need a break!
Kewl. Tysm for all your hard work
34"00; Is that a decapitated giant human's head at the lower right?
pretty sure that’s a carved statue, they haida have great scultptors and artists still today - but i wasn’t there i dunno for sure
Praise The Omnissiah
Am I wrong or is this takeaway from this that we can either have modernity and hierarchy or we can wander around hunting oxen and have equality?
definitely not the takeaway i intended for this - the point is that if you want equality you need to pay attention to the conditions and incentives and opportunities for abuse of power etc in the institutions that you design and you can’t thoughtlessly rely on simply convincing people to be good or to change peoples’ values
@@WHATISPOLITICS69so authoritarian control over institutions is justified in the name of equality and freedom? Sounds like the opposite of freedom to me... "Comply or be punished, you don't have the right to be more than others"
@@ricecakemadness7578 where did i say that?
I have two questions.
First is how to create a equal society with more them few hundreds people aka a society, where everybody does not know each other, so bargaining power for equality is much lower.
Second is how do you think humans would change genetically, psychologically if they spend tens of thousands of years as pastoralists aka what if ice age begun 4000 years ago.
haha, do i get a nobel prize for answering the first part? I obviously can’t come up with a detailed plan - it needs to evolve over time with trial and error - but in general, given the amount of wealth and resources that our economies can now create, and give the ease of communications via internet, and ability to calculate via computers, I think that it’s now possible to establish systems of common ownership, democratic decision making and checks and balances that prevent anyone from monopolizing resources that other people depend on to live, which is the basis of hierarchy. i think you will still need some hierarchies for large institutions to function, but they can be democratic hierarchies - worker-owners vote for management, recall them, and are involved in decision making. For pastoralism - i’m not aware of a link between ice age and pastoralism or 4000 years ago - but pastoralists are always male dominated, and have frequent conflicts and raiding between families and clans and tribes. So I guess you might have selection for more male aggression. Also their diet is pretty limited so you’d have adaptations to that. I think pastoralism isn’t possible without agriculture though - you need to trade with farmers or raid them, or trade or hunters to get a full diet. So i’m not sure a world of just pastoralists is possible.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks
For the first I think it is likely that before development of total equality we will be turn to tolerated consumers or wiped out by AI.
For the second I choose 4000 years ago for the reason I think that it would give time to devolop to fully (horse archers of Gengis Khan) and the ice age, because it would limit agricultural sociaties. Also I ment primary agricultural sociaties, so with suplemention with foreging and in wetter regions agriculture like Scythians had.
Your videos are great and full of useful insight that challenges all the confusing/misinformed bs out there on politics/anthropology, and it's refreshing to get it all from a clearly materialist perspective.
However, in this video you make a bad mistake in primatology with your mischaracterisation of bonobos. I would advise you to check the extensive data on these creatures in scientific research, as this primate is VERY different in its social organisation from chimps and gorillas, and in fact more closely approximates to the communism of our ancestors which you correctly ascribe to 'immediate return' hunter-gatherers.
what did i say about bonobos? I agree that their social organization is more like immediate return foragers than chimpanzees are, but there also important differences
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Absolutely, but you are stating that instead of alpha males, bonobos have 'alpha females who rule by sex and violence', which is just not true. If any human parallels can be drawn, bonobo society is most similar to matrilocal based forager/horticulturalists such as the Iroquois and Wendat. The older females as a group form the core decision making body, but they definitely do not 'rule by sex and violence'. Consensus is the big thing in all areas. When sex is used it too is consensual, initiated as required by all parties, not just females - mainly to deescalate risks of tension and competition, which it does in 99% of cases. Violence is extremely rare, and any wannabe bullies or 'alphas' are simply ignored/ostracised until they wise up or leave the group.
The reason I'm pointing this out is that I'm otherwise highly impressed both by your knowledge and your method of using it incisively for constructive purposes - so this unfortunate inconsistency is rather glaring.
@Heironimous Duchamp it’s been a while since i read on this (and since i wrote this episode), but if i remember, bonobo high ranking females (and other females) form coalitions by bonding via sex with eachother and they prevent males from dominating by placating them with sex, but also with occasional violence, mostly to shoo them away or stop them from being dominant. and since they’re matrilocal males are outnumbered by related females. so saying they rule by sex and occasional violence is an oversimplification, but it’s not really wrong? though i guess it is misleading.
but either way, i’ll eventually do an episode on animal politics and look at this properly especially now that you pointed this out!
