Blame Capitalism!

[Milk Sheikh]

That's right. Blame capitalism for everything. That seems to be the communist line. Not that I am defending capitalism, but it sounds a little ridiculous when everything is reduced to an anti-capitalist stance. Whether or not we like it, capitalism is the most progressive force man has ever known.

Communism, therefore, is the next step. Capitalism is good, but communism is better; hence we are communists. This would be much more productive than giving the same 'it's all because of capitalism' answer to every damn question.

Man has been been vicious and greedy even in pre-capitalist societies, so blaming everything on capitalism doesn't hold water. If anything, capitalism has civilized a barbaric world with its progressive ideas. But since it's incomplete and self-contradictory, we need something even better: communism. This would be a much more mature way of thinking.

Your thoughts?

[Zanthorus]

Blame capitalism for everything. That seems to be the communist line.

It isn't. The line of Marxist Communists is that capitalism is a superior social formation to all previous social formations. I have no idea what your point was here.

[ComradeMan]

I blame it on the boogie.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

Engels. Have fun.

[L.A.P.]

*facepalms*

[hatzel]

Problem is that the OP has put out a legitimate point, as well as a somewhat silly point, and it's the silly point that everybody's talking about...so let's redo this one. Ditch the bit about capitalism not being good, OP, concentrate on the endless 'it's capitalism, it's the bourgeoisie!' to explain any almost every evil in the world. Much like the classic 'it's capitalism that causes theft and rape and murder, there's be no need to do these things in a communist society, so they won't be done! If you want to combat theft and rape and murder, combat capitalism and the bourgeoisie who promote it' or whatever. Concentrate on that, OP, then you won't have people totally avoiding the whole 'why must you blame the bourgeoisie for everything?' question, which they can't really answer adequately. 'It's only capitalist brainwashing on the part of the bourgeoisie that makes you doubt our claims that capitalism and the bourgeoisie can't be blamed for everything!' Give me a fucking break...

[trivas7]

That's right. Blame capitalism for everything. That seems to be the communist line. Not that I am defending capitalism, but it sounds a little ridiculous when everything is reduced to an anti-capitalist stance. Whether or not we like it, capitalism is the most progressive force man has ever known.

Communism, therefore, is the next step. Capitalism is good, but communism is better; hence we are communists. This would be much more productive than giving the same 'it's all because of capitalism' answer to every damn question.

Man has been been vicious and greedy even in pre-capitalist societies, so blaming everything on capitalism doesn't hold water. If anything, capitalism has civilized a barbaric world with its progressive ideas. But since it's incomplete and self-contradictory, we need something even better: communism. This would be a much more mature way of thinking.

Your thoughts?
Marxist thought is premised on a type of non-philosophic worldview premised on economic determinism. Man, according to this POV, is good; his behavior is the result of his place in society. It's important to understand that matters of morality come at the end of a materialist critique of society; moral judgments are in Marxism epiphenomenon of social reality. I.e., they are relative according to this POV -- there are no absolutes in matters of morality..

[ComradeMan]

Marxist thought is premised on a type of non-philosophic worldview premised on economic determinism. Man, according to this POV, is good; his behavior is the result of his place in society. It's important to understand that matters of morality come at the end of a materialist critique of society; moral judgments are in Marxism epiphenomenon of social reality. I.e., they are relative according to this POV -- there are no absolutes in matters of morality..

Mysticism at its worst.

[Hit The North]

Marxist thought is premised on a type of non-philosophic worldview premised on economic determinism. Man, according to this POV, is good; his behavior is the result of his place in society.

From a Marxist POV, "man" is never assessed outside of her social relations. Therefore the notion than "man is good" in some essentialist or metaphysical way, abstracted from her history, is opposite to Marxism's materialist view.


It's important to understand that matters of morality come at the end of a materialist critique of society; moral judgments are in Marxism epiphenomenon of social reality. I.e., they are relative according to this POV -- there are no absolutes in matters of morality..

