Does feudalism still exist in certain countries of the world? [Archive]

View Full Version : Does feudalism still exist in certain countries of the world?

promethean

11th October 2010, 01:05

Split from this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyists-revaluate-russian-t142628/index4.html?t=142628&page=4) discussion.

In what countries does feudalism "dominate over" capitalism as opposed to countries where uneven and combined development dictates that the features of advanced capitalism are embedded in the midst of backward relations of land and labor, particularly in agriculture?

And that the bourgeoisie are incapable of transforming those archaic relations because of the limitations of private property?

I'm not too sure, but I think the member whom S Artesian was replying to probably believes that feudalism does exist in certain countries where capitalism is not fully developed. (I hope I have understood these two systems of exploitation accurately enough).

Feudal exploitation is based on landlords extracting surplus of peasants produce from lands which the peasants have partial or no ownership over.

Capitalist exploitation is based on capitalists extracting surplus from commodity production by workers.

The Vegan Marxist

11th October 2010, 01:12

India for the most part.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 01:14

Really? And what do the feudal landlords in India do with the surplus they have extracted?

Crux

11th October 2010, 01:14

Not to mention China and Russia.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 01:16

Not to mention China and Russia.

And New York. Don't leave out New York, home of the great landlords Trump, Wilpon, Green, Silverstein.

And Wall Street. Because we all know that finance capital, interest, etc. is really rent extraction, even if Marx says it isn't.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 01:30

Accumulate wealth, build up inheritances and purchase commodities would be my guess.

We need to qualify, and quantify that. We need to show that in fact, that wealth does not get reproduced in capitalist relations of production. If it does, then we have uneven and combined development.

pranabjyoti

11th October 2010, 02:21

Actually, for a long time in the third world countries, specially Asian countries, feudalism don't need to rule over capitalism, they can stay side by side as a coalition against socialism.

Saorsa

11th October 2010, 02:50

Feudal relations and capitalist relations can co-exist, dominating in different geographic areas, within the borders of one country.

There are large areas of the world where capitalism has barely made itself felt, where people still scratch at the dirt with wood and metal to survive and pay portions of their harvest to the landlords. Even if capitalism defines the state which exercises dominion over this particular nation, even if there are massive industrial cities where capitalist relations rule, fundamentally feudal relations of exploitation can still exist in the backward rural areas.

When communists talk about semi-feudal, semi-colonial nations that is what is meant.

There was a very interesting discussion of this question at Kasama not so long ago:

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/08/31/sketches-over-rural-exploitation-capitalist-feudal-or-slave/

The comments are as worth reading as the article above them.

Die Neue Zeit

11th October 2010, 04:54

And Wall Street. Because we all know that finance capital, interest, etc. is really rent extraction, even if Marx says it isn't.

Don't get into that debate again. :glare:

Had Marx been able to complete his economic work on rent following Capital, he would have agreed with assertions in some classical circles that interest is a form of rent extraction. Otherwise, whatever musings he had on rent are shallow at best (not covering things like monopoly rent).

His argument could have been, later on, that "industrial" profit was itself a form of rent extraction.

By the way, is the author of this blog (http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/responses-to-readers%e2%80%94austrian-economics-versus-marxism/bichler-nitzan-and-hudson-versus-marx/) you by chance?

ckaihatsu

11th October 2010, 05:26

Because we all know that finance capital, interest, etc. is really rent extraction, even if Marx says it isn't.

Rent extraction, or rentier capitalism, is only *half*, by function, of what capitalists, altogether, do.

Rentier capitalism is a term used in Marxism and sociology which refers to a type of capitalism where a large amount of profit-income generated takes the form of property income, received as interest, rents, dividends, fees or capital gains.

The beneficiaries of this income are a property-owning social class who, it is argued, play no productive role in the economy themselves but who monopolise the access to physical assets, financial assets and technologies. They make money not from producing anything new themselves, but purely from their ownership of property (which provides a claim to a revenue stream) and dealing in that property.

[...]

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

Rent extraction is directly parasitic on wages, while finance capital typically is not (or its seed funds *may* be sourced from parasitic rents).

On the other hand, finance capital is based on equity sums that then make claims to expropriate workers' surplus labor value, from the process of workers working for wages.

Finance capitalism is a term in Marxian political economics defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. It also includes the lending of capital at interest. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers. [2]

Finance capitalism is seen by traditional Marxists as a dialectical outgrowth of industrial capitalism, and part of the process by which the whole capitalist phase of history comes to an end. In the tradition of Thorstein Veblen, it is contrasted with industrial capitalism, where profit is made from the manufacture of goods.

[...]

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

The interesting part about all of this is that it shows that capitalists themselves are at fundamental cross-purposes regarding monetary policy -- we could call them "economic factions":

- [cheap money] -- Consider what happens in a *relaxed* monetary regime, as is *currently* the case: New influxes of capital are made available to holders of *equity* capital, thereby underwriting their risk and enabling them to continue to gamble (or, in former periods of normative economic *growth* the influxes could actually be called Keynesian).

On the flipside, though, the artificial expanding of the economy, or money supply, *dilutes* the economic strength of those who own hard assets, the kind that are the basis for rents -- real estate, etc. Note how interest rates (a form of rent) have to *come down* in a "cheap money" environment...(!)

