What do you do to your capitalists and intellectuals?

[Beth Gellert]

If all of your population are Capitalists, then none of them are, and we in the Commonwealth support your public ownership of the means of production.

-Sopworth ApGraeme, Secretary of the Central Committee of the League of Igovian Communists

[Novus Niciae]

-epic quote pyramid-

OOC: Why does every F&NI thread that has something to do with capitalism or communism devolve into a huge argument?

Because communism is inherently a silly, silly idea

Communism was a highly successful idea for thousands of years. It works well in small-scale agricultural societies, where it means clan ownership of land. What is not clear is how it would would work in a large-scale industrial (or industrializing) society.

Historically, these larger societies began to develop only after the small-scale collectivistic ag. societies were conquered and converted into feudal societies, in which the land belonged to a hierarchical military elite and decision processes were sped up from the small-scale consensus model to the warlord model. The hierarchical corporate structures of industrial capitalist societies are derived from these military hierarchies. You need these faster decision making processes in a society devoted to war and conquest. You also need them in a society devoted to economic competition. You don't need them in a small, seasonally-paced ag. society.

One of the things that intrigues me about NS is whether a small ag society such as Mama Chola can be turned into a high tech one while retaining things like collective ownership of land and consensus government. My guess is that the game model will not allow it, because everybody apparently has the same population growth rate -- which is altogether wrong demographically, but I can see why it was done that way. This forces everybody eventually to have an unsustainable ecological footprint and to use intensive, high-energy-consumption technologies just to survive... and that in turn, in a finite resource base, forces competition and favors shortened, hierarchical, decision making processes over network processes (i.e. less democracy). Population pressure is always the main driver of history in growth models.

But not all real populations grow at the same rate. It is quite possible for a society to adjust its growth rate to maintain ecological sustainability if its culture makes that a top priority. A culture devoted to producing lots of cannon fodder will not make it a high priority, which is why those cultures create empires that leave desserts behind them after they have perished. This is probably also going to turn out to be true for industrial cultures that see the planet only as a source of profit.

Mama Chola solves the population growth problem by placing all resources in the hands of those who use them directly for childbearing and childrearing. This means that her decisions about how many children to have are uninfluenced by any factors other than what sort of life she can make for her family given the available natural resources. She does not need the approval of men who want sons or patriarchal religions that tell her to obey men. She need only consider the land and her (and her sisters') children. States such as Kerala in southern India, where the traditional property institutions are matriarchal, demonstrate that population growth remains ecologically sustainable under these conditions. Kerala is in many ways a real-world Mama Chola... (Or have I got that backwards?)

Most "communist" nations of the world are not communist at all, they are thinly disguised oligarchies or dictatorships that merely use communism as a cover to keep the population in line. (OOC: this applies to RL and in game)

[Aridiya]

Our capitalists and intellectuals, generally, create wealth and technology for the rest of the population and themselves.

[Sucrati]

We praise capitalism and intellectuals, if we didn't have them, things would be anarchy!

[Volnotov]

We praise capitalism and intellectuals, if we didn't have them, things would be anarchy!

The State of Volnotov is anarcho-capitalist and is succesfuly run by a large group of massive and powerful conglomerates and corporations.

anarchies can be very organised

[The Adrian Empire]

If all of your population are Capitalists, then none of them are, and we in the Commonwealth support your public ownership of the means of production.

-Sopworth ApGraeme, Secretary of the Central Committee of the League of Igovian Communists

OOC:
Does not compute?


IC: I do hope you aren't referring to the entirely fallacious belief that in order for one person to be rich another must be logically poor. Also known as the zero-sum fallacy. Today's society is richer then society a three hundred years ago at every level, both rich and poor are better off even with additional population. Such beliefs are antiquated and deny all reason.

~Pro Qua Illic Est Venalicium Illic Est Pacis, Consul Marcus Antillius Kaine

Communism was a highly successful idea for thousands of years. It works well in small-scale agricultural societies, where it means clan ownership of land. What is not clear is how it would would work in a large-scale industrial (or industrializing) society.

Historically, these larger societies began to develop only after the small-scale collectivistic ag. societies were conquered and converted into feudal societies, in which the land belonged to a hierarchical military elite and decision processes were sped up from the small-scale consensus model to the warlord model. The hierarchical corporate structures of industrial capitalist societies are derived from these military hierarchies. You need these faster decision making processes in a society devoted to war and conquest. You also need them in a society devoted to economic competition. You don't need them in a small, seasonally-paced ag. society.