This seems to contradict your initial speculation that Marxists somehow view humans as essentially good.

Also, Marx does not view morals as a mere epiphenomena. Ideas which are diffused through a society have a material force - they are part of the constellation of historical forces which makes certain types of social action possible.

[RGacky3]

Marxist thought is premised on a type of non-philosophic worldview premised on economic determinism. Man, according to this POV, is good; his behavior is the result of his place in society. It's important to understand that matters of morality come at the end of a materialist critique of society; moral judgments are in Marxism epiphenomenon of social reality. I.e., they are relative according to this POV -- there are no absolutes in matters of morality..

What?

You are amazing at conjouring up meaningless yet elegant posts about nothing whatsoever.

[trivas7]

Also, Marx does not view morals as a mere epiphenomena. Ideas which are diffused through a society have a material force - they are part of the constellation of historical forces which makes certain types of social action possible.
Excellent point. One more instance why Marxism is logically self-defeating; it can no more escape its historical setting than any other ideology.

[thriller]

If anything, capitalism has civilized a barbaric world with its progressive ideas. But since it's incomplete and self-contradictory, we need something even better: communism. This would be a much more mature way of thinking.

Your thoughts?

So it's better to think that those that were not capitalist in the pre-industrial world were barbaric? This is NOT a better way of thinking.

Please don't spew the ridiculous notion that the 'heathens' and 'uncivilized' people of the world were horrible and down-trodden until capitalism was gracefully given to them by the generous bourgeoisie. White man's burden my ass.

Yes, (most) Marxists believe capitalism was necessary and 'good' but only because it is the only system that can create an oppressed working class that is to be the fundamental and final class to achieve victory.

"Only after the last tree has been cut down;
Only after the last fish has been caught;
Only after the last river has been poisoned;
Only then will you realize
that money cannot be eaten."

American Indians were much better off before capitalism arrived on shore.

[#FF0000]

It is actually kind of annoying to see pointing out capitalism in general as the culprit for everything. I mean, big picture, whatever problem you are talking about is a result of capitalism, but it's good to talk about what it causing the problem more specifically, you know.

[Skooma Addict]

It isn't. The line of Marxist Communists is that capitalism is a superior social formation to all previous social formations. I have no idea what your point was here.

I think he was saying that Communists today blame practically everything on capitalism even if the connection is very weak or not there at all.

[gorillafuck]

I also get kind of annoyed at every single little issue with society being attributed to capitalism by some people.

[L.A.P.]

Marxist thought is premised on a type of non-philosophic worldview premised on economic determinism. Man, according to this POV, is good; his behavior is the result of his place in society. It's important to understand that matters of morality come at the end of a materialist critique of society; moral judgments are in Marxism epiphenomenon of social reality. I.e., they are relative according to this POV -- there are no absolutes in matters of morality..

I feel the sudden urge to negrep you for that. Would negrepping be appropriate for this post?

[#FF0000]

I think he was saying that Communists today blame practically everything on capitalism even if the connection is very weak or not there at all.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh I don't know. Usually when people say "This is capitalism's fault", they are right in a macro sort of way but, like I said, it's better to say "this is why this happens, and that is a result of the mechanisms of capitalism".

[ComradeMan]

I blame OI on capitalism- we should all be given amnesty! :lol:

[Robert]

Na, we'd just fuck it up.

Really, we kinda would, old buddy. I have to agree with the comsters on this.:blushing:

[ComradeMan]

Na, we'd just fuck it up.

How? That mine of quality and intellectual gold.... :lol:


Really, we kinda would, old buddy. I have to agree with the comsters on this.:blushing:

... that's because of capitalism. You're a victim.

[Apoi_Viitor]

So it's better to think that those that were not capitalist in the pre-industrial world were barbaric? This is NOT a better way of thinking.

Yeh, let's bring back the monarchs and knights! Screw this capitalism shit, I'd rather be born into serfdom my entire life.

[Robert]

... that's because of capitalism. You're a victim.

