/lit/ - Literature

>>17088879
Impressive, if only he had mogged Darwin one book later also.

>>17088945
It was originally essays printed in an English perodical that later were collected into a book, and I believe it's an attempt to mog social darwinism which was a perversion of his theory to begin with. Sorry, I'm just too autistic to laugh at the joke

>>17088994
No problemo fren. I'm well aware it was more of an extension of Darwinism and a spit in the face of the bastardization of evolution by authoritarians.

>>17088879
Is that Vaush

Kropotkin's economics are objectively silly and unserious.
I don't really care about his politics; why is it that whenever there's a socialist of any kind, the only thing anyone can talk about is their socialism?

>>17088994

Social darwinism is true though. Conventionally healthy people with high iq and good vital signs ruthlessly dominate society and weak chinned pallid sickly incels get cast aside and crushed under heel. Every social order works this way. "Mutual aid" is just normies conspiring to keep the slaughter bench wet

>>17089137
Literally not that case in the slightest, most of the rich and powerful and retarded chinlets who are pathetic in every way possible.
>inb4 projecting
I know the type because I am the type (minus being a chinlet thank God).

>>17088879
No.

>>17089137
>Psychopaths with moderately high IQ and low empathy, throw competitors under the bus, and ruthlessly dominate 99% of the world

People with high IQ are often high middle class, professors or psychologists or lawyers. The upper class has lower IQ than them but still higher than the average. The only thing higher among them is rates of psychopathy. They're not dominating low IQ weak chins, they're exploiting everyone including you dummy.

>>17089137
Tis not. Neither is genetic determinism. You're the same kindbof wrong you faggots have always been. Stupidly wrong.

>>17089162
And then Deleuze and Guattari

>>17088879
Dude, what if we, like, just shared the food on our owwwwwwn, duuuuude

>>17089180
Why share food when you can just shoot the person with the food, and consume it for yourself?

>>17089168
>>17089150
>>17089169
nta, but didn't The Bell Curve specifically refute this concept? I don't know if it's such settled research that high iq is not correlated to wealth as you guys are making it out to be.

>>17089168

My view is that the inner nature of most people is essentially psychopathic ( dark ego drives ) and that people give moral narratives to themselves primarily to conform to social norms. And these moral narratives obfuscate the real nature of the social dynamics that normues participate in. The quality of their participation is largely nonrational and obscured from their own awareness. It all amounts to ruthless power exchanges where friendship is vague and highly contingent

>>17089200
It correlates to success defined by wealth at a rate of 0.3 which in science means the lowest possible correlation to technically still be considered a correlation. It's impossible to control for environment in these massive IQ studies, it's impossible to control for many other things. All they really prove is that certain groups are better at that particular test than others. I'm sure, you could think of very many reasons that may be other than race. Further, scientists havent found one single gene connected to both biological race and intelligence. They think there are around 1000 genes that play into forming intelligence.

There's too much variety and too many variances in environment and early childhood development to make these kind of sweeping generalizations. The Bell Curve isn't concrete science. It was never meant to be. The Mismeasure of Man refutes it pretty well, and now, there are several others. We're still very far from understanding the human brain to the degree that would be adequate for full on belief in genetic determinism. Just look into for yourself and see what you think is most likely. I'm of the opinion that both race and environment play nearly equal roles in developing intelligence. That you see those that are wealthy or well off with high IQ, illustrates to me that with wealth you can afford an environment more conducive to learning as well as better nutrition and healthier parental support. These have all been proven to play a role in "IQ" and we shouldn't forget that the number one indicator of future success is parents income.

>>17089256
I didn't mention race. I just said intelligence. Most of The Bell Curve isn't about race, it's just the parts about race were very controversial.
The Bell Curve is mainly focused on socio-economic status vs intelligence as a cause of economic success. They (very controversially) controlled for education in their study, which you seem to be making the main part of your objection to.
>i'm of the opinion that both race and environment play equal roles in developing intelligence
kek, this is literally Murray's claim. You've clearly never read the book. You should read the book before you try to criticize it.
>the main indicator of future wealth is parents' income
Yeah, you've clearly never read The Bell Curve. This is the specific claim which Murray argues against in his book (quite convincingly in my opinion, although perhaps it's more controversial than I think).
Why do you talk about it so confidently when you almost openly haven't read it? Do you think you're on reddit?