One of the things that intrigues me about NS is whether a small ag society such as Mama Chola can be turned into a high tech one while retaining things like collective ownership of land and consensus government. My guess is that the game model will not allow it, because everybody apparently has the same population growth rate -- which is altogether wrong demographically, but I can see why it was done that way. This forces everybody eventually to have an unsustainable ecological footprint and to use intensive, high-energy-consumption technologies just to survive... and that in turn, in a finite resource base, forces competition and favors shortened, hierarchical, decision making processes over network processes (i.e. less democracy). Population pressure is always the main driver of history in growth models.

Collectivist societies, as you mentioned tend to be conquered when in contact with hierarchial, aggressive societies. From a Darwinian perspective the Collectivist model would be unfit and inferior. The additional reason on why Hierarchial fedualist societies have been socially advanced is through the concentration of wealth. By concentrating wealth the elite no longer need to worry about survival and can devote themselves to more academic pursuits or make large investments in the interests of gaining more wealth (Or just large monuments to their ego, which nevertheless create employment opportunities and allow architects to prosper). Collectivism fails to harness the most powerful forces a human has, greed and ambition.

The primary differance in NS compared to RL is that there are infinite resources, ecological factors and inexistant unless someone wants them to exist. The only true limit being population, which nevertheless goes into the several billions.

As usual Nick you have managed to both sound completely evil and be completely right.

[The Grand World Order]

We ignore Capitalists. Usually they're too busy conducting their business (with the government watching them to make sure they don't intentionally fuck up the economy for profit) to care, though.

As for intellectuals, they're the ones running the country, so...

[Mama Chola]

Communism was a highly successful idea for thousands of years. It works well in small-scale agricultural societies, where it means clan ownership of land. What is not clear is how it would would work in a large-scale industrial (or industrializing) society.

Historically, these larger societies began to develop only after the small-scale collectivistic ag. societies were conquered and converted into feudal societies, in which the land belonged to a hierarchical military elite and decision processes were sped up from the small-scale consensus model to the warlord model. The hierarchical corporate structures of industrial capitalist societies are derived from these military hierarchies. You need these faster decision making processes in a society devoted to war and conquest. You also need them in a society devoted to economic competition. You don't need them in a small, seasonally-paced ag. society.

One of the things that intrigues me about NS is whether a small ag society such as Mama Chola can be turned into a high tech one while retaining things like collective ownership of land and consensus government. My guess is that the game model will not allow it, because everybody apparently has the same population growth rate -- which is altogether wrong demographically, but I can see why it was done that way. This forces everybody eventually to have an unsustainable ecological footprint and to use intensive, high-energy-consumption technologies just to survive... and that in turn, in a finite resource base, forces competition and favors shortened, hierarchical, decision making processes over network processes (i.e. less democracy). Population pressure is always the main driver of history in growth models.

Collectivist societies, as you mentioned tend to be conquered when in contact with hierarchial, aggressive societies. From a Darwinian perspective the Collectivist model would be unfit and inferior. The additional reason on why Hierarchial fedualist societies have been socially advanced is through the concentration of wealth. By concentrating wealth the elite no longer need to worry about survival and can devote themselves to more academic pursuits or make large investments in the interests of gaining more wealth (Or just large monuments to their ego, which nevertheless create employment opportunities and allow architects to prosper). Collectivism fails to harness the most powerful forces a human has, greed and ambition.

The primary differance in NS compared to RL is that there are infinite resources, ecological factors and inexistant unless someone wants them to exist. The only true limit being population, which nevertheless goes into the several billions.

From a Darwinian perspective, a trait can be adaptive in one environment and maladaptive in another; it makes no sense to speak of "unfit and inferior" in absolute terms. (This is a bit of a simplification; for a fuller discussion I would need to explain mutation-selection equilibrium. But if a trait is not extremely rare, there must be, or recently have been, environments in which it was adaptive)

In an environment without militarized neighbors (and still speaking here of smaller-scale societies), agricultural collectivism is adaptive enough to have been common for thousands of years during the Neolithic. Some of these societies were able to support regional populations in the low tens of thousands -- comparable to or larger than Periclean Athens -- with little evidence for social hierarchy.