- [hard money] -- Consider what happens in a *monetized* monetary regime, where the *holders* of capital stage a revolt (in bourgeois politics) for their assets to be better-respected / better-valued: Instead of orienting to *expanding* the economy, as with Keynesianism, basically, the tendency is in the *opposite* direction -- towards honoring those with already-existing capital, or hard assets. The working class is made to pay directly for this through austerity measures against wages and social services, in order to service outstanding debt and enforce rent payments. This kind of monetary regime tends towards *deflation*, or a real, relative *shrinkage* of the economy in order to "monetize", or strengthen, the amounts of surplus labor value that underlie the face values.

On the flipside, though, this artificial shrinking of the economy, or money supply, *contracts* the overall size of the economy, making it more difficult for risk-takers to *find* equity capital with which to make speculative investments. Workers will get laid off as the economy 'downsizes' in order to make interest and rent payments to those with hard assets -- interest rates will go up.

Because we all know that finance capital, interest, etc. is really rent extraction, even if Marx says it isn't.

The value -- heh -- in this statement is that it identifies the *main* culprit, as far as the working class is concerned: Rentier capital makes a direct draw on wages, and looks to strengthen the vault at the expense of the overall health of the economy, including jobs, indirectly.

Inversely, a government-subsidized economy -- although invariably supply-sided, of course -- will at least attempt to *expand* the economy and encourage capital risk-taking -- this is where some of that Keynesianism, or bubble-making, *may* "trickle-down" to create a degree of job growth (or it may not).

Chaz

11th October 2010, 05:44

Firstly, Capitalism isn't a political system- it's an economic one. It can and does exist everywhere and under every government as it's defined as being separate from said government's control. Even if there were a purely Socialist economy I would take advantage of the perpetual underground markets to obtain the things my society would try to prohibit (essentially the Agorist argument).

And Feudalism still exists everywhere too. The systems most of us live in is an idealistic bastardization of it, although nobody would want to admit it. The kings and lords who used to claim ownership of the land they rented to their subjects has only transitioned towards the kings being dragged down to the level of the subject and the ideas of State or Society or Business or the Common Good being raised to level of ruler. Under any of those we're still required to show subservience and are reminded that it's not your property but its that it gives and takes and charges for as it sees fit. I mean even if we're talking Communism your definition of Feudal exploitation fits in without a problem, as the individual with partial/no ownership of any property or material good (in relation to it being owned by every worker using or 'needing' the property or good at any given time) must have his surplus extracted by the governing force of Communist ideology.

ckaihatsu

11th October 2010, 05:53

This thread was split from another thread to discuss this topic.:laugh: Someone please move the rent discussion to another thread.:thumbup1:

Thread moved.

AIG.com (http://www.aig.com)

x D

x D

x D

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 05:55

Don't get into that debate again. :glare:

Had Marx been able to complete his economic work on rent following Capital, he would have agreed with assertions in some classical circles that interest is a form of rent extraction. Otherwise, whatever musings he had on rent are shallow at best (not covering things like monopoly rent).

His argument could have been, later on, that "industrial" profit was itself a form of rent extraction.

By the way, is the author of this blog (http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/responses-to-readers%e2%80%94austrian-economics-versus-marxism/bichler-nitzan-and-hudson-versus-marx/) you by chance?

A: Bullshit. Speculating about what Marx would have done if he had been able to finish his economic work on rent is just that-- speculation. And whatever musings he had on rent are shallow.............? Have you ever read his "musings" on rent in Theories of Surplus Value, Part 2? Whatever they are, and they've caused me more problems, more note-taking than anything I've ever read by Marx, they are not shallow. Might be wrong, might have missed critical points, but not shallow.

B. No, not me.

C. I agree, we don't need to get into rent discussions... unless we want to discuss uneven and combined development and so-called "feudal" relations, then we do need to discuss rents, and how rents are reappropriated by capitalism as capital-- how rents drive the social reproduction.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 05:57

ckaihatsu

11th October 2010, 05:58

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 05:59

Chaz

11th October 2010, 06:17

Neofeudalism literally means "new feudalism" and implies a contemporary rebirth of policies of governance and economy reminiscent of those present in many pre-industrial feudal societies. The concept is one in which government policies are instituted with the effect (deliberate or otherwise) of systematically increasing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor while increasing the power of the rich and decreasing the power of the poor (also see wealth condensation). This effect is considered to be similar to the effects of traditional feudalism.

I'm not concerned so much about the wealth inequality issues, it's the fact that we still are controlled by things that dictate what we are to value and how we are to go about valuing it. The wealth/power problem (and obsession) is simply a by-product.

WTF? The US is feudal? The issue isn't subservience. The issue is mode of production, appropriation of surplus, transformation of surplus into value.

Explain to me how those things are more important when the lack of acknowledging subservience to any person or ideal will generate all of it for any individual who puts forth the effort to obtain them?

Saorsa

11th October 2010, 07:18

Can you give some examples? Where capitalism has barely made itself felt?

The peasant villages of Nepal's Western hills.

ckaihatsu

11th October 2010, 09:50

I'm not concerned so much about the wealth inequality issues, it's the fact that we still are controlled by things that dictate what we are to value and how we are to go about valuing it. The wealth/power problem (and obsession) is simply a by-product.