>>17089274
to it* in the first paragraph
openly haven't read* in the last

>>17089209
Cool view bro but baseless nevertheless. Differences in empathy is partly accounted for by Genetic differences. Some studies showing the differences accounted by Genes to be around 30%, others 50%, and others as high as 70%. Empathy is shared almost universally among people throughout all cultures and eras. It's so common that only a select few people don't experience it and they're classified as psychopaths. Autists also experience empathy to a lesser extent. Both Psychopathy and Autism are both genetic in origin. Additionally someone like me, who doesn't believe in any form of external morality, experience strong emotional responses of empathy. It's often subconscious and emotional not learned

>>17089199
So u get to extract some knowledge and experience out of him and then shoot him later

>>17089256
>we shouldn't forget that the number one indicator of future success is parents income
pic related

it's a blunt measure of intelligence and it works for what it is intended for. but nuance gets ignored so this is pointless i guess

>>17089199
Why did you put a picture of Stirner next that comment. Have you ever read him?

"I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them." -Max Stirner

>>17089274
Not at all fren. I've read the book. Simply, my original post said both Social Darwinism and genetic determinism were not "true" you responded with Da Bell Coive. So, I naturally assumed you had issue with my statement about genetic determinism, which is why I made it the focus of my response. I also didn't criticize The Bell Curve, only posited that it isnt concrete science. I understand Murrays claim, I happen to be of similar opinion, though I'm much less fatslistic about it than the conclusions he drew.

As for the question of generational wealth, it was hardly convincing next to the numbers. It's simple fact that being born with money leads to a higher probability that you will retain that wealth. I don't really feel the need to find a study at the moment, but I'm sure google would return something. I would bet money that being born wealthy correlates to later wealth at a much higher rate than 0.3(lol).

Not sure I appreciate how twisted your panties became. It's all good though. Think I'll go to bed now. Lmao.

>>17089256
IQ is in -adulthood- 0.80 hereditary.

IQ is a solid indicator of g and correlates to innumerable separate positive end results.

The basis for IQ as a decidedly useful stat to judge potential outcomes is incontestable; cherry picking statistics with a great deal of variability in specific individuals (wealth) is a dodge from viewing a longer lineage which corresponds far better to gravitating towards various means that can be predicted by IQ.

>>17089302
Yeah, it has its uses. It just seems with human populations there's an endless ammount of nuance.

Picrel is Talebs 0 correlation, but others have found. 0.3.

>>17089330
Most neuroscientists believe it's about 60% heritable on average. However, in an ideal environment the hereditability of the trait goes up. Think height in developed nations over time. As for how useful it is, I'm not entirely convinced. Seems there are too many outliers. Low IQ people that are extremely driven. High IQ who are lazy. Human thought and behavior is far more than just intelligence. Wealth isn't a dodge, it's a more important quality if the end you're aiming toward is financial success. Now, perhaps with a different end goal than permanent life wealth, then the utility of IQ may be greater.

>>17089376
Anyways, it's been fun, Im going to bed though. Didn't mean to turn a Kropotkin thread into some tangential neuroscience debate, so I'm out.

>>17089376
I agree, even if it is predictive of future wealth, why the hell would that matter? I'm not sure it would except in some sort of wanking contest.

>>17089376
Nutritional deficiencies have most certainly peaked as can be seen on any graph depicting average height, 100% in the rich world and is practically there in the developing world (barring africa ha).

>Drive
A meme, which is to say; It's genetic. Drive is very clearly something that isn't worked for, spurred on by parents of any other such dodge. Newton could live and die in a hovel, why? If you really think about it there's no really feasible alternative but "He had a disposition for being alone and motivated, with, some autism thrown in." Is drive a vital piece of the "Success" sauce? Off course; but give me the IQ any day. Smart and lazy>Driven and dull. Wealth is a individual aspect, a snapshot taken of an entire lineage. A inherited estate would throw it completely off; what we're looking for is a reliable 'tell' of the capacity to REMAKE fortunes.

Good night anon.

>>17089392
>why does wealth matter?
Wealth is, invariably, the single greatest and easiest way to buy one's way into the big leagues, into the top of the bracket, the ones setting the rules.

Once there you retain an immense advantage and an infinite capacity for ensuring that your progeny remain in this upper strata. Remember, if IQ is ANY good measure for g (which it is) and general intelligence has ANY bearing on the ability to succeed (it has), then we are rapidly heading to a psuedo-caste system of the kind impossible to imagine without both wealth AND the intellect - capable of creating and maintaining that wealth - being in the main, hereditary.

If this doesn't terrify you you have either been far luckier that I in the genetic lottery, or, you simply haven't thought it through; there is a third option but I'm too kind to say it.

