The Marxist theory is wrong, European style communism did not suddenly develop in the 18th century...

Except the gradual process is in line with Marx. I don't like socialism, but he made it pretty clear that it was just going to become the natural state of things all on its own, evolving from capitalism like capitalism evolved from socialism.

Feudalism any day

>like capitalism evolved from socialism
wut?

It started in Ancient Rome, if not earlier, when the plebes were fed on the grain doll from the state. The Romans discovered both free enterprise through the negotiatores and social welfare through the grain that the ager publicus (public land) supplied, banking and finance through the argentarii and the coactores. Numerous attempts at land redistribution from wealthy to poor are noted in the record, and the reformers all end up accused of trying to aspire to kingly ambitions and thrown from the Tarpeian rock.

This system of trade, conquest, and finance collapsed in the mid-2nd century AD leading to the death of Rome's empire and the birth of feudalism from its decaying corpse as the economies of scale built by that trading empire ceased to be relevant in a much more cut off, isolated, and dangerous world.

>the concept of private property and profiting off of other people's labor is the natural way
Sorry kid, anarchism is what comes naturally to humans.

The only thing Marx was right about was alienation and a couple other minor things
t. Chad libertarian socialist

>Marxists were wrong about something
Woah, no way.

Humanity was never anarchist.
A tribal system is hierarchical, and tribal era was absolutely horrible.

>Hai guys, did you know, Roman slave economy was pure socialism?
Really?

Bullshit many farmers, pastoralists and hunter gathers functioned without authority.
You can still find some in Papua and the amazon

Oh the noble savage meme in a new version, how cute.

Well, if that society is so great go ahead and run around naked in the jungle with them. Just don't try and make the rest of us join in on your highschool-tier larp.

>the "Nobel savage meme" meme

>if you like one aspect of a society that means you must emulate it entirely!
Who is supposed to be the LARPer here?

It would tickle my ballsack to do that, not because I think it is an ideal form of social organization but because I study ecology.
I'm not an anprim, All I am doing is pointing out that anarchism is the way humans organize before forming abstract social structures.

so it's many instead of all now, intredasting.

That one aspect of the society is conditional on emulating it entirely. Complex societies require (and rise as a result of the need for) a hierarchy and a state. Otherwise you're relegated to chucking spears in the jungle and dying from a stubbed toe.

>All I am doing is pointing out that anarchism is the way humans organize
Unfortunately you got not a single source for that, as always.

Explain to me how pharmaceuticals is a product of strong hierarchies

how is industrial capitalism not just a direct and logic succession of mercantile capitalism, now just with steam power and more people?

>materialist ideologies
So, so very blue pilled...

Tell me more how the mass production of pharmaceutical chemicals is not contingent on the hierarchy of a business organization running a plant in order to mass produce medication for the people.

LOL

>rule of law is natural
If it was true, there wouldn't be the need to enforce those laws.

Because there is always a smart cunt that thinks he can break the rules.

>Libsoc
>Chad

You are gulag fodder

Communism was the Anglo meme of progressivism infesting a Continent that was unadapted to it, like an upas-tree infecting the roots of everything else in the grove.

you drunk?

...

>European style communism
that should mean European style capitalism I guess?

It comes a priori that humans do not form hierarchal social institutions without first constructing them. I can remember learning about certain modern day examples, lost tribes sort of deal but no specifics. They live in the amazon and hunt with blow darts
calling them anarchist Is the problem as anarchism is a reaction to hierarchical social structures. Chicken and the egg thing there

>but no specifics
Yes, it would be pure chance if one of the myriads of papers on Anthropology would deal with social hierarchies in primitive human societies....

you both should be shot.

>hur dur materialism is wrong

Says the aristocrat. One's material condition is probably the most important factor in influencing one's life.

Marxist detected, you need to go back

Not him but here you go
Barclay, Harold, People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy. London: Kahn and Averill, 1982.

The bambuti people stand out to me

I'm not a Marxist in the slightest, and you're not the intellectual you think you are by clinging onto an idealist mystic.

of cause you are an intellectual

Yeah I had a brainfart, I meant capitalism evolved from feudalism.

I am not so sure about that. Feudalism had different economics, mercantile capitalism evolved in city republics and the protagonists were people you could say of the "bourgeois" class.

You are a "radical centrist"

>mercantile capitalism evolved in city republics and the protagonists were people you could say of the "bourgeois" class.
Yep

You don't have much incentive for a capitalist economy when you are a landed feudal lord.

God damn the quality of this board has gone to shit thanks to you /pol/ faggots.

Pick a side fag, and have the balls to defend it.

My side is this: Julius Evola is was an obtuse cunt without a single worthy idea. That was clear from the get-go. Materialism will always be a more rational position to hold, with greater explanatory power in determining how societies change with time, and believing that one's material upbringing is unimportant reeks of aristocratic pomposity.

Why the fuck is this dude taken seriously? Can't you people find a person who doesn't jerk off over magic, hyperboreans, and the Kali Yuga?

>it's confrontational with differing systems, notably capitalism
this is mindnumbingly stupid
apparently castro, lumuba, sankara, allende ET FUCKING CETERA were "confrontational" so the only logical way to resolve that was to send CIA, MI5, DGSE goons to kill them and institute military juntas

Not even that, according to Marx, things like violence and religion were the results of alienation produced by the division of labour, but modern archeology has shown that pre-historical society, even during so-called primitive communism, had plenty of violence and also religion. See Gobekli Tepe, for example.

Castro got power through a military uprising and one of his first actions in power was mass execution of dissidents, how was he not confrontational?

by that definition if a communist farts in an elevator while a capitalist is present he's being "confrontational"
it's clear what the user in the pic meant - confrontations of one state with other states
but you know that, you're just being an obfuscating faggot

I'll have to agree to that. I think alienation is an ecological problem. Marxist aleination seems trivial but intuitive.

>things like violence and religion were the results of alienation produced by the division of labour
if there ever was a statement that cried out for [citation needed]

>overthrows dictatorship
>"this castro fellow, very confrontational"
>so cowardly they have to dress up as indians to pour out tea into a harbor cause they don't want to pay taxes
>OUR BRAVE LADS! FREEDOM!

Well, when you have failed in reality you can always retreat to fantasy. Thats what fascism does.