When has humanity been at its most peaceful in history?

[Mangoes 10]

I've read Animal Farm and all of Orwell's other books. Totalitarian Communism failed because it is immoral for a state to try to control a citizen's private life. It was the myth that it perpetuated of freeing the individual through the actions of the state that could be argued against so easily and with so much evidence that the paradigm shift came relatively quickly.

 

Capitalism is not self perpetuating, it just offers more benefits to the individual, but it is still at its basis immoral and therefore it will be overturned eventually.

 

I know my history far better than most and I can promise you that self interest is a relatively new mass behaviour in society. Human society has existed for hundreds of thousands of years through a sense of egalitarian cooperation. Competition for goods, land and resources was only introduced in the Bronze Age (c.2500 BC) and so I can say fairly categorically that this situation has only existed for 4500 years which is piddling in the scheme of things. Our normal state of existence is one of cooperation and this is why people become beligerent and start to procrastinate in the face of so many modern hierarchical master/ slave relationships. We want to be cooperative and we yearn for equality and freedom and so one day we will once again have these things.

 

Lovely. Don't hold your breath though!

[Cavegirl 10]

Lovely. Don't hold your breath though!

 

Hehe no I think you might be right there

[Iuchi_Zien 10]

I've read Animal Farm and all of Orwell's other books. Totalitarian Communism failed because it is immoral for a state to try to control a citizen's private life. It was the myth that it perpetuated of freeing the individual through the actions of the state that could be argued against so easily and with so much evidence that the paradigm shift came relatively quickly.

 

Capitalism is not self perpetuating, it just offers more benefits to the individual, but it is still at its basis immoral and therefore it will be overturned eventually.

 

I know my history far better than most and I can promise you that self interest is a relatively new mass behaviour in society. Human society has existed for hundreds of thousands of years through a sense of egalitarian cooperation. Competition for goods, land and resources was only introduced in the Bronze Age (c.2500 BC) and so I can say fairly categorically that this situation has only existed for 4500 years which is piddling in the scheme of things. Our normal state of existence is one of cooperation and this is why people become beligerent and start to procrastinate in the face of so many modern hierarchical master/ slave relationships. We want to be cooperative and we yearn for equality and freedom and so one day we will once again have these things.

 

If you look beyond the condemnation of totalitarian Communism you don't see the natural greed of man? "I'm more equal than you are"? Communism only existed for about six months in Russia, it was snuffed out with great aggression and repression by guess who? Lenin! Because he saw it as a threat to his control of Russia. Does that sound like a truly communist ideal?

 

So I take it you don't hold with the theory that Neanderthal man was out competed by Homo Sapiens? If mankind was so peaceful and co-operative pre Bronze age please explain the Hill forts and defences that came from before that period? What were these defences designed to protect against Bands of wild animals?

[Cavegirl 10]

If you look beyond the condemnation of totalitarian Communism you don't see the natural greed of man? "I'm more equal than you are"? Communism only existed for about six months in Russia, it was snuffed out with great aggression and repression by guess who? Lenin! Because he saw it as a threat to his control of Russia. Does that sound like a truly communist ideal?

 

So I take it you don't hold with the theory that Neanderthal man was out competed by Homo Sapiens? If mankind was so peaceful and co-operative pre Bronze age please explain the Hill forts and defences that came from before that period? What were these defences designed to protect against Bands of wild animals?

 

You're confusing liberal Marxist communism, which argued for liberating the individual from the state (after a short period in which the state would oversee the means to ensure that people remained liberated- Marxism was essentially anarchism, but they differed from anarchists in terms of the means of how to reach this goal and argued that capitalism took humans further away from their natural state, which was personal control over their own economy) with the later form of totalitarian communism which developed in Russia as you say.

 

People fought for the liberal ideal, but the totalitarian ideology (the left wing's version of right wing totalitarian fascism) was quickly enforced upon them. Therefore you could argue that the masses wanted to cooperate whereas a small minority, the government, took advantage of this and made a grab for power. Communism is still very much an ideal in its liberal form, perhaps people will learn from the past next time they try to implement it.