>>17088879
You cannot sustain current population and technological levels by going back to hunter-gatherer's economic system (it might have been better than what Russian and Soviet people experienced mind you - but we can do better still).
We've build our civilizations only after discovering private property rights; the problem is that historically they were NOT being commonly enforced. Property rightfully belongs to it's specific producer and otherwise can only be acquired by voluntary transactions, gifts or homesteading. Slavery, servitude, taxation, economic monopolies (like exclusive rights granted by the state to guilds, individual merchants, landlords or cartels - like currently the banking cartel) - all this are just violations of property rights.
We should not discard the private property concept altogether - we should fucking *enforce* it at last.

>>17089256
>It correlates to success defined by wealth at a rate of 0.3
I can see that mostly being true. Wealth has alot to due with randomness. It was pretty much arbitrary that Amazon succeeded and other early online marketplaces didn't. But wealth and income are different things. Income correlates much more heavily with IQ. This video does a good job kinda explaining this topic https://www.bitchute.com/video/QPCVGr76VME/

>it's impossible to control for environment in these massive IQ studies
Dude twin studies, both reared apart and reared together, shows the heritability of IQ is around 80%, this isnt debated. Here's another video by the same guy explaining quantitative genetics,
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7367vdii2Js/

>Further, scientists havent found one single gene connected to both biological race and intelligence.
Yeah because genes don't differ among races, alles do. The same guy made a video on this. https://youtu.be/LojCKDx7-2Q
I swear I'm not a shill for him, he just made a good response to every point you made.

>>17089256
>>17089493
For the second video I recommenced on Twin studies, this is a better video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/w3y2SDpIEhE/

>>17089458
>You cannot sustain current population and technological levels by going back to hunter-gatherer's economic system
Screw the current world population. The world is too overpopulated. I hope that with the spread of family planning, the world population starts ti decrease.

>We've build our civilizations only after discovering private property rights; the problem is that historically they were NOT being commonly enforced. Property rightfully belongs to it's specific producer and otherwise can only be acquired by voluntary transactions, gifts or homesteading. Slavery, servitude, taxation, economic monopolies (like exclusive rights granted by the state to guilds, individual merchants, landlords or cartels - like currently the banking cartel) - all this are just violations of property rights.
We should not discard the private property concept altogether - we should fucking *enforce* it at last.

Kinda Based, read Proudhon's 'What is Property?" if you haven't already. He draws a distinction between State enforced property and possession, or usufruct. But speaking on you mentioning servitude being exploitation of property, would you apply that to wage slavery as well?

>>17089594
>But speaking on you mentioning servitude being exploitation of property, would you apply that to wage slavery as well?
No.
Keep in mind that work is obligatory both in theory and in practice in collectivist systems (it was in the Soviet Bloc). So, literal forced labor under the conditions unilaterally set by the central authority is not "slavery" for modern leftists, but voluntary contracts under mutually agreed conditions with (the possibility) of choosing your employer or quitting at any time is.

>>17089137
lol retard

>>17089256
>It correlates to success defined by wealth at a rate of 0.3 which in science means the lowest possible correlation to technically still be considered a correlation.
It's not, it's just a weak correlation. Wether the correlation is accepted as likely to be significative is a function of p, not r.

>>17089256
>the number one indicator of future success is parents income.
Smart parents tend to have smart children. Besides IQ, personality is also strongly predicted by genes as per twin studies' results (identical twins are more than twice similar, personality-wise, than fraternal twins).

>>17089137
Individualistic social darwinism is capitalist apologism. Kropotkin is right, there is often cooperation and altruism, but there is definitely also struggle and selection between groups and within groups. This is what people like Ernst Haeckel, Oka Asajiro and many others said in the 19th and 20th centuries

>>17088879
>debunks anarchism
Sorry bro

>>17088879
Childish idealism. Anarchism is such a cringe ideology, your society wouldn't last a month. You're worse than Marxists.

Is there literature on how anarchists would prevent capture of their society by states? If you set up some sort of closed system that is merely self-sustaining without any stratification or surplus then you are essentially relying on the good will of neighboring peoples and places to leave you alone, since if they decide to come after you, your headless society will probably fare poorly. In fact, what would stop this outside force from striking a deal with a segment of the anarchists to proxy-rule the other anarchists in exchange for guaranteeing their authority? Anarchism seems to just rewind civilization and assume it will not roll forward. No matter how unethical you think the state is, how do you prevent the state from assembling itself? Inb4 Anti-Oedipus

>>17090066

> So, literal forced labor under the conditions unilaterally set by the central authority is not "slavery" for modern leftists
Idk why you are grouping together authoritarian and libertarian socialists together in the same boat. Most Anarchists believe the Soviet Model was State Capitalism. It was a worse form of capitalism than the liberal democratic capitalism of the west. Instead of capital being concentrated in the hands of a few corporations that rule over the state and are run by a small capitalist elite, capital is entirely concentrated within the State run by a small bureaucratic party elite.