Like what things?

Explain to me how those things are more important when the lack of acknowledging subservience to any person or ideal will generate all of it for any individual who puts forth the effort to obtain them?

This is a fine -- and even admirable -- outlook to have, if things ran fairly *smoothly*. Unfortunately, they *don't*, as we've seen since 2008 (and from other past market crashes). I'm sure we'd *all* like to think that we could simply put our face to the wind and surmount any obstacles that come our way. The economy, though, goes in fits and starts, at best, and is always morphing -- sometimes in very strange ways, due to financial bubbles. Our contemporary society has long since transcended simplistic individualism, and so our personal successes or slowdowns are far from being strictly our own. It *is* curiously paradoxical that way -- the social interdependencies -- during a time when we have more *social* individualism than ever before, thanks to now-mature digital technologies.

Chaz

11th October 2010, 10:33

Like what things?

Like ideologies, anything that tells you what to think. The government, Karl Marx, my mother, ads on television and in magazines, social pressure, facebook, the whole of our silly infrastructure. People care a whole lot about money and power and status and the general Liberal ideal is to create a system where everyone is controlled by them and where they still determine someone's value instead of rendering them so meaningless we could lose them as easily as fingernail clippings. I'm talking nonexistence and not just acting like they don't matter because someone else is telling you what's right and wrong against your own judgment.

This is a fine -- and even admirable -- outlook to have, if things ran fairly *smoothly*. Unfortunately, they *don't*, as we've seen since 2008 (and from other past market crashes). I'm sure we'd *all* like to think that we could simply put our face to the wind and surmount any obstacles that come our way. The economy, though, goes in fits and starts, at best, and is always morphing -- sometimes in very strange ways, due to financial bubbles. Our contemporary society has long since transcended simplistic individualism, and so our personal successes or slowdowns are far from being strictly our own. It *is* curiously paradoxical that way -- the social interdependencies -- during a time when we have more *social* individualism than ever before, thanks to now-mature digital technologies.
I'm not talking about Corporate business, those issues were caused by the government meddling in the market (actually it's an entirely Socialist idea, the government can tell the businesses what to do and push them around and the businesses will be ensured a bailout because Socialist systems want to maintain the flow of goods to the market). People don't realize that market shifts are natural, just like any other shift in nature, and reflect changing consumer demands and trends. This is called homeostasis and the entire point of Socialist thinking is to stop it, which leads to stagnation and self-destruction. If we were in a free market those automobile businesses would have gone under and we'd be moving on to the next development in transportation instead of having to deal with wasting more fossil fuels and exploding oil rigs until the giants feel the lazy urge to do something constructive. Life is chaotic, things never run smoothly, and that's the way I prefer it.
Individualism isn't simplistic, in fact I'd say collectivism is the simplistic form here. We're growing past the need to rely on other people, to rely on morals or governments or religions, and I'd argue we're even outgrowing our human skin with the advances we're making. You know what works in a collectivist manner? Ants. You want to be an ant? If we remain in our Industrial infrastructure then we will be because the only way to keep it afloat is to reduce every individual to the level of mindless drone slaving away to keep it alive, sacrificing ourselves for a system that only exists because we made it and will cease to exist once we either wipe ourselves out by exhausting all available resources or realize it's outdated and move on.

ckaihatsu

11th October 2010, 11:12

I'm not concerned so much about the wealth inequality issues, it's the fact that we still are controlled by [ideologies] that dictate what we are to value and how we are to go about valuing it. The wealth/power problem (and obsession) is simply a by-product.

Actually I would say that we're *not* controlled by authoritarian ideas, and that we have *more* personal freedoms than at any other time in human history. The bourgeois revolutions of the 18th century relieved regular people of fealty and instead we have *economic* determinism which can be both depersonalizing *or* personally liberating, depending on one's own access to wealth.

businesses will be ensured a bailout because Socialist systems want to maintain the flow of goods to the market).

I would argue that this statement should be *improved*, to the following:

businesses will be ensured a bailout because [capitalist] systems want to maintain the flow of goods to the market).

Life is chaotic, things never run smoothly, and that's the way I prefer it.

But life under current conditions is what you're *objecting* to.

We're growing past the need to rely on other people, to rely on morals or governments or religions

If we remain in our Industrial infrastructure then we will be because the only way to keep it afloat is to reduce every individual to the level of mindless drone slaving away to keep it alive, sacrificing ourselves for a system that only exists because we made it and will cease to exist once we either wipe ourselves out by exhausting all available resources or realize it's outdated and move on.

I appreciate your spirit here but I have to posit that our current digitally empowered individuality *still* has an industrial *base* -- without the mass production of food, building materials, transport, modern conveniences, computer technologies, etc., we wouldn't be where we are now. Therefore an industrial base requires industrial workers to work in industrial conditions.