 

No I don't hold with the idea that Neanderthal man was wiped out by humans and this is why:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

 

There are no hill forts or defensive monuments that date to before the Bronze Age. These are all late Bronze Age or later in date. Mesolithic people were bands of hunter gatherers, the main evidence we have for these peoples are flint tools and shell middens. Neolithic people cooperated to build megalithic structures for their rituals and to bury their dead (think of henges, barrows, dolmens, passage tombs, stone circles etc) and they created enclosures (with no defensive ditches or evidence of pallisades) which we believe were early trading places. All of the evidence from the Neolithic points to the idea of a strong socially communal mindset, not a warlike competetive culture.

 

The Bronze Age is the first time that anything existed that could be considered 'valuable' or precious in modern terms. Trade in tin and copper could be controlled by individuals whereas trade in wood, stone and shells could not, this is the birth of private property and private property, for those who own it, has to be protected from those who want to take it- the origins of our army and police force. This is where the shift occurs in human behaviour.

[Mangoes 10]

You're confusing liberal Marxist communism, which argued for liberating the individual from the state (after a short period in which the state would oversee the means to ensure that people remained liberated- Marxism was essentially anarchism, but they differed from anarchists in terms of the means of how to reach this goal and argued that capitalism took humans further away from their natural state, which was personal control over their own economy) with the later form of totalitarian communism which developed in Russia as you say.

 

People fought for the liberal ideal, but the totalitarian ideology (the left wing's version of right wing totalitarian fascism) was quickly enforced upon them. Therefore you could argue that the masses wanted to cooperate whereas a small minority, the government, took advantage of this and made a grab for power. Communism is still very much an ideal in its liberal form, perhaps people will learn from the past next time they try to implement it.

 

No I don't hold with the idea that Neanderthal man was wiped out by humans and this is why:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

 

There are no hill forts or defensive monuments that date to before the Bronze Age. These are all late Bronze Age or later in date. Mesolithic people were bands of hunter gatherers, the main evidence we have for these peoples are flint tools and shell middens. Neolithic people cooperated to build megalithic structures for their rituals and to bury their dead (think of henges, barrows, dolmens, passage tombs, stone circles etc) and they created enclosures (with no defensive ditches or evidence of pallisades) which we believe were early trading places. All of the evidence from the Neolithic points to the idea of a strong socially communal mindset, not a warlike competetive culture.

 

The Bronze Age is the first time that anything existed that could be considered 'valuable' or precious in modern terms. Trade in tin and copper could be controlled by individuals whereas trade in wood, stone and shells could not, this is the birth of private property and private property, for those who own it, has to be protected from those who want to take it- the origins of our army and police force. This is where the shift occurs in human behaviour.

 

 

 

 

MMMMMMMMM....I just want to drag you by the hair into the nearest cave now Cavegirl.

[Iuchi_Zien 10]

You're confusing liberal Marxist communism, which argued for liberating the individual from the state (after a short period in which the state would oversee the means to ensure that people remained liberated- Marxism was essentially anarchism, but they differed from anarchists in terms of the means of how to reach this goal and argued that capitalism took humans further away from their natural state, which was personal control over their own economy) with the later form of totalitarian communism which developed in Russia as you say.

 

People fought for the liberal ideal, but the totalitarian ideology (the left wing's version of right wing totalitarian fascism) was quickly enforced upon them. Therefore you could argue that the masses wanted to cooperate whereas a small minority, the government, took advantage of this and made a grab for power. Communism is still very much an ideal in its liberal form, perhaps people will learn from the past next time they try to implement it.

 

No I don't hold with the idea that Neanderthal man was wiped out by humans and this is why:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

 

There are no hill forts or defensive monuments that date to before the Bronze Age. These are all late Bronze Age or later in date. Mesolithic people were bands of hunter gatherers, the main evidence we have for these peoples are flint tools and shell middens. Neolithic people cooperated to build megalithic structures for their rituals and to bury their dead (think of henges, barrows, dolmens, passage tombs, stone circles etc) and they created enclosures (with no defensive ditches or evidence of pallisades) which we believe were early trading places. All of the evidence from the Neolithic points to the idea of a strong socially communal mindset, not a warlike competetive culture.

 

The Bronze Age is the first time that anything existed that could be considered 'valuable' or precious in modern terms. Trade in tin and copper could be controlled by individuals whereas trade in wood, stone and shells could not, this is the birth of private property and private property, for those who own it, has to be protected from those who want to take it- the origins of our army and police force. This is where the shift occurs in human behaviour.

 

You make an interesting case but I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree over the inate 'goodness' of humanity. I see self interest, you see altruism. Regarding the hill forts, yes you appear to be correct. The site I was using as a basis for my claim appears to be in a minority claiming that the defences were stone age, I would argue that stone age weaponry exists that is really only of any use in a combat context rather than hunting. I would also raise the case of the Austrian pre Bronze age hunter killed in the Alps? It could just be a unique incident, my personal opinion is that protecting hunting grounds, resources, like shelter and water would swiftly result in conflict rather than sharing.

[Harleyman 12]

[QUOTE=Cavegirl;7611822]You're confusing liberal Marxist communism, which argued for liberating the individual from the state (after a short period in which the state would oversee the means to ensure that people remained liberated- Marxism was essentially anarchism, but they differed from anarchists in terms of the means of how to reach this goal and argued that capitalism took humans further away from their natural state, which was personal control over their own economy) with the later form of totalitarian communism which developed in Russia as you say.

 

People fought for the liberal ideal, but the totalitarian ideology (the left wing's version of right wing totalitarian fascism) was quickly enforced upon them. Therefore you could argue that the masses wanted to cooperate whereas a small minority, the government, took advantage of this and made a grab for power. Communism is still very much an ideal in its liberal form, perhaps people will learn from the past next time they try to implement it.

 

No I don't hold with the idea that Neanderthal man was wiped out by humans and this is why:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

 

There are no hill forts or defensive monuments that date to before the Bronze Age. These are all late Bronze Age or later in date. Mesolithic people were bands of hunter gatherers, the main evidence we have for these peoples are flint tools and shell middens. Neolithic people cooperated to build megalithic structures for their rituals and to bury their dead (think of henges, barrows, dolmens, passage tombs, stone circles etc) and they created enclosures (with no defensive ditches or evidence of pallisades) which we believe were early trading places. All of the evidence from the Neolithic points to the idea of a strong socially communal mindset, not a warlike competetive culture.

 

The Bronze Age is the first time that anything existed that could be considered 'valuable' or precious in modern terms. Trade in tin and copper could be controlled by individuals whereas trade in wood, stone and shells could not, this is the birth of private property and private property, for those who own it, has to be protected from those who want to take it- the origins of our army and police force. This is where the shift occurs in human behaviour.

 

 

RESPONSE FROM HARLEYMAN

 

I'm assuming that means the the liberated people in such a Marxist Communistic state would be free to have a choice of alternative political parties when voting

 

Dont forget that "All power corrupts, absolute power completely"

[Cavegirl 10]

You make an interesting case but I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree over the inate 'goodness' of humanity. I see self interest, you see altruism. Regarding the hill forts, yes you appear to be correct. The site I was using as a basis for my claim appears to be in a minority claiming that the defences were stone age, I would argue that stone age weaponry exists that is really only of any use in a combat context rather than hunting. I would also raise the case of the Austrian pre Bronze age hunter killed in the Alps? It could just be a unique incident, my personal opinion is that protecting hunting grounds, resources, like shelter and water would swiftly result in conflict rather than sharing.