The belief that only the conquering warlords can have enough to survive and develop an advanced culture is partly self-fulfilling prophecy -- since the warlords create the poverty of those they conquer -- and self-congratulatory rewriting of history by the descendants of warlords -- since often a conquered culture is more sophisticated than that of the conquerors, who may well be transformed by what they have conquered. E.g., the ceramic material culture of Neolithic European ag. cultures, and their larger scale settlements, reveals that they were far more advanced than the Indo-European speaking invaders who conquered them; likewise, Minoan Crete had a far more advanced culture (e.g. sewers and indoor plumbing) than their Bronze Age Achaean conquerors.

And finally, the notion that "the most powerful forces a human has" are "greed and ambition" frankly strikes me as both a culture bound and a gender bound perception.

[Beth Gellert]

OOC:
Does not compute?

(OOC: Comrade Secretary Sopworth ApGraeme's view over-simplified: a Capitalist is one who owns Capital, id est the means of production. If everyone in a population is a Capitalist, everyone owns Capital. If the means of production are so shared by the entire sovereign body of the populace, oh hai, is Communism! If on the other hand you say, 'I'm a Capitalist!' but you don't own Capital and still have to work it, you would be regarded as a pawn, a tame running dog to your Capitalist master. Depending on your particular context the League of Igovian Communists would either blame the system that raised you, for keeping you dumb, and aim at your re-education after said system's destruction; or accuse you a Class Enemy and aim at your premature demise.)

[The Adrian Empire]

OOC:
Does not compute?

(OOC: Comrade Secretary Sopworth ApGraeme's view over-simplified: a Capitalist is one who owns Capital, id est the means of production. If everyone in a population is a Capitalist, everyone owns Capital. If the means of production are so shared by the entire sovereign body of the populace, oh hai, is Communism! If on the other hand you say, 'I'm a Capitalist!' but you don't own Capital and still have to work it, you would be regarded as a pawn, a tame running dog to your Capitalist master. Depending on your particular context the League of Igovian Communists would either blame the system that raised you, for keeping you dumb, and aim at your re-education after said system's destruction; or accuse you a Class Enemy and aim at your premature demise.)

OOC: Then we have seriously different definitions of capitalism and communism, if every person owns their own personal means of production it is still capitalism, because it is not shared it is held privately by each individual. You would be right if you said that a society in which every person owns their own personal means of production would not be the logical result of capitalism except logically in the sense that every person could turn their capital into the means for production, but it would still be capitalism nonetheless. Simplified, you would be right in saying that capitalism does not logically result in every person owning a business but not in the sense that every person would be capable of starting one which is a logical result. Capitalism merely requires the private ownership of property, to what precise number of people own property is irrelevant, so long as all person own their property as individuals.

You can be a capitalist by ideology without necessarily owning any property or capital. There is no apparent hypocrisy in being a homeless capitalist, as opposed to a rich communist. To believe that other people have to right to own these regardless of whether you own anything is absolutely acceptable, to believe that every person should share ownership whilst having capital held in private is however hypocrisy. Capitalism has greatly increased the luxury, and health of the general society property owners or not, to believe in something which has benefited you is not to be a lacky to it.

In an environment without militarized neighbors (and still speaking here of smaller-scale societies), agricultural collectivism is adaptive enough to have been common for thousands of years during the Neolithic. Some of these societies were able to support regional populations in the low tens of thousands -- comparable to or larger than Periclean Athens -- with little evidence for social hierarchy.

Erehm rather no, Athens had a population of 300,000 or more under Pericles in just the very small Attica region. Even small Grecian cities easily out-populated entire regions of early neolithic communes, not to mention grew much older and lived much more opulent lifestyles then them. Rome later had a population of 2 million under Augustus.

Agricultural collectivism was demanded because of the harsh conditions of the Neolithic, people will share resources when it is necessary for the survival of the society at large, but in times of surplus are always keen to hoard, that the Neolithic had collectivist principles merely demostrates how greatly at peril their society was with every season. That we moved beyond having to sacrifice our individual drives for basic survival in society should be celebrated, primitive collectivism is not something to be desired and was only followed because of lack of alternatives, the rise of individualism which brought about specialization marks the entrance into civilization.

[Satirius]

WE KILL THEM ALL FOR THE GLORY OF LEAN PRODUCTION o/o/o/o/o/o/o/o/o/

[Mama Chola]

If all of your population are Capitalists, then none of them are, and we in the Commonwealth support your public ownership of the means of production.


As usual Nick you have managed to both sound completely evil and be completely right.

I've been watching little boys play on the Internet ever since their only playground was Usenet -- and all I can do is yawn when I see yet another little boy whose epistemology revolves around the masculated need to portray himself as mentally tough.