Ha ha, yeah, probably.

For real, Trivas has made some points in this regard that the commies refuse to give him credit for.

[hatzel]

I feel the sudden urge to negrep you for that. Would negrepping be appropriate for this post?

Negrepping is never appropriate, because the whole rep system is pointless ego-massaging anyway; the only positive thing about it is that 'thanking' at least shows everybody which people agree with / appreciate what was written. As negrep is a hidden thing, the only use for it is to covertly tell people 'hey, you, I don't like you very much', whilst also trying to contribute to their reputation falling to a level where it's lower one's own, working on the false assumption that people with better reputations are 'better' commies or whatever, when in fact they all garnered half their rep by posting joke comments on the reactionary chatter thread...

[Tommy4ever]

This is one thing I really don't like about Leftists. Rather than come up with real ideas to deal with problems many just say its all the fault of the bourgeiosie and the capitalist system.

[Ele'ill]

That's right. Blame capitalism for everything. That seems to be the communist line. Not that I am defending capitalism, but it sounds a little ridiculous when everything is reduced to an anti-capitalist stance. Whether or not we like it, capitalism is the most progressive force man has ever known.

Communism, therefore, is the next step. Capitalism is good, but communism is better; hence we are communists. This would be much more productive than giving the same 'it's all because of capitalism' answer to every damn question.

Man has been been vicious and greedy even in pre-capitalist societies, so blaming everything on capitalism doesn't hold water. If anything, capitalism has civilized a barbaric world with its progressive ideas. But since it's incomplete and self-contradictory, we need something even better: communism. This would be a much more mature way of thinking.

Your thoughts?

So basically it's because of Capitalism? Capitalism allows and encourages 'vicious and greedy' activity.

[trivas7]

This is one thing I really don't like about Leftists. Rather than come up with real ideas to deal with problems many just say its all the fault of the bourgeiosie and the capitalist system.
To be fair this is a gross characterization of the revleft's position; in my earlier post I tried to put this criticism into a context that does justice to why this is a characterization and a misunderstanding of Marx's entire approach to history.

[Milk Sheikh]

So basically it's because of Capitalism? Capitalism allows and encourages 'vicious and greedy' activity.

But all this existed even in pre-capitalist societies - wars, greed, poverty etc. So reducing everything to capitalism isn't fair. My point is, it gets annoying when communists provide no analysis but instead come up with 'the bourgeois is responsible bla bla' line each time.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

But all this existed even in pre-capitalist societies - wars, greed, poverty etc. So reducing everything to capitalism isn't fair. My point is, it gets annoying when communists provide no analysis but instead come up with 'the bourgeois is responsible bla bla' line each time.

You are wrong. Read Engels Origins of the Family and then get back to me. Capitalism makes things like war, greed, poverty, etc. far more prevalent than ever before. In fact, they didn't exist in many early societies. Native Americans were appalled by the concept of private property.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think this fails at the same methodological problem that the "why don't leftists codemn hip hop" thread.
Who is this "they?" I don't blame everthing on capitalism. SOmetimes it's fascism, or clasism, or racism, or bigotry, or ignorance, or a lack of education/socialism (which is not the same thing as saying it's capitalism's fault)....
Who is this "they?"

[Apoi_Viitor]

You are wrong. Read Engels Origins of the Family and then get back to me. Capitalism makes things like war, greed, poverty, etc. far more prevalent than ever before. In fact, they didn't exist in many early societies. Native Americans were appalled by the concept of private property.

No war, huh? What about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anasazi

And:

"Nevertheless, some hold the actual deaths from war have decreased compared to past centuries. In War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, calculates that 87% of tribal societies were at war more than once per year, and some 65% of them were fighting continuously. The attrition rate of numerous close-quarter clashes, which characterize endemic warfare, produces casualty rates of up to 60%, compared to 1% of the combatants as is typical in modern warfare."

http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Keeley/War-Before-Civilization.html

[ckaihatsu]

But all this existed even in pre-capitalist societies - wars, greed, poverty etc. So reducing everything to capitalism isn't fair. My point is, it gets annoying when communists provide no analysis but instead come up with 'the bourgeois is responsible bla bla' line each time.