Is Elon Musk in range of your poison arrow on Twitter?
haha, i think he already shot himself with his own poison arrow by accident while walking off a cliff
How do agricultural societies who were apparently egalitarian fit into all of this? I.e. Tainos according to Spanish sources?
there are lots of egalitarian agricultural societies (though they tend to be male dominated) - and there are dynamics and material conditions that prevent anyone from accumulating too much wealth, though i know a lot less about them. it’d be a whole other episode
basically to have hierarchy you need some people to be able to control resources that others need to survive, so if you don’t have those conditions, you can’t have hierarchy
oooh boy... the other comment I made is gonna be heavy bro. Don't say I didn't warn ya.
haha, it’s all fair, i accept all good faith arguments! i’m not too snooty for different opinions, that’s how we debate and learn from eachother.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Seen. BTW, I've developed a website for people that want to partner up and start a business together - a "co-op" for directors - not workers :P www.dacoop.com
@@jzk2020 wtf i keep trying to respond to your other comment and it always gets deleted!
cool to start a coop starting business! but sucks that workers are still exploited labour!
Fascinating episode.
I'd love it if you would have touched on America's racial hierarchy, whites on top, non-blacks/non-whites in the middle and blacks at the bottom. Where the democrats exploit blacks, even though they are the party's most loyal constituency, but fight tooth and nails to keep them at the bottom by ignoring them and doing nothing for them in order to keep the current hierarchy.
Mean while they are passing laws and giving resources to whites (elites and middle classes). native Americans, LBGT, jews and even non-citizen hispanics. What do black people need to do in order to change their unfair slot in America (and many other places around the world)?
wtf, I wrote a detailed response to this and it disappeared - and then again, and again. trying again below:
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Not sure whats going on. But that's youtube for you.... start talking about black issues and they are QUICK to remove the comment. You can put up negative stuff about black people, but try to say something "bad" about jews or gays or whites and you get censored like a mofo. Real quick. I wish I knew what you had written...damn shame.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 It must have been a really good answer if they are censoring it. LOOOL .... I bet it has to do with money, but that would just be my myopic guess. Let me message you via email. wordlwidescrotes@gmail.com right?
Alright. I really like to the video and would like to share it, but is there any chance of it getting re-edited in order to take out Beavis and Butthead sniggering at the phrase "Homo" at 23.52? I would be unhappy to share that to my friends as I don't think I should presume whether they should be offended or not - it's not manifestly obvious that it is the sniggering of two people we would obviously view as juvenile.
haha, i appreciate your concern (you’re not the first person to mention it) but changing it and replacing the video at this point would be a big undertaking and lose the view count and comments etc, and it already takes me months to put these out so I can think about that for the future but won’t be changing this one. i was hoping it was obvious, but maybe not...
That's fair enough - it's all a learning process. Best of luck.
do you reflect on being a person of (correct me if I'm wrong) European descent openly criticizing the culture of, for example, Pacific Northwest indigenous communities that have been historically dominated, exploited, and erased by European settlers?
what am i criticizing about them? their former practices of slavery? am i supposed to speak glowingly about their slavery?
do you know any people from pacific northwest coast societies? do you think they don’t criticize their own past practices of slavery?
do you reflect on how you seem to think it’s appropriate for you to appoint yourself as a representative or advocate of other cultures without actually knowing anything about them?
regardless, i didn’t make this video to criticize cultures, i’m giving examples of why you have hierarchy or equality in different societies.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 didn't mean to appoint myself as anything. i just get skeptical when someone seems to believe they have an objective means of evaluating other cultures. assembling them into a sort of hierarchy, if you will.
@@literallyanythingelse i don’t think I was evaluating anyone here, just explaining the different features. however, i think we can always evaluate slavery negatively… though when you have materialist explanations for it, you will tend to have a “there but for the grace of God go I” attitude and not judge as much
The laughing was cringe and disruptive
Lovely content! Keep up the good work. If you have a moment go have a browse of my account 😊👍
When was it ever established that these people have high individual freedom, other than you just declaring so?
Give us at least literally one example. You provided 0.
You just claimed so after introducing them to us.
the immediate return hunter gatherers? every single ethnography about any of those cultures. read about the hadza, mbuti, mbenjele, ju hoansi, batek, you can see for yourself.
no, wrong definition of left and right.
you get that wrong, you're going to go wrong from there.
left is property rights of collectives over individuals'.
right is property rights of individuals over collectives'
no. see episode 5 where i explain the history of the words. and episode 4 about my criteria for choosing definitions - because ultimately you can just choose whatever definition you feel like