Show me a boy whose epistemology is not structured entirely by male gender obligations; now that would be truly unusual!

[Saurisia]

If all of your population are Capitalists, then none of them are, and we in the Commonwealth support your public ownership of the means of production.


As usual Nick you have managed to both sound completely evil and be completely right.

I've been watching little boys play on the Internet ever since their only playground was Usenet -- and all I can do is yawn when I see yet another little boy whose epistemology revolves around the masculated need to portray himself as mentally tough.

Show me a boy whose epistemology is not structured entirely by male gender obligations; now that would be truly unusual!

What are you yapping about?

[The Adrian Empire]

If all of your population are Capitalists, then none of them are, and we in the Commonwealth support your public ownership of the means of production.


As usual Nick you have managed to both sound completely evil and be completely right.

I've been watching little boys play on the Internet ever since their only playground was Usenet -- and all I can do is yawn when I see yet another little boy whose epistemology revolves around the masculated need to portray himself as mentally tough.

Show me a boy whose epistemology is not structured entirely by male gender obligations; now that would be truly unusual!

Could you please explain ma'am, you have not clearly demonstrated what you are referring to? I would prefer if you didn't refer to me as a little boy, at precisely which point did I either make apparent my gender or display categorically masculine tendencies, Ayn Rand was a capitalist, no less a woman. Frankly I find your entire commentary both insulting and vaguely sexist.

Also you misquoted me there, as well as Beth Gellert, which renders much of this incomprehensible.

[Mama Chola]

-epic quote pyramid-

OOC: Why does every F&NI thread that has something to do with capitalism or communism devolve into a huge argument?

Most "communist" nations of the world are not communist at all, they are thinly disguised oligarchies or dictatorships that merely use communism as a cover to keep the population in line. (OOC: this applies to RL and in game)

This is true in the modern RL world, but I would argue that that the RL capitialist societies are also thinly disguised plutocratic oligarcharies.

We (or some of us) wonder why, now that the US has a purportedly left-wing president, he doesn't act more forcefully for the reforms he was supposedly elected to produce? E.g. Where did the public option go? Didn't he raise all his campaign money from small Internet contributors, precisely so that he wouldn't be indebted to special interest money?

The answer is: no he didn't. He raised a lot of money from small contributors. He also raised a huge amount of money from all the usual suspects. And he made promises to the usual suspects, including a promise that there would be no public option in the Health Care bill that he would sign. He has been keeping his promises to his big contributors at least as well as he has been to his small ones.

And that (supposed) rationale? You can't get elected POTUS if you don't do this. I.e. this is the best we can have, given that the real power is a plutocratic oligarchy. You get to choose between a party which is wholly owned by the plutocracy, and one which is three-quarters owned by the plutocracy.

Welcome to industrial capitalism

As for the communist or collectivist societies I was discussing, I deliberately restricted my comments to small-scale agrarian societies (which were the model Engels was looking at). In these societies, contrary to Engels' belief that there were no property institutions, there are in fact property institutions -- but they are clan based rather than individual, and are commonly matrilineal. What was lacking were patriarchal properties institutions.

This all make excellent sense from a Darwinian point of view. The original adaptive purpose of property is the human equivalent of nesting habitat: it's a place for women to raise children. This has always been a more settled activity than big game hunting, with the result that in pre-ag cultures, women tend to move around less than men and rely more on local plant resources and small game. Humans originally practiced cooperative childrearing via extended kin systems; after the advent of Neolithic agriculture and settlement, matriarchal property patterns for land reflected this and the need to move around when local resources had become exhausted vanished altogether. The settled land belonged to the women because they settled it and stayed on it. Men continued to be more mobile, and did not necessarily become farmers as early as the women did; there are still places where ag is a predominately female activity.

By contrast, patriarchal warrior societies are specialized not for ease of childrearing and food production, but for conquest. They were probably descended from hunting societies that lived in areas where climate change messed up their big game hunting and ag was not possible or not sufficient by itself, so they took to raiding, and this lead them down a path of specialization for warfare. They eventually became parasitic upon conquered "serfs" who provided them food to support their armies and conquests. [The warrior societies that didn't avail themselves of this food supply got eaten up by those who did.

It's all Darwinian, to be sure, but there isn't much of a straightforward lesson in there in favor of conquerors. If anything, it looks more akin to cellular symbiosis, in which more complex cells or societies arise from the amalgamation -- and transformation -- of simpler components.

[Satirius]

[Mama Chola]

As usual Nick you have managed to both sound completely evil and be completely right.