 

I still think you're misunderstanding me a little. I'm not arguing that humans are inherently 'good'. Humans are omnivores and as such are as capable of killing and violence as any other predator. I've raised the point previously of infanticide occuring in prehistoric human societies and I'm sure that murder, rape and other nasty acts occurred early societies. What I'm suggesting is only that we've developed from a cooperative society to a competetive society. I'm talking about mass social behaviour not individualistic behaviour. The society as a whole can still be cooperative even if a small minority engage in sporadic cases of violence. Modern society is competetive and violent.

 

I see no evidence of weaponry that was only designed to kill humans and not animals- perhaps you could point me to what you're talking about in a link? As far as I know weaponry was always long range- spears, bows etc that were designed to kill an animal from a safe distance. The sword only appears in the Bronze Age.

 

With regard to Ötzi's remains, the Copper Age (Chalcolithic) man from the Alps, well even a quick glance through Wiki should tell you that my argument still holds up:

 

High levels of both copper particles and arsenic were found in Ötzi's hair. This, along with Ötzi's copper axe which is 99.7% pure copper, has led scientists to speculate that Ötzi was involved in copper smelting.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman

 

He was one of the early people involved in trying to control the trade of copper in an age with no police force to protect him. From its very earliest days the concept of private property has created violence and competition in society.

 

PS. Thanks for a good discussion, you made some interesting points and didn't resort to ad hominem attacks and that makes you a great addition to the forum in my book

Edited May 7, 2011 by Cavegirl

[Mangoes 10]

ERM....is it compulsory that all posts on this thread consist of more than 1000 words?

[Cavegirl 10]

[

 

RESPONSE FROM HARLEYMAN

 

I'm assuming that means the the liberated people in such a Marxist Communistic state would be free to have a choice of alternative political parties when voting

 

Dont forget that "All power corrupts, absolute power completely"

 

Can I make it:

 

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but shared power, created through equality, corrupts nobody because they would be quickly squished by the rest of the group?

 

Hahaha

[Iuchi_Zien 10]

I still think you're misunderstanding me a little. I'm not arguing that humans are inherently 'good'. Humans are omnivores and as such are as capable of killing and violence as any other predator. I've raised the point previously of infanticide occuring in prehistoric human societies and I'm sure that murder, rape and other nasty acts occurred early societies. What I'm suggesting is only that we've developed from a cooperative society to a competetive society. I'm talking about mass social behaviour not individualistic behaviour. The society as a whole can still be cooperative even if a small minority engage in sporadic cases of violence. Modern society is competetive and violent.

 

I see no evidence of weaponry that was only designed to kill humans and not animals- perhaps you could point me to what you're talking about in a link? As far as I know weaponry was always long range- spears, bows etc that were designed to kill an animal from a safe distance. The sword only appears in the Bronze Age.

 

With regard to Ötzi's remains, the Copper Age (Chalcolithic) man from the Alps, well even a quick glance through Wiki should tell you that my argument still holds up:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman

 

He was one of the early people involved in trying to control the trade of copper in an age with no police force to protect him. From its very earliest days the concept of private property has created violence and competition in society.

 

I tend to be very wary of using Wiki as a source!

 

http://www.suite101.com/content/stone-age-weapons-a260919

 

Of particular importance is the use of Stone clubs. Spears/Bows/Knifes/Axes all have a use in hunting. Bearing in mind the risk of injury in closing to within range of an animals claws/teeth and that the result of that injury would be, almost certainly, fatal, added to which clubs are actually of little use whereas hunting, axes, blades serve much better for dispatching crippled/disabled prey, the conclusion I would draw is that clubs are an anti-personnel weapon. I may be in a minority in that view but....

[Iuchi_Zien 10]

Can I make it:

 

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but shared power, created through equality, corrupts nobody because they would be quickly squished by the rest of the group?

 

Hahaha

 

Like happened in Animal Farm? Shared power simply results in the power being concentrated in a minority, at the expense of the majority. Look how many democracies/republics have been subverted.