Chaz

11th October 2010, 11:54

Actually I would say that we're *not* controlled by authoritarian ideas, and that we have *more* personal freedoms than at any other time in human history. The bourgeois revolutions of the 18th century relieved regular people of fealty and instead we have *economic* determinism which can be both depersonalizing *or* personally liberating, depending on one's own access to wealth.
And yet you bring up the oh-so-old complaint about 'ze bourgeoisie'. You're controlled entirely by the generic Communist idea that wealth even matters; I have a working-class job and I currently have less than a hundred bucks to my name but you know what? I'm content because money doesn't matter. My philosophy doesn't involve long tirades about wealth because it doesn't matter. I don't complain about being poor and I defend free markets because money is an arbitrary man-made thing that doesn't define my value or anyone else's value to me. So what if someone makes more money than me? I can still do the things I want.
Yes there is less authoritative control over us but we have more societal pressure on us to behave in your manner. Instead of pledging allegiance to one person we have to efface ourselves to the might of the collective 'good'; that's hardly any different (worse even because the 'good' doesn't even exist). Actually- you know what? I just don't think you're crafty enough. I'd prefer to live under a King because I can at least influence him and gain his trust and then do what I want behind his back. In your system instead of everyone being royalty we've all been demoted to peasants.

I would argue that this statement should be *improved*, to the following:
I don't appreciate you putting the words in my mouth, but I will say that it's not just the government. But it's not Capitalism, it's Corporations. Corporations and government really like working together because the government, having Socialist tendencies, wants to maintain the flow of goods to maintain economic stability and the businesses, being blessed with limited liability through the government's creation of corporations, wants to make a bunch of money however it can. So on one hand you have a group who can make all the reckless decisions it wants to and on the other you have a system that encourages them to do so, and encourages you to contribute to it. But that does not Capitalism make, it's in face the opposite.

But life under current conditions is what you're *objecting* to.
Yeah, I'm objecting to living in an infrastructure where everyone tries to control and order things instead of just letting them go. Instead of (like in the Old West) letting people do what they want and having the capitalist market just be a small aspect of life that one isn't obligated to contribute to we're forced from birth into a parody of what civilization is supposed to be.

I appreciate your spirit here but I have to posit that our current digitally empowered individuality *still* has an industrial *base* -- without the mass production of food, building materials, transport, modern conveniences, computer technologies, etc., we wouldn't be where we are now. Therefore an industrial base requires industrial workers to work in industrial conditions.
Well you could automate a lot of those industrial jobs. I mean if everything's automated and it becomes ridiculously easy and cheap to produce for the masses why would we need money anymore? That could be accomplished with the correct investments in the Capitalist market. You're years behind me actually, I'm also a firm supporter of a lot of transhumanist elements. We're destroying and raping the natural world in order to build and maintain an artificial environment where we can thrive... so we can slave to make sure our industry, which is supposed to just be a convenience, thrives. And where we are now isn't that great a place. We're genetically hunter-gatherers trying to adapt to an ecosystem of computers (which we use to update our facebook pages and argue about Communism instead of using in constructive ways) and concrete that we rely on to survive. We need to shit or get off the pot. We should apply our technological prowess to ourselves and truly overcome our biological limitations. I mean why do people need to worry about food when they don't have to eat? That's where things become more individualistic; some people can choose to remain as they are and some can decide to improve themselves, up to the point of not even being human anymore. Think of being able to download your brain to a computer and become one with millions of other people in a hivemind just like you always wanted!
And yes, the greedy pig capitalistsnomnomnomeatyouup would get their hands on it first but that's why you need to be crafty and not whiny.

And yeah that sounds fairly ridiculous but so *is* trying to *read* all these *posts* you're making.

pranabjyoti

11th October 2010, 12:45

The peasant villages of Nepal's Western hills.
And rural India, Pakistan, Bangladesh as per my experience and also some places of Africa and Asia as per my knowledge. I can guess that people like S.Artesian just go there and found that those people have cable TV, cellphone and some other modern electronic equipment and from that concluded that it's totally capitalism. I just want to remind that capitalism isn't equivalent to some electronic gadgets, it stays on the society. And until and unless the you can understand the society and social relations properly, you will see the flags of capitalism everywhere with the electronic and other gadgets.

Saorsa

11th October 2010, 12:56

I can guess that people like S.Artesian just go there and found that those people have cable TV, cellphone and some other modern electronic equipment and from that concluded that it's totally capitalism.

Most people in these areas don't even have access to clean drinking water or basic roads, let alone cable TV! Although obviously that differs from area to area.

Queercommie Girl

11th October 2010, 13:16

Feudalism doesn't exist anymore. Semi-feudalism still does.

pranabjyoti

11th October 2010, 13:19

Most people in these areas don't even have access to clean drinking water or basic roads, let alone cable TV! Although obviously that differs from area to area.
Comrade A, in India more people have access to cellphone than clean toilets and clear drinking water. IT'S A FACT.

Ocean Seal

11th October 2010, 13:34

And New York. Don't leave out New York, home of the great landlords Trump, Wilpon, Green, Silverstein.

And Wall Street. Because we all know that finance capital, interest, etc. is really rent extraction, even if Marx says it isn't.
Ahh, but the point is that in New York and the entire world capitalism can no longer produce more. So whether a nation is capitalist or feudal is not the issue because both modes of production are decaying away and can no longer produce to the extent that they both extract rent. Wall St. no longer creates wealth, but creates a finance aristocracy where members of the ruling class regularly extract wealth and become the equivalent of feudal landlords.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 15:35

Ahh, but the point is that in New York and the entire world capitalism can no longer produce more. So whether a nation is capitalist or feudal is not the issue because both modes of production are decaying away and can no longer produce to the extent that they both extract rent. Wall St. no longer creates wealth, but creates a finance aristocracy where members of the ruling class regularly extract wealth and become the equivalent of feudal landlords.

But the point is the condition of "not producing more" which is the current economic contraction, is the result of "producing too much," of overproduction. This is not overproduction for consumption, but overproduction for valorisation.

And yes, there is a critical difference, a vital distinction, between systems that are capitalist or feudalist-- and that is the agent, the agency, of change, of revolution. Under capitalism, that agency is in the origin, the creation of industrial capital, wage labor. And for feudalism? Who is the agent of change, and what is the result of that revolution? Certainly not the proletariat, and certainly not socialism.

Wall St. never created wealth. Capitalism always expropriates wealth. Neither finance capital, which is the organic extension of industrial capital, the unity of industrial and banking capital, nor even real estate capital creates the equivalent of feudal lords.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 15:41

Explain to me how those things are more important when the lack of acknowledging subservience to any person or ideal will generate all of it for any individual who puts forth the effort to obtain them?

Because it isn't an issue of an individual or any person acknowledging "subservience." Because revolutions are not initiated by some recognition of subservience, but rather when the means of production and relations of production come into conflict-- when property clashes with social reproduction. Because revolutions are made by classes. Because socialism requires a certain development of a specific mode of production which mode can be overthrown, expropriated, by an agent of change acting socially. Because we are engaged in class struggle, and classes exist in specific relations to each other, which relations are determined by the organization of property.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 15:47

The peasant villages of Nepal's Western hills.

That kind of proves the point, no? The peasant villages of a part of Nepal? Does that peasantry produce a surplus? Is that surplus exchanged? Does that exchange involve urban areas, international areas? Do those urban areas interact with world markets?

I'm sure there are isolated villages that have no external contact, period. There are indigenous people that have no external contact... except they do, as capitalism expands around them, shrinking the indigenous areas, reducing flora and fauna necessary for the subsistence of these people.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 15:53

And rural India, Pakistan, Bangladesh as per my experience and also some places of Africa and Asia as per my knowledge. I can guess that people like S.Artesian just go there and found that those people have cable TV, cellphone and some other modern electronic equipment and from that concluded that it's totally capitalism. I just want to remind that capitalism isn't equivalent to some electronic gadgets, it stays on the society. And until and unless the you can understand the society and social relations properly, you will see the flags of capitalism everywhere with the electronic and other gadgets.

Try not distorting what I've written. I said "uneven and combined" development. Get that? Uneven and combined. Backward and advanced. Cell phones in India used to check market prices in London, New York, Mumbai by fisherman using wind powered vessels and small nets.

Debt peonage agriculture, driving living standards of the producer below subsistence levels, with the agricultural product being traded on world markets.

Advanced automobile factories, mines, electronic component assembly plants combined with declining productivity in agriculture.

That's what I said. Try sticking to what is written, not what you need to distort.... or make up.

Chaz

11th October 2010, 21:45

Because it isn't an issue of an individual or any person acknowledging "subservience." Because revolutions are not initiated by some recognition of subservience, but rather when the means of production and relations of production come into conflict-- when property clashes with social reproduction. Because revolutions are made by classes. Because socialism requires a certain development of a specific mode of production which mode can be overthrown, expropriated, by an agent of change acting socially. Because we are engaged in class struggle, and classes exist in specific relations to each other, which relations are determined by the organization of property.
So you're still bowing under the shadow of Industrial society? The way I look at things is when you meet an obstacle or become engaged in conflict you have two choices: you can either rise above said obstacle and render it meaningless, or you can let yourself be controlled by it. Communism (especially the form that requires all those nice big phrases you regurgitated) may destroy the Capitalist, but what has it left? Like I said before, instead of being controlled by a human you become controlled by the products of humanity, by industry and non-extant ideology we created, as the whole philosophy treats these forces as the sole life source of our species. Man is still exploited (think The Matrix). Industry is free as a bird though, but I suppose that's what you want.
I'm not engaged in a class struggle, classes only matter to the pious and the meddlesome. I'm engaged in the struggle of me and my potential vs. everyone and everything trying to coax that potential towards supporting ends that are not mine. I view it as insurrection instead of revolution, I realize I am above all these silly concepts and use them to my advantage as I see the need. I can use the State to make me prosperous and untouchable (while undermining it), I can use Capitalism to destroy the State, I influence the Industry to advance past itself, I invest money towards money becoming worthless, I exploit and simultaneously ignore the system until it withers (benefiting from it all the while) and then, being independent of it, I throw it out with the trash and move on with the things in my life that actually matter. When enough people can understand this there will be real change, until then we're going to be 'revolving' until we suffocate ourselves.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 21:50

Chaz

11th October 2010, 22:08

Well good for you. But if you are engaged in the struggle of you and your potential vs.everyone supporting ends that are not yours personally, then WTF are you doing talking to us?

We have no interest in your "personal ends" one way or the other. People aren't unemployed, poverty among children isn't increasing, millennium development goals aren't going to be reached in Africa because people's personal goals don't include those things.

You sound like that Clooney character in Up In The Air, telling the people he's firing that this shouldn't interfere with their personal goals, their personal potential, and that "every great man has sat just where you are sitting," on the receiving end of a shit sandwich.

It's a personal struggle. Good. Keep it to yourself.
I'm talking to you because I benefit from it, and it's kinda fun. I have a wealth of interest in your personal ends, although the feeling isn't mutual. And I honestly thought there would be people here who I could have some kind of constructive discourse with, although I'm slowly realizing it's a bunch of teenagers meeting in their secret clubhouse to snicker and point fingers about things they think they understand in their coded clubspeak.

And your struggle is personal too, if you didn't personally emote with it then you wouldn't be here either. Unless you don't agree with it and you're only doing it because some alien morality you feel is stronger than you is telling you to; then you're just being silly. It's just like what I say about the simpletons who mindlessly obey everything the government or advertisers tell them- if you're really that dense to think you really want or (god forbid) need this then fine, you deserve every repercussion.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 22:11

And your struggle is personal too, if you didn't personally emote with it then you wouldn't be here either. Unless you don't agree with it and you're only doing it because some alien morality you feel is stronger than you is telling you to; then you're just being silly. It's just like what I say about the simpletons who mindlessly obey everything the government or advertisers tell them- if you're really that dense to think you really want or (god forbid) need this then fine, you deserve every repercussion.

Nope, actually I got beyond all of that, above, when I stopped being a teenager. You're the one with the arrested development.

Chaz

11th October 2010, 22:23

Nope, actually I got beyond all of that, above, when I stopped being a teenager. You're the one with the arrested development.
Although you're willingly controlled by theoretical idealism? My views are based on experience and rational common sense, what are yours based on?

penguinfoot

11th October 2010, 22:26

In order to see whether feudalism does indeed exist as a distinct mode of production or social formation anywhere in the world we need to first have an understanding of what feudalism is - now Marx and Engels were insistent that the definition of the proletariat is that workers are "free" in a double sense, firstly they are free in the sense that they lack control or ownership over the means of production (there are of course qualifications to this as early workers were often expected to own their tools and bring them to the workshop each day and I'm sure that there are also posters who are familiar with the putting-out system that was central to early industrialization in Britain and other capitalist countries - but as a general rule being fully alienated from the means of production is central to the definition of the proletariat) and secondly they are free in the sense that they are neither owned directly as property (as would be the case if they were slaves) nor are they forced to work on behalf of any particular member of the ruling class. We need to keep in mind here that saying that feudalism does not exist under the current world-system is not the same as saying that there are no modes of production within social formations (to use an Althusserian way of looking at things) other than standard forms of wage-labour, because from an empirical standpoint we know for sure that there are instances of slavery, in Brazil and China, for example, it means that there are no situations where feudalism is the dominant mode of production, it means that production is subordinated to the imperatives of capital accumulation and that instances of slavery, for example, can only exist on a highly temporary and peripheral basis. In this context feudalism is different from capitalism insofar as the producers are tied to a particular member of the ruling class in that they cannot flee from the manor or institution to which they are tied and, whilst having nominal control or ownership over the means of production in the form of land, exercise only partial control in that they are forced to devote a given number of work days to working on the land of their local ruler and also (though not always) pay in kind. Most of all, and this is a feature that feudalism has in common with other pre-capitalist modes of production and links in part with feudalism not involving extensive wage-labour, production under feudalism is centered around use-values, it is not for the purposes of exchange, products do not assume the form of commodities. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system of generalized commodity production.

So let's ask some questions. Where in the world are producers not able to change which member of the ruling class they work for? Where in the world do agricultural producers not sell at least part of what they produce? Where in the world do the inputs of agricultural producers not assume the form of commodities?

The idea of feudalism or semi-feudalism has much more to do with justifying the bankrupt political practice of Maoism than it does to do with any kind of materialist analysis because by arguing that large parts of the world are in fact feudal in one form or another Maoists can justify both collaboration with the so-called national bourgeoisie and the idea that socialism can exist in one country - after all, if feudal societies can exist alongside capitalist ones then there isn't anything inherently expansionist about capital.

I can guess that people like S.Artesian just go there and found that those people have cable TV, cellphone and some other modern electronic equipment and from that concluded that it's totally capitalism

Unless these things were produced by the same people who are now using them, or bartered for, they must have been bought, and the act of buying presupposes selling, so that the owners must have had some other commodity in their possession, which they then exchanged for the super-commodity that becomes central to life under capitalism - money.

penguinfoot

11th October 2010, 22:44

The peasant villages of Nepal's Western hills.

That's funny, because, upon doing some basic research, I came across an article precisely about the social conditions of the hills of western Nepal, specifically the issue of food shortages, which told me the following:

"With already low agricultural production in the more food-insecure areas, inflation is exacerbating matters further.

“A lot of villagers are opting for more desperate coping mechanisms,” Richard Ragan, country representative for the World Food Programme (WFP), told IRIN in Kathmandu.

Many villagers are already reducing the number of meals they eat each day, cutting portions, or migrating to urban areas or India for work, he said."

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?Reportid=89208

Tell me this: what kind of feudal society involves the goods that people live on taking the form of products that have prices attached to them when a key part of feudal society is that goods are produced for use rather than exchange? what kind of feudal society lets its producers move to the cities in search of alternative employment when labour-power being alienable is a defining feature of capitalist relations of production? what kind of feudal society is penetrated by a key component of capitalist geopolitics in the form of the United Nations? what, in your eyes, is the definition of feudalism in the abstract (what is the definition of a mode of production for that matter) and how does this definition manifest itself in Nepal, or any part thereof?

India for the most part.

Why is the government launching attacks against the Maoists in India, to hand over the land to feudal landlords? No, to open it up to exploitation by MNCs, who have signed Memorandums of Understanding with governments at the national and regional level and have received the enthusiastic support of the Left Front state government in Bengal in particular, comprised of Stalinist organizations.

S.Artesian

11th October 2010, 23:35

Although you're willingly controlled by theoretical idealism? My views are based on experience and rational common sense, what are yours based on?

My view are based on an analysis of history; actual history of social development and struggles.. you know things like the emergence of capitalism in England, the impact of the conquest on Mexico and what we know as Latin America, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the US Civil War, Radical Reconstruction, the period known as the "long deflation," a little studying of the history of certain industries and profitability, like the semi-conductor industry, a lot of studying of the history and operation of railroads [where I spent many years working], some work on railroads in less developed countries like Cuba and Egypt.. and lots of reading.

I don't feel controlled by theoretical idealism, so you're going to have to demonstrate to me how all that time I spent study and participating in all those things was really just being controlled by theoretical idealism.

RED DAVE

11th October 2010, 23:49

I'm not engaged in a class struggle, classes only matter to the pious and the meddlesome. I'm engaged in the struggle of me and my potential vs. everyone and everything trying to coax that potential towards supporting ends that are not mine. I view it as insurrection instead of revolution, I realize I am above all these silly concepts and use them to my advantage as I see the need. I can use the State to make me prosperous and untouchable (while undermining it), I can use Capitalism to destroy the State, I influence the Industry to advance past itself, I invest money towards money becoming worthless, I exploit and simultaneously ignore the system until it withers (benefiting from it all the while) and then, being independent of it, I throw it out with the trash and move on with the things in my life that actually matter. When enough people can understand this there will be real change, until then we're going to be 'revolving' until we suffocate ourselves.I think you would be much happier here:

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/

RED DAVE

ckaihatsu

12th October 2010, 05:01

And yet you bring up the oh-so-old complaint about 'ze bourgeoisie'. You're controlled entirely by the generic Communist idea that wealth even matters;

Wealth -- in the form of material tools and consumables -- *does* matter, no matter the historical period or political structure.

Modern conveniences, if nothing else, at least can save us *time*, and also relieve us from the drudgery of mundane, repetitive tasks. Without technology our lives would be cruder and far less self-directed.

I have a working-class job and I currently have less than a hundred bucks to my name but you know what? I'm content because money doesn't matter. My philosophy doesn't involve long tirades about wealth because it doesn't matter. I don't complain about being poor

Since you have to put in time at work in order to make your living, does your *time* matter to you? (It does to your employer.)

and I defend free markets because money is an arbitrary man-made thing that doesn't define my value or anyone else's value to me.

(No one here is questioning your self-worth.)

So what if someone makes more money than me? I can still do the things I want.

That's fine, but what about things "on the horizon", that may be less about necessity and more about pleasure, fun, novelty, and frivolity? There may be things that you wouldn't *plan* to do but would enjoy if you had freer access to them. (And this goes for *any* of us, of course.)

Yes there is less authoritative control over us but we have more societal pressure on us to behave in your manner.

And, what do you think "my manner" is, exactly? Are you assuming that I'm a Stalinist or a megalomaniac? There *is* a distinct difference of politics between mine, revolutionary Marxism, and liberalism, or "soft leftism".

Instead of pledging allegiance to one person we have to efface ourselves to the might of the collective 'good'; that's hardly any different (worse even because the 'good' doesn't even exist).

What is wrong with being attentive to the collective good? Where it leaves off is where our individual preferences begin. Your concern is about bureaucratic elitism, or Stalinism -- in George Orwell's fiction (_1984_) it was called "oligarchical collectivism".

Actually- you know what? I just don't think you're crafty enough. I'd prefer to live under a King because I can at least influence him and gain his trust and then do what I want behind his back. In your system instead of everyone being royalty we've all been demoted to peasants.

You're more than willing here to practice cronyism -- ironically that practice leads right back into a bureaucratic mindset, and bureaucratic groupthink.

I don't appreciate you putting the words in my mouth, but I will say that it's not just the government. But it's not Capitalism, it's Corporations. Corporations and government really like working together because the government, having Socialist tendencies, wants to maintain the flow of goods to maintain economic stability and the businesses, being blessed with limited liability through the government's creation of corporations, wants to make a bunch of money however it can. So on one hand you have a group who can make all the reckless decisions it wants to and on the other you have a system that encourages them to do so, and encourages you to contribute to it. But that does not Capitalism make, it's in face the opposite.

Okay, I don't want mere semantics or terminology to get in the way here -- what I'm hearing is that the status quo government encourages and supports economic perpetuation by allowing corporate business to make money, even if it comes from reckless decision-making.

I'll suggest that one term which might describe this is 'Keynesianism', meaning that the government will use deficit spending -- of public funds -- to artificially keep the economy going through business activity.

If these points are agreeable to you then we're in agreement.

Yeah, I'm objecting to living in an infrastructure where everyone tries to control and order things instead of just letting them go. Instead of (like in the Old West) letting people do what they want and having the capitalist market just be a small aspect of life that one isn't obligated to contribute to we're forced from birth into a parody of what civilization is supposed to be.

Okay, I hear ya -- point taken.

Well you could automate a lot of those industrial jobs. I mean if everything's automated and it becomes ridiculously easy and cheap to produce for the masses why would we need money anymore?

I agree with your *thesis* here, but not with your proposed *implementation* of it....

That could be accomplished with the correct investments in the Capitalist market.

No, capitalism's inherent requirement of having ongoing labor to exploit precludes any possibility of it being able to achieve fully automated industrialism, just as -- conversely -- it's incapable of bringing about full employment.

You're years behind me actually, I'm also a firm supporter of a lot of transhumanist elements. We're destroying and raping the natural world in order to build and maintain an artificial environment where we can thrive... so we can slave to make sure our industry, which is supposed to just be a convenience, thrives. And where we are now isn't that great a place. We're genetically hunter-gatherers trying to adapt to an ecosystem of computers (which we use to update our facebook pages and argue about Communism instead of using in constructive ways) and concrete that we rely on to survive. We need to shit or get off the pot. We should apply our technological prowess to ourselves and truly overcome our biological limitations. I mean why do people need to worry about food when they don't have to eat? That's where things become more individualistic; some people can choose to remain as they are and some can decide to improve themselves, up to the point of not even being human anymore. Think of being able to download your brain to a computer and become one with millions of other people in a hivemind just like you always wanted!

Um.... Enjoy.

And yes, the greedy pig capitalistsnomnomnomeatyouup would get their hands on it first but that's why you need to be crafty and not whiny.

And yeah that sounds fairly ridiculous but so *is* trying to *read* all these *posts* you're making.

The capitalists, by the logic of their own system, would have to make use of labor -- in a hive-mind format, or whatever -- in order to be "greedy pigs".

No one here is being whiny, because no one here is being *personal* -- if you'll *notice* we're addressing the *system* that we all have to live in. Likewise, it wouldn't help *any* individual to be "crafty" because a mass economic / political *problem* requires a mass, collective *solution* -- socialism.

S.Artesian

12th October 2010, 05:28

This guy, Chaz, is an Ayn Randist in drag, which is a pretty neat trick since Ayn Rand was herself always in drag.

Really, people don't have to eat? You mean famine is just a figment of peoples' imaginations? That malnutrition in children is a fantasy? That all those deaths by starvation each year are because people are just too stupid to realize they don't have to eat?

Damn, I never thought of it that way. We just want people to think they need to eat so we can plant corn, wheat, rice and market it; raise livestock and slaughter it. Good job we're doing too. Everybody thinks they need to eat. Suckers! Except for anorexics, they know the truth. We've brainwashed so many people into thinking they need to eat, they actually die of hunger if they don't eat.

If only everybody was as cool, as informed, as tricked out in libertarian laissez-faire stilettos as Chaz they'd realize how silly they look with food in their mouths.

Tell you what, stop eating for about 3 months. No cheating. Just stop eating. Let me know how unreal the loss of weight is; how fake the fatigue; how psychosomatic the hair loss, skin deterioration; how phony the funeral is.

Queercommie Girl

12th October 2010, 14:46

This guy, Chaz, is an Ayn Randist in drag, which is a pretty neat trick since Ayn Rand was herself always in drag.

What's with the "drag" reference though? You think there is something wrong with gay people or others dressing in "drag"?

Really, people don't have to eat? You mean famine is just a figment of peoples' imaginations? That malnutrition in children is a fantasy? That all those deaths by starvation each year are because people are just too stupid to realize they don't have to eat?

Damn, I never thought of it that way. We just want people to think they need to eat so we can plant corn, wheat, rice and market it; raise livestock and slaughter it. Good job we're doing too. Everybody thinks they need to eat. Suckers! Except for anorexics, they know the truth. We've brainwashed so many people into thinking they need to eat, they actually die of hunger if they don't eat.

If only everybody was as cool, as informed, as tricked out in libertarian laissez-faire stilettos as Chaz they'd realize how silly they look with food in their mouths.

Tell you what, stop eating for about 3 months. No cheating. Just stop eating. Let me know how unreal the loss of weight is; how fake the fatigue; how psychosomatic the hair loss, skin deterioration; how phony the funeral is.

He is obviously just an idealist, why waste so much time on him?

S.Artesian

12th October 2010, 15:43

What's with the "drag" reference though? You think there is something wrong with gay people or others dressing in "drag"?

He is obviously just an idealist, why waste so much time on him?

No, I have no problem with gay people dressing in drag. I have a problem with Ayn Randists dressing up, pretending to be "radical." That's why I use the term drag-- it's the use of cosmetics and costume to appear as something you aren't.

I'm not wasting "so much time on him." That was the last thing of his I would respond to.