K-A-R-L

“L” because we know Labor creates all value.

M-A-R-X

  • rah
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    www.youtube.com

    Pass.

    If you’re not able to express succinctly in prose whatever idea you think I need to waste my time watching be revealed in a YouTube video then I suspect it’s not an idea worth paying attention to.

    • culpritus [any]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Since you seem to be a conservative misanthrope, maybe you should learn about prosocial behavior in humans. It’s kind of the main evolutionary advantage humans have. It is what provides our ability to coordinate large groups. I don’t think the status quo is inherently “the way things are” because history shows there have been various forms of society with differing levels of exploitation and prosocial and antisocial tendencies. Your ideology claims that the status quo is due to ‘human nature’. Mine does not.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

      Here’s just a few of many examples of prosocial behaviors being inherent to humans, as we are highly social beings.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786781/

      The Social Origins of Human Prosociality

      From early in life, children help, comfort, and share with others. Recent research has deepened scientific understanding of the development of prosociality – efforts to promote the welfare of others. This article discusses two key insights about the emergence and early development of prosocial behavior, focusing on the development of helping. First, children’s motivations and capabilities for helping change in quality as well as quantity over the opening years of life. Specifically, helping begins in participatory activities without prosocial intent in the first year of life, becoming increasingly autonomous and motivated by prosocial intent over the second year. Second, helping emerges through bidirectional social interactions, starting at birth, in which caregivers and others support the development of helping in a variety of ways and young children play active roles, often influencing caregiver behavior. The question now is not whether, but how social interactions contribute to the development of prosocial behavior. Recent methodological and theoretical advances provide exciting avenues for future research on the social and emotional origins of human prosociality.

      https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Wilson-EvolutionProsociality.pdf

      Human prosociality from an evolutionary perspective: variation and correlations at a city-wide scale

      **Prosociality is a fundamental theme in all branches of the human behavioral sciences. Evolutionary theory sets an even broader stage by examining prosociality in all species, including the distinctive human capacity to cooperate in large groups of unrelated individuals. **We use evolutionary theory to investigate human prosociality at the scale of a small city (Binghamton, NY), based on survey data and a direct measure of prosocial behavior. In a survey of public school students (Grades 6–12), individual prosociality correlates strongly with social support, which is a basic requirement for prosociality to succeed as a behavioral strategy in Darwinian terms. The most prosocial individuals receive social support from multiple sources (e.g., family, school, neighborhood, religion and extracurricular activities). Neighborhood social support is significant as a group-level variable in addition to an individual-level variable. The median income of a neighborhood does not directly influence individual prosociality, but only indirectly through forms of social support. Variation in neighborhood quality, as measured by the survey, corresponds to the likelihood that a stamped addressed letter dropped on the sidewalk of a given neighborhood will be mailed. We discuss the results in relation to evolutionary theory, the experimental economics literature and the social capital literature in an effort to integrate the study of human prosociality across disciplines.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01241-2

      Evolution of prosocial behaviours in multilayer populations

      Human societies include diverse social relationships. Friends, family, business colleagues and online contacts can all contribute to one’s social life. Individuals may behave differently in different domains, but success in one domain may engender success in another. Here, we study this problem using multilayer networks to model multiple domains of social interactions, in which individuals experience different environments and may express different behaviours. We provide a mathematical analysis and find that coupling between layers tends to promote prosocial behaviour. Even if prosociality is disfavoured in each layer alone, multilayer coupling can promote its proliferation in all layers simultaneously. We apply this analysis to six real-world multilayer networks, ranging from the socio-emotional and professional relationships in a Zambian community, to the online and offline relationships within an academic university. We discuss the implications of our results, which suggest that small modifications to interactions in one domain may catalyse prosociality in a different domain.

      So not sure what your point is.

      • rah
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        prosocial behavior in humans

        I’ll just cut-and-paste from another comment:

        “Human beings must necessarily cooperate and aid each other in order to survive. It’s how our species evolved. However, that doesn’t mean humans only ever aid each other, or even that they care about others except as a means to survive. Humans will cooperate when it’s beneficial and also stab their fellow humans in the back, step on them and exploit them when it’s beneficial. That’s why all we have are systems of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death.”

        differing levels of exploitation

        And yet never an absence of exploitation.

        So not sure what your point is.

        That humans in general, including fellow labourers, are what are reckless of the health and life of the labourer, not just “capital”. You’re deluding yourself by limiting your criticism to capital alone. Or even worse, deluding yourself by assigning blame to capital alone.

        • culpritus [any]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ya, I already said you seem to be a misanthrope.

          misanthrope mĭs′ən-thrōp″, mĭz′- noun

          One who hates or mistrusts humankind.

          A hater of mankind; one who harbors dislike or distrust of human character or motives in general.

          A hater of mankind; a misanthropist.

          And no exploitation is a ‘differing level of exploitation’ even if you don’t want to understand that. Just like zero is a number.

          • rah
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            no exploitation is a ‘differing level of exploitation’

            You’re claiming there have been human societies with an absence of exploitation? And you have sources to back up your claim?

            • culpritus [any]@hexbear.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s why all we have are systems of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death.

              Nothing will convince you because you are filled with hate for fellow humans, and you like being that way.

              • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I only consider input by people who share the same beliefs as me (of humans being happy little faries who do no wrong).

                Do you realize you’re building your personal echo chamber?

                • culpritus [any]@hexbear.netOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Please indicate the input that is so valuable that I am missing out on by disregarding the words of a misanthrope?

                  • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That perhaps one should consider non-utopian images of humans when discussing systems present in society.