>voluntary contracts under mutually agreed conditions with (the possibility) of choosing your employer or quitting at any time is.
These contacts arent voluntary if you starve or sink into poverty if you don't sign it. The conditions, although can call them mutually agreeable, are completely one sided because of the weak bargaining power of labor. And how much people really have the chance to leave their current job?

I used to be a pro-welfare capitalist until I actually grasped what wage slavery means. It means selling 1/3rd of your life to an employer, during which he has authority over you, while you make him profit. This is a relatively new concept, for most of history, artisans would have been self employed and owned their own labour. When the industrial revolution first occurred in the west, men sent their daughters off to work in the factories first because they refused to proletarize themselves. You don't really understand its problems if you don't know the alternative, worker's cooperatives exist, where people work for themselves rather than someone else, and they work just as well as privately owned corporations.

A helpful comparison I found was comparing modern day wage slavery to serfdom. Most peasants worked the land of their lords, were under his authority, and the lord's wealth were made off their exploited surplus produce. Most peasants, if they had the right to leave, had no other alternative because all the land was owned by the lords. For them, it was work for the lord or starve. Contrast European serfdom to farming in the US. Most people in the US before the late 19th century were farmers but they didn't work for someone else. They owned their own land and worked for themselves, they had control over their livelihoods and kept their entire product. We are living in a period similar to serfdom because the vast majority of people have no choice but to sell their time, and control over themselves during that time, to capitalists who are unnecessary and make their wealth of surplus labour. Most people can't leave this system because most capital is owned by capitalists.

>>17091131
>debunks Anarchists be killing them all, ending an actual stateless worker run society in Ukraine, and then instituting an oppressive state

>>17091223
A system of confederated militias would be used to protect an Anarchist society. Additionally Anarchism would only work if the people wanted it so if there was any attempt to reinstitute the State, either internally or externally, they would resist through massive strikes and militia action.

>>17089137
#mentalidaddetiburon

>>17090066
>voluntary contracts under mutually agreed conditions with (the possibility) of choosing your employer or quitting at any time is.

>>17091875
these arguments are very banal

>>17091921
So you would basically need the average person to be highly committed to anarchism? Because otherwise the militias can just be used for state formation and then turned against anarchists on behalf of statists, provided it was made worthwhile for the militia. How would one cultivate a large enough population that fanatically disinterested in power?

>>17092148
Thanks for the refutation dude
>>17092216
Well first off, the Militias themselves would be committed to Anarchism and would be run bottom up. We have historical examples of Anarchist Militias such as the FAI in Spain during the Spanish Revolution, the Black Army in Ukraine during the Russian Civil War, and the modern day Zapitastas in Mexico and the Syrian Democratic Forces in Rojava.

>So you would basically need the average person to be highly committed to anarchism?
Yes, but that's just necessary for an Anarchist society in general. Anarchism can't be forced top-down by an armed minority, because the people would immediately just recreate the State because that's what they're used to. Anarchism values individual autonomy and group initiative,

>How would one cultivate a large enough population that fanatically disinterested in power?
Well the vast majority of people aren't in power in the current hierarchies. A population that is interested in Autonomy and Freedom from the power of a small elite would need to be cultivated. It has happened before in Spain, in Ukraine. in parts of Mexico, and right now in parts of Syria. I believe all Humans respect their own autonomy and the autonomy of others, it's just that they are so used to this social structure that they can't even imagine things can be different

>>17093604
From what you are saying it seems anarchism is historically conditioned by periods of exhaustion of central military authority, as during civil wars or invasions. This would make it a transitory period between states exercising sovereign power. In other words for anarchism to be appealing enough for public support the state has to be largely destroyed by an external situation or by some internal political shattering (which always has external influences eventually if not initially). Thus anarchists cannot actually bring down the state but merely attempt to plug its vacuum. Unless we can show otherwise anarchism is more of an ethics than a political praxis.

>>17093687
yes you're correct in saying most Anarchist societies were created in political vacuums, but this isn't to say this is the only way for Anarchist societies to form. I don't see ant reason why an Anarchist social revolution can not take place. These historical examples serve to show that Anarchism is possible in practice not that it must be developed in the same exact way

>>17089200
The bell curve is not good scientific basis, lol

>>17094902
Don't get him started again, he got utterly mogged earlier ITT but is a poor philosopher and thinks he didn't