My anti-capitalist prof

[Grizwald]

Well, if any one here is in college, do not take anthropology class. Or maybe you do as a challenge. But I registered for this class because I thought it would be concerned mostly with looking at various cultures but specifically I wanted to learn about archaeology. Anyway, within the first week I realized this was an indoctrination. Pure propaganda and lies coming from the professor. She is an anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, socialist with a hint of feminism. I've been wanting to confront her during class about things but find it hard to work up the courage. I managed to today. She outright lied about this

 

 

She claimed a) on this island that the monetary system creates no debt

b) because the currency is pig tusks and mats (island tradition) the currency will never be inflated or deflated because the traditions will basically control it. 

and c) globalization on this island would create low wage jobs making the islanders worse off than they are right now.

 

Because this was near the end of class I only had time to question her about a.

 

But I feel like I have a duty to confront her in class so she cannot spread this propaganda. But I don't feel up to the challenge. I don't feel ready. 

[Tree Frog]

I'd live there. 

 

To me this culture is very anarcho-capitalistic. Like many of us they believe in currency competition. Little to no government interference. Plus, its a paradise (I like the rain forest). 

 

Anyways onto A, debt in this society is a completely different concept. Firstly, these people don't have cars... they build their own homes... And can appropriate most of their needed resources for survival by themselves. Really there is not much room for debt. Not because of the economic system. But because of the Neolithic Life style. However, if the growing season has come on hard times, I am sure that villagers could go to a neighbor or an adjacent village for a loan to pay off school and healthcare. After all, school and healthcare ain't "free" here. 

 

Question B, of course pig tusks can inflate! If 10 years ago there were only 250 pig tusks are circulating within my community, pig tusks will be worth more because there are so few. Now say today, there are more pigs in my region and now 20,000 tusks are circulating.... Its all supply and demand at this point. I would say a college professor should know this but, she's a socialist after all. 

 

Question C, I'm sorry lady but globalization has arrived! Notice how all of these villagers go into developing towns to purchase goods such as kerosene, salt, soap, and modern clothing for themselves and their children. Plus, The island offers modern resorts, telecommunication companies and restaurants.

 

 Just question her, that's why she is there. Plus, you pay her salary! Your in control. Show her and your classmates the truth. 

[andkon]

b) because the currency is pig tusks and mats (island tradition) the currency will never be inflated or deflated because the traditions will basically control it.

That's simply false. If lots of pig tusks are produced, the price will go down. If people for some reason don't value pig tusks anymore, the price will also go down. Just as the Fed can print more money, people can create more pig tusks relative to everything else. This is basic supply/demand.

c) globalization on this island would create low wage jobs making the islanders worse off than they are right now.

 So they would not take those jobs therefore there's nothing to worry about. If people drop their traditional customs for a low-wage sweatshop job, then most likely it's that outsiders are viewing those customs through rose-tinted glasses.

[David Ottinger]

Her claim regarding 'a' is the only one that's true.  The others need more elaboration and actually do have some truth to them, but they certainly could be articulated better. 

 

a)  They have an equity based economy, not a debt based economy like the rest of the world.  However, that banker is already positioning himself in a way that will corrupt their economy if anyone with a significant amount of fiat money steps in.  Given what I saw in the video, the imperialism is already knocking on their door.

 

b) Regarding inflation and deflation,  you'd have to explore what she actually meant before you can provide a reasonable rebuttal because the classical definition of inflation and deflation is in regards to the money supply -- which is the definition used by Austrian Economists.  However, what does she mean?  My guess is that she's referring to the fluctuation of prices.  And given that they are using a commodity money, their economy does not experience a hyperized Cantillon Effect as you see with fiat monetary systems, especially ones that are a pure fiat money like we have in the global economy.  As a result, you do not have this constant devaluation of the currency.  And with that, prices remain relatively the same, especially given that tusks aren't the only currency people are using in that society.  

 

c) There is some truth to what she is claiming here, but what she is referring to is imperialism, not capitalism.  So, I'd say she is more correct in her assertion than not. 

[papatree84]

I hear your pain. I had a Cultural Anthropology professor try to teach us students last semester about that all cultures are equally and each have their own moral code. He gave examples of this tribe, the Sambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambia_people), where the men of the tribe make the young boys preform oral sex on them. He claimed that the young boys actually wanted to do this because they believed it made them into men. He also claimed that it had no adverse effects on them throughout their lives. This "cultural relativism" is a dangerous idea that Athropology professors promote. 

[TheAuger]

How is asking this professor to clarify her definitions/ideas/positions/arguments necessarily a confrontation? Aren't you just trying to understand the validity/truth value of her claims?

[J-William]

Sounds like a sociology class I had in college. Philosophy is not their strong point.

[J. D. Stembal]

Social scientists love to look at primitive hunter-gatherers and other backwater societies so they can take an intellectual dump on free-market capitalism. For example, many tribal societies share food after the hunt and modern academics tend to see this as evidence against universal property rights. I recall having a conversation with a statist about the NAP, and she brought up the tribal food sharing problem with regard to property rights. Having learned about universally preferable behavior, I asked her, if she was really into food sharing, would she have a problem with anyone in her neighborhood (the tribe) coming into her kitchen and taking food when she wasn't home? She replied that she would because that was stealing, and not voluntary on her part. How can you have theft when you are arguing against property rights? What an amazing logical disconnect!

 

Your teacher isn't necessarily a socialist, but I would be highly skeptical of any of her conclusions that appear to attack the free market. The video you linked is the very picture of voluntarism to me. I wouldn't call it anarchy, but it's pretty damn close to it.

 

• Little to no government
• Prevalent trade and barter
• A new custom credit currency

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Dare her to read "The Origins of War in Child Abuse". My view of primitive tribes has never been the same after that one. Oomph.

 

Replace "rape" with "free love" and "stealing" with "sharing" and they magically turn into Utopias. Yea.

 

A fascinating point that sticks out in my head from that book was I think in the chapter about tribal societies. DeMause makes a very interesting point that modern economics was impossible in tribal life because the tribe would attack and usually kill anyone who saved resources. Without the accumulation of capital, there is no possibility of investment, which means there cannot be any economic development. Therefore, no one can save anything because no one trusts each other.

 

Fine system there, I must say.

[Omegahero09]

I think there are two ways to consciously approach classes like the one you've got here.

 

You could challenge her, and probably generate more stress for yourself and learn little but the depth of your professor's (and her students) indoctrination. Not to mention in doing so risk your grade taking a hit.

 

Or you could just blend in and bleat with the sheep, securing your grade in bullshit while turning your swords of truth to your fellow classmates, and have a better chance at having some great conversations.

[Grizwald]

I hear your pain. I had a Cultural Anthropology professor try to teach us students last semester about that all cultures are equally and each have their own moral code. He gave examples of this tribe, the Sambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambia_people), where the men of the tribe make the young boys preform oral sex on them. He claimed that the young boys actually wanted to do this because they believed it made them into men. He also claimed that it had no adverse effects on them throughout their lives. This "cultural relativism" is a dangerous idea that Athropology professors promote. 

 

Yeah, within the first week we got our little multiculturalism lesson. She showed us a culture in which wives are kidnapped and said interfering in the kidnapping would be wrong. She also argued that it was somehow voluntary because in the end if they refused to get married they let the woman go. Of course she didn't make any point about how damaging that can be to be kidnapped, driven miles away from your home, held against your will, and shunned for not accepting.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping