/dead/ - dead

>>966
I know there is some post-left stuff out there that rejects history and thinks notions of former being hold us back or some shit.
Then theres the anti-civ's and primitivists who basically hate all of history that followes the neolithic revolution as steps in the wrong direction.
Honestly, I just use it as escapism because the present SUCKS!

I think history is very important. If you don't study history, you wont be able to put your present conditions into any context, and so I think you'll be very likely to adopt many facets of the dominant ideology.

>Every great human being exerts a retroactive force: for his sake all of history is put on the scale again, and a thousand secrets of the past crawl out of their hiding places - into his sunshine. There is no telling what may yet become a part of history. Maybe the past is still essentially undiscovered! So many retroactive forces are still needed!
Friedrich Nietzsche, Gay Science, Book 1, 34

>There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism. And just as such a document is not free of barbarism, barbarism taints also the manner in which it was transmitted from one owner to another. A historical materialist therefore dissociates himself from it as far as possible. He regards it as his task to brush history against the grain.
Walter Benjamin, On the Concept of History, Thesis VII

>>981
What are you trying to say with this quotes, I don't get i?

>>986
History is alive. It is always being (re-)created in the here and now. As such we can construct our own history against the history of capital.

>>987
OK but 1) why should we? 2) how to actually go about it?

>>990
>2) how to actually go about it?
In my case it's by building sky castles in my head

>>966
History is massively important.
Our main project is the abolishment of hirarchy. That means the establishment of a social situation that is in nearly all ways different from our current position. Since what we ant to create has no existence in the present, there is nothing we can look for as far as guidance or an material outline of our goal goes. However, we also know that the hierarchy we are facing is (much like any condition or relation of existence or social order) not natural and consistent, but rather cultural and changing. We know that in past, humans were organised in social structures that were less hierarchical then our present modes.
The great importance of history here is finding out how that change from egalitarianism towards top-down class structures took place, why they did and how the people living back then recieve them. Obviously, since these processes took place long before the invention of written word or even history, this is a hard task. But it's our best chance if we wanna understand changes in modes of social structuring among humans.

>>972
history encourages me to make my times more interesting :)

>>1028
Can you recommend any works about this topic?

>>1048
if we talk about establishment of society/hierarchy i would suggest james c. scott's 'against the grain" and stuff by david graber

>>1049
this
i think anthropology and history is really important for knowing what types of societal relationships there have been, how stable they were, and their conditions, in order to know what we should be able to expect of the world in the future.
There's precedent for pretty unhierarchical societies among peoples that had direct access to their means of survival (abundant food, unbroken chains of traditional lifeways passed down, abundant shelter or good weather conditions). Sadly this is also exploitable, i think if history shows us anything it's that basically power begets power, and if surplus is able to be stored its able to be stolen or used beyond previous normal use (on this second point, e.g. building walls or lage ships out of your local forest rather than using it for housing your food/neighbors, fire wood, and shelter), and then those people can go on to take over more people and lands
The scariest actually is the fact that domesticated people can be a surplus in themselves, and so anywhere where people live even if not super rich in resources can be subject to the same logic as exploiting rich natural resources.
But on the flip side, we see in past societies how they resisted state formation and how states dissolve.

I really love especially in Against the Grain how it doesnt follow with the normal liberal or marxist logic of economy and government as separate things. Social structure, hierarchy, policing/control, and the flows of resources are totally intertwined and cant be talked about without each other. It also kind of demolishes in my mind (well im not new to this position but it adds more that e.g. AHAL couldnt, being not an actual detailed anthropological work) the categories that leftists see societies through. In early mesopotamian city states, there were sweat shops. There was dispossession of previously landed and free people. This sounds like how capitalism spread too. The lines are increasinly blurred to me. I think it's all really the same (again im not new to this position but you know sometimes a work just… solidifies something in a radical way), like its a simple formula, where what releases and puts to use energy is able to release and put to use more energy… the intricacies change, but the form and goal is always the same. People and land are subjugated in order for larger resource extraction to happen in an impersonal way. The original alienations come with the start of forced settlement and work in walled cities under rulers. The people working dont see the fruits of their labors for themselves, and the people reaping the reward dont work for it directly. The logic of Capital already flows through these conduits

>>1050
But how does this help us other than giving us some fuzzy warm feeling that people thousand of years ago had the same problems that we have today?

>>1095
&lti think anthropology and history is really important for knowing what types of societal relationships there have been, how stable they were, and their conditions, in order to know what we should be able to expect of the world in the future.
it gives precedent, its more data for social science in a way, it shows how people have been organized, the purpose or drive of that organization, the conflicts in it, and ways out or ways it was fought. It also shows that the struggle against concentration of wealth and power and the project of full extraction+commodification isnt new, its a fundamental trend in human societies, probably just because its successful. We're victims of repeat possession. Histories of past (and non-western) societies could give us information on how to exorcize or survive this demon, or if it can even be dealt with or just leaves on it's own. its all DATA
it shows how this thing we hate actually works and how low it can stoop, and again, how its been fought against and how those people lost or won, or found some equilibrium (like barbarians who were partly assimilated into the fold of early states, and also kept some autonomy and often acted as a meta-state, holding a sort of protection racket along with being trade partners. They didnt destroy the beast, they evolved and valued their survival and wealth over its destruction like a benign parisite/virus)
I think the goal for a successful modern fight against the algorithm of Capital is to be parisites to it, but suicidal ones. But thats just my belief
(sorry for repeating so much but i realized basically my first post already repeated itself a lot and you still asked for the answer i already gave clairvoyantly apparently)

I started reading the anti-grain book, it's actually pretty fascinating.

>>1128
the what now?

>>1129
against the grain, like >>1050 talked about


>>1128
i do have an audio-book version off audible. if there's interest I can upload it

Against the Grain was fascinating. It claims that population density was one of the decisive factors of the formulation of states and because of this, the early states were particularly concerned with keeping it high (by means of walls, slave trade, forced resettlements, etc.). Do you know any works that take a look at how populations were controlled, in this sense, through history? I tried searching for "population control" but that only turns up results for measures against overpopulation. I remembered the term "biopolitics" but apparently that is only concerned with modern techniques.

>>1130
doesnt audible have like weird drm shit? i remember trying to convert it to mp3 and having a time of it

>>1404
>doesnt audible have like weird drm shit?
what do you mean? sounds pretty clean to me.

>>1413
how are you listening to it, is it just mp3 or some audio file lke that?

>>1424
simple mp3

Bumping for more recommendations?

>>1622
currently reading a fun autobiography from this hobo/burglar. "You Can't Win"
does this count as history?
how i relate to it: gives me evil ideas

>>1625
>evil ideas
no such thing

>>1626
cuck

>>1632
back to your shithole >>>/leftypol/

>>1634
no
im /dead/ but fuck you evil is good and you cant take it from me

>>1645
cute

is historical materialism bullshit?

>>1741
naturally. read any book of anthropology written after ww2.

>>1742
>communism doesn't work because human nature
were they right all along?!

>>1745
whomstve are you quoting?
modern anthropology proves that neither class struggle nor economic determinism is the reality of primitive society

>>1746
it's kind of a meme. so how can communism work in such a scenario where people act for their own interests?

I'm afraid that the established narrative runs too deep in the general public (i mean the one about the emergence of the state) and mentioning the scott and graeber theories gets you the weird stares

>>1766
what was graeber's theory again? i don't remember him addressing this issue in the debt book