I've been watching little boys play on the Internet ever since their only playground was Usenet -- and all I can do is yawn when I see yet another little boy whose epistemology revolves around the masculated need to portray himself as mentally tough.

Show me a boy whose epistemology is not structured entirely by male gender obligations; now that would be truly unusual!

Could you please explain ma'am, you have not clearly demonstrated what you are referring to? I would prefer if you didn't refer to me as a little boy, at precisely which point did I either make apparent my gender or display categorically masculine tendencies, Ayn Rand was a capitalist, no less a woman. Frankly I find your entire commentary both insulting and vaguely sexist.

Ah, the joys of threaded newsreaders...

If the shoe fits... I was kibbitzing your comment to Nick, referring to the position he had taken (re: "greed and ambition") with which you apparently agree.

As for Ayn Rand... one outlier does not overthrow a statistical norm. If "greed and ambition" were the main human motivation, neither of you boys would likely exist -- since rather few mothers raise children out of these motives. Nor would either of you speak or write any human language -- since the cooperative childrearing matrix that lead to human sociality and language could never have evolved.

What you (plural, it would seem) really mean is that you believe these ought to be the main motivations in yourselves, and you feel that your identity is somehow threatened if someone else does not have similar motivations.

But I'm sure you don't have a clue as to why you believe this, because masculated epistemology doesn't promote that sort of self-analysis.

[Mama Chola]

If all of your population are Capitalists, then none of them are, and we in the Commonwealth support your public ownership of the means of production.


As usual Nick you have managed to both sound completely evil and be completely right.

I've been watching little boys play on the Internet ever since their only playground was Usenet -- and all I can do is yawn when I see yet another little boy whose epistemology revolves around the masculated need to portray himself as mentally tough.

Show me a boy whose epistemology is not structured entirely by male gender obligations; now that would be truly unusual!

What are you yapping about?

Oh, just second wave radical feminist stuff...

Possibly this now stigmatizes me as even more of a dinosaur than you are... But that will never stop me from roaring!

[Beth Gellert]

OOC: Then we have seriously different definitions of capitalism and communism, if every person owns their own personal means of production it is still capitalism, because it is not shared it is held privately by each individual. You would be right if you said that a society in which every person owns their own personal means of production would not be the logical result of capitalism except logically in the sense that every person could turn their capital into the means for production, but it would still be capitalism nonetheless. Simplified, you would be right in saying that capitalism does not logically result in every person owning a business but not in the sense that every person would be capable of starting one which is a logical result. Capitalism merely requires the private ownership of property, to what precise number of people own property is irrelevant, so long as all person own their property as individuals.

You can be a capitalist by ideology without necessarily owning any property or capital. There is no apparent hypocrisy in being a homeless capitalist, as opposed to a rich communist. To believe that other people have to right to own these regardless of whether you own anything is absolutely acceptable, to believe that every person should share ownership whilst having capital held in private is however hypocrisy. Capitalism has greatly increased the luxury, and health of the general society property owners or not, to believe in something which has benefited you is not to be a lacky to it.

(OOC: Well, that's possibly taking Sopworth's one-liner a bit too literally. If everyone owns a spinning wheel or a couple of chickens and that's all the country has, the League of Igovian Communists isn't particularly interested in its ideological position, and Sopworth's comment doesn't really cover all this. As you say, "Capitalism merely requires the private ownership of property", which ApGraeme did not mean to dispute. Putting aside the unrealistic or else likely pre-industrial nation in which everyone has their own privately held means of production, he was just glibly suggesting that if the means of production belongs to everyone... well, you probably get where that's going. Not too be taken too seriously : )
On your last paragraph, I'm not really here to get into that, seems more of a General topic, which Sopworth would argue if he were real, getting a bit removed from the IC contribution I wanted to clarify, so I'll leave it there.
And I still have no idea what Mama Chola's on about, or whether it's related to what anybody does with their Capitalists and Intellectuals.)

[Mama Chola]

Erehm rather no, Athens had a population of 300,000 or more under Pericles in just the very small Attica region. Even small Grecian cities easily out-populated entire regions of early neolithic communes, not to mention grew much older and lived much more opulent lifestyles then them. Rome later had a population of 2 million under Augustus.

I think this may be right, including the population of the agricultural hinterland, which is the correct comparison. I believe my recollection of ca 10,000 was an only estimate for the population of the city itself.

Agricultural collectivism was demanded because of the harsh conditions of the Neolithic, people will share resources when it is necessary for the survival of the society at large, but in times of surplus are always keen to hoard, that the Neolithic had collectivist principles merely demostrates how greatly at peril their society was with every season. That we moved beyond having to sacrifice our individual drives for basic survival in society should be celebrated, primitive collectivism is not something to be desired and was only followed because of lack of alternatives, the rise of individualism which brought about specialization marks the entrance into civilization.

This is a truly wonderful expression of deep and unquestioning Faith in the masculated view of life!

Nothing anyone could say will ever budge this sort of Faith, because it is derived from a anti-nurturant gendered identity implanted in boys in early childhood; to give it up would feel to them like ceasing exist.

[Mama Chola]

There is really only one comment here that badly needs an answer:

What other force is there beyond mere survival?

You poor creature... have you never heard of love?

When I said that male gender identity is derived from an anti-nurturant implant, this is exactly what I was talking about.

[Now we will have to hear all about how love is just survival, instinct, etc. It's an obligatory apotropaic male ritual ]

[The Adrian Empire]

As usual Nick you have managed to both sound completely evil and be completely right.

I've been watching little boys play on the Internet ever since their only playground was Usenet -- and all I can do is yawn when I see yet another little boy whose epistemology revolves around the masculated need to portray himself as mentally tough.

Show me a boy whose epistemology is not structured entirely by male gender obligations; now that would be truly unusual!

Could you please explain ma'am, you have not clearly demonstrated what you are referring to? I would prefer if you didn't refer to me as a little boy, at precisely which point did I either make apparent my gender or display categorically masculine tendencies, Ayn Rand was a capitalist, no less a woman. Frankly I find your entire commentary both insulting and vaguely sexist.

Ah, the joys of threaded newsreaders...

If the shoe fits... I was kibbitzing your comment to Nick, referring to the position he had taken (re: "greed and ambition") with which you apparently agree.

As for Ayn Rand... one outlier does not overthrow a statistical norm. If "greed and ambition" were the main human motivation, neither of you boys would likely exist -- since rather few mothers raise children out of these motives. Nor would either of you speak or write any human language -- since the cooperative childrearing matrix that lead to human sociality and language could never have evolved.

What you (plural, it would seem) really mean is that you believe these ought to be the main motivations in yourselves, and you feel that your identity is somehow threatened if someone else does not have similar motivations.

But I'm sure you don't have a clue as to why you believe this, because masculated epistemology doesn't promote that sort of self-analysis.

Frankly an over analysis, I should have clarified I admit, greed is not the main human motivation but self-interest certainly is, don't misunderstand self-interest is not always individualism, in times of crisis such as in early primitive communes where the people lived perilously between nature and death one's self-interest is to band together, but in our modern world of plenty, self-interest is the most important driver of the self and self-interest drives us to capitalism and advancement.

You would be wrong if you said I would feel threatened by more community minded individuals, while I question their logic, they are ultimately important players in society, someone needs to cater to the poor and unfortunate. Though the self-interested has a much a motivator to cater to them as any else, to self-sacrifice is not always a negative thing.

In fact you would be wrong if you said that I was even saying that my prime motivator was greed, I am frequently charitable actually, even sometimes to my detriment, however I am by nature self-interested and motivate myself in the same ways.

But thank you for insulting my intelligence and judging me on the basis of my gender.

[Mama Chola]

Well, actually I would argue that love is a form of greed and ambition, but I believe we have drifted far off topic so I'll leave it at that.

Of course you would argue that.

[Mama Chola]

... but in our modern world of plenty, self-interest is the most important driver of the self and self-interest drives us to capitalism and advancement.

I have no doubt that "self-interest" is what drives you and other masculated men (and some women) to "capitalism and advancement". I merely doubt that "self-interest" is what makes most mothers want to produce children such as yourself in the first place...

But thank you for insulting my intelligence and judging me on the basis of my gender.

And I've seen nothing to change my judgment, either

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I have no doubt that "self-interest" is what drives you and other masculated men (and some women) to "capitalism and advancement". I merely doubt that "self-interest" is what makes most mothers want to produce children such as yourself in the first place...

I think a decent enough number of children in western countries are accidentally conceived (like myself and my three siblings (there are reasons to use protection)) that most mothers aren't motivated by anything. Also children can be created out of greed, or self benefit, anchor babies, free cheap (still have to feed the damn kids) labour before the days of child labour laws, as well as passing on the family name for men (there are reasons the PRC is having a depressingly high ratio of men to women in their younger generations).