I was listening to a Youtube video by the Youtuber Thinking Ape TV at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIGskHY_qyU and one comment I was trying to post kept disappearing. The video in question was called "
Marriage Rates Hit All-Time Low". The comment had a reply also from myself. I refreshed the video and it and the reply were gone. Something about Youtube's algorithm did not like my comment or the reply. The reply would not even pretend to show up. The original comment at least pretended. So I am posting it here as follows:
I think monogamy may have been the world's first successful socialist revolution. Human apes are naturally imperfectly monogamous, frequently cheating and frequently forming societies based on polygamy. Dimorphism where one sex is larger than the other correlates with polygamy. With elephant seals one male may have 100 or more females. The males are massively larger than the females. With humans male are just slightly
larger than females.
I can imagine that with the coming of civilisation and low tech suddenly a male who in hunter gatherer society could have 2 or 3 wives could in a society of thousands potentially have hundreds of wives if alpha enough, way out of proportion to what human dimorphism would predict. David and Solomon in the bible, sultans, emperors and kings are all examples. A bit of low tech rewrote ALL the rules. This is akin to something observed by Jane Goodall. A lowly ranked male rose in the hierarchy of males by finding 2 abandoned drums and scaring the others with the noise he could make with them. His genes proliferated within the troop. A human male in having hundreds of wives would have to play politics to win loyalty of enough other males. Naturally like elephant seal males, most went without. Monogamy may have been a bottom up revolution of the unlucky forcing a new set of norms, overthrowing the alliance of alpha males and their allies. More democratic mating rights were taken, not given.
Money can be thought of as proxy or analogue of mating rights. The lesson of a monogamy revolution is that a socialist revolution, not for mating rights but for property rights, is very much on the cards at some time in the future.
My reply as a follow on was:
The Old Testament and the Koran both make statements on usury, or interest on money. The Koran bans it and the Old Testament makes provision for periodic debt moratoriums. Why the fear of interest? Was it irrational or was it rational for the circumstances of the time. It is said that as interest became a part of normal money transaction the economy grew because of interest AKA capitalism and all that and those societies without it stagnated.
I think something else happened. At the same time as interest was becoming a norm Europeans discovered a whole other hemisphere and discovered new sources of energy. Both allowed a huge growth in economies. I rather think that capitalism meaning strictly interest based money transactions was selected at the time by circumstances favourable. Interest based economies at times where growth is naturally constrained will cause disequilibrium. Capitalism doesn't make growth magic happen as if by magic, it is selected by a dynamic environment. In a more static environment interest will not be selected for. Given that the same condition for several societies, some with interest and some without, a static environment of energy and resources, a ban on interest will make a more successful and stable society. In an environment of more dynamic energy and resources the capitalistic societies will thrive better. Even so temporary imbalances where interest owed and money made is out of match with the energy/resource environment such that recessions and depression occur to decrease the size of the economy and bring it in line with the energy/resource base undergirding it.
So, what is the best society to live in, socialist or capitalistic? Depends on the energy/resource dynamics. It will vary. There is no right answer. It's like asking long fur or short fur animal? It depend on whether the furry animal is living at the equator or at the poles? That will shape the answer.
At the present time we have have overreached what the energy/resource base can deliver and thus 1) debt is at an all time high and 2) wealth has never been so concentrated, a situation which is not stable or sustainable. Both are observed preceding a depression. This likely depression we have entered is not caused by covid-19 but it was the straw which broke the camel's back. If anyone doubts that extreme inequality and increasing inequality is sustainable they should reflect on the game of monopoly on the last move plus one, the move after the final victory. All the property is one one player's hands, all the income generating power is in the hands of one player but NO income. The last player may also have to pay interest as well as the outstanding amount on acquired mortgaged properties but he has NO income. Instant depression.
I a, thinking that Andrew Yang's UBI is a good idea and forgiveness of a lot of debt. Maybe a negative income tax and more progressive tax overall. Nobody wants but sometimes circumstances force our hands. We do not altogether determine what sort of environment we find ourselves.
