Why Classes? Why Poverty?

[the last donut of the night]

What led humans, transitioning from a hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones, to form social-economic classes? Why couldn't we have just continued the communism of our forefathers/mothers? Is it because there was isn't enough resources for such a thing?

Also, I wasn't sure to put this in the sciences forum. Feel free to move it if necessary.

[RedRise]

In answer to your question; good question. Why indeed? We should do something to change that.:D

[MarxSchmarx]

What led humans, transitioning from a hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones, to form social-economic classes? Why couldn't we have just continued the communism of our forefathers/mothers? Is it because there was isn't enough resources for such a thing?
It comes down to the surplus produced by agricultural societies. The surplus food, esp. grain, can be stored, which for the first time could reliably sustain a permanent non-producing class. This class came to develop its own interests. Although a division of labor to some extent existed in earlier societies, it could not operate on nearly the same scale as an agricultural society.

The key tool at this class's disposal was a subset that relied on, and made possible, the surplus - the martial/warrior class. Without them the surpluses could be destroyed by other groups. Moreover, because they didn't have to spend their time producing, they could enforce the whims of other non-producers, with whom they, as non producers, had much in common with. Often this class became the ruling class and subsections perpetuated their own power.


We should do something to change that.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

Yes we should.

[the last donut of the night]

When exactly did the first class-based societies appear?

[btpound]

Like most of the development of human history, the agricultural system developed out of necessity. Anthropological records show us that there was probably great climate shift at some point about 10000 years ago. (Not the ice age) It started to get colder, animals moved away, plants were scarce. Slowly, they got the idea to capture the animals and pen them up, breed them, and eat them. Same with plants. The differences in everyone's personal block of land, as well as their skills as farmers, created the first surplus/deficit and therefore the seed of class society. The means of production transformed from primitive communism to an agricultural society, and eventually serfdom. Since the economic base has changed, so did the superstructure. Marx does a good bit of talking on this transformation. It would not have been feasible for them to keep with primitive communism, because humans would have had to remain nomadic, and the subsistence for life would always be scarce. This scarcity would probably lead to warfare. Besides, this was not at all the romantic existence that some people would have you believe. Death and violence was an everyday occurrence, and life was a constant scramble just for food. Things like class and warfare have always been present in human society because scarcity has always existed. That's why Marx says in order for communism to exist there must be a surplus, otherwise only want is generalized. Only now do we have the productive power to provide enough for the whole world. We need to take that step forward.

[mikelepore]

After farming and the domestication of animals were invented, it was no longer possible to make only temporary villages and keep moving. Permanent settlements became necessary. But tribes thought only of their own members as "the people" and had no sympathy with other tribes. This led to raids to take other tribes' land, food, horses, weapons, etc. At first they didn't know what to do with prisoners except to kill them for the purpose if disposing of them, or in some cases eat them. It was a technological invention to retain the prisoners for the purpose of making them work. For example, in Sparta, the helots were mainly captured Mycenaeans.

[Kléber]

When exactly did the first class-based societies appear?No one really knows exactly when slavery started. :confused:

If you want some old school reading on this... Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm)

There are also brief yet unsatisfying rundowns under "Tribal Society" and "Slave Society" at the marxists.org glossary (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/)

[mikelepore]

No one really knows exactly when slavery started. :confused:
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm)

The first system of writing, that of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, appeared about 3500 BCE. There isn't much of a record of what people did before they had writing, because they couldn't write it down. The Sumerians already had a complicated system of slavery, including people who were enslaved because they failed to pay debts, children sold by their parents, and other forms.

[ComradeMan]

What led humans, transitioning from a hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones, to form social-economic classes? Why couldn't we have just continued the communism of our forefathers/mothers? Is it because there was isn't enough resources for such a thing?

Also, I wasn't sure to put this in the sciences forum. Feel free to move it if necessary.

The formation of nation/tribal states led to the development of classes and class conflict, internally. Externally this same formation led to conquest, i.e. empires and imperialism. The problem is with the idea of nation states.

Nations states need governments, therefore you will inevitably create a class that tells others what to do. If you look at those few populations scattered around the world that still live the "original" way- it is true that they too have hierarchies as such, i.e. chief, elders etc- but everyone is expected to muck in and pull their weight too.

[the last donut of the night]

thanks guys

[Kléber]

The formation of nation/tribal states led to the development of classes and class conflictI would argue it was the opposite, the rupture into classes necessitated the creation of armed forces (states) to protect the privileges of the new slaveowning class.

[Hiero]

I would also add to people's arguement that development in productive forces (discovery of tools to cultivate crops) lead to different class societies and warfare over control of these productive forces.

[FSL]

The formation of nation/tribal states led to the development of classes and class conflict


As Kleber points out, materialism disagrees.

[ComradeMan]

The move from tribal hunter-gather societies and semi-nomadic herders which was not de facto property owning and materialistic into agrarian societies saw the birth of the "nation" in our more modern sense of the term. Agrarian societies bring with them division of work, social mechanisms, slavery, hierarchies and class structures and so on.

Although a natural hierarchy is inevitable in terms of age hierarchies, reflecting Rousseau's idea of the family itself reflecting the primordial state, the difference lies in the structure of the given society. In an "original" society there was a natural progression from child, to adult to elder and perhaps chief with the various talents and skills of the members of the tribe recognised and accorded equal value. The male hunters and warriors were not accorded more status over the female gatherers and nurturers and the qualification for "authority" was based on age and experience.

As soon as you create a materialistic society in which class structures emerge you create a class of "helots" and the problems begin from there. An agrarian society inevitably leads to the concept of "ownership" of land and the problems of large scale production.

if you take a look at Roman history as one example, the vestiges of this ancient tribal society were still evident during the times of the Caesars. Nevertheless, it could be argued that a series of "class struggles" also brought the Roman Republic to its knees with the bickering between the plebeians and the patricians with the equites in between- usually taking the patrician side for material reward. The material reward in question was usually farmable land- in fact the great Roman generals themselves often rewarded their veterans with gold and land.

I see it is a mechanism or chain reaction:-

Agriculture- land ownership- division of labour- division into owners of land and workers of land- division into "haves" and "have nots".

This leads to the market- the market place leads to the creation of captial.... and so on.

Of course it's far more complicated with many interwoven factors and may differ in detail owing to regional and cultural factors but generally speaking I think we have it more or less pinned down.