There's a niggling and profound disconnect between the way we'd *like* the world to be, in general -- rational and non-harmful -- and the way that it *has been* and *is* -- crisis-ridden and often blindly destructive.

Currently we're under a global regime of capital, such as societal "evolution" is. Until we can wrest the administration of the world away from its default functioning -- the result of historical inertia -- it will stay on this trajectory that allows the widespread "loopholes" of wars, greed, poverty, etc.

Since the bourgeoisie willfully plays the role of human "stand-ins" as fronts for this mechanistic functioning they're the most culpable since they make a living from defending this zombie-motion status quo.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

No war, huh? What about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anasazi

And:

"Nevertheless, some hold the actual deaths from war have decreased compared to past centuries. In War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, calculates that 87% of tribal societies were at war more than once per year, and some 65% of them were fighting continuously. The attrition rate of numerous close-quarter clashes, which characterize endemic warfare, produces casualty rates of up to 60%, compared to 1% of the combatants as is typical in modern warfare."

http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Keeley/War-Before-Civilization.html

I'm sorry that I was unclear, I meant that there was no real "greed" as it exists today in certain societies.

I was saying that capitalism exacerbates the conflicts that lead to war. However, I do not blame war solely on capitalism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm sorry that I was unclear, I meant that there was no real "greed" as it exists today in certain societies.

I was saying that capitalism exacerbates the conflicts that lead to war. However, I do not blame war solely on capitalism.

I agree with you on the greed comment, however, if there were greater incidences of war in pre-capitalist societies, than how could capitalism end up exacerbating the conflicts that lead to war?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I agree with you on the greed comment, however, if there were greater incidences of war in pre-capitalist societies, than how could capitalism end up exacerbating the conflicts that lead to war?

Those societies were more primitive forms of capitalism. Greed and clash for land were very prevalent, wars were fought over territory and wealth. Modern capitalism is, as Marx mentioned, a move towards greater equality and civility than before (as most socioeconomic revolutions are). Those primitive societies that you cite are not the EARLIEST civilizations, but civilizations at the beginning of their foray into capitalism.

[Lt. Ferret]

the State produces war. whether this state is feudal, communist, democratic, capitalist, socialist, imperialist, monarchist, it matters not.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Those primitive societies that you cite are not the EARLIEST civilizations, but civilizations at the beginning of their foray into capitalism.

9th century = capitalism? I thought you previously said that Native Americans were appalled at the idea of private property? If they didn't have private property, how could they be capitalist?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

9th century = capitalism? I thought you previously said that Native Americans were appalled at the idea of private property? If they didn't have private property, how could they be capitalist?

Hmm... that's interesting. I just read the articles. Didn't realize they were Native American societies... I would have to agree that the state in any form causes conflict. Perhaps there were social classes within the societies that led to antagonisms? I'll read into it further before I come up with an answer. Thank you for pointing this out.

[Lt. Ferret]

http://www.franz-oppenheimer.de/state0.htm


may i recommend Franz Oppenheimer's "The State"

i have it in book form so i dont know how much of a bother it is to read on a website.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Hmm... that's interesting. I just read the articles. Didn't realize they were Native American societies... I would have to agree that the state in any form causes conflict. Perhaps there were social classes within the societies that led to antagonisms? I'll read into it further before I come up with an answer. Thank you for pointing this out.

I just thought about this. I don't think that it matters whether or not these things happened in ancient society or not because these societies weren't socialist. One thing that I DO know is that under socialism and communism, those antagonisms and contradictions that lead to war and poverty would be abolished. Thus, capitalism IS to blame for standing in the way of a system that could abolish these problems.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Hmm... that's interesting. I just read the articles. Didn't realize they were Native American societies... I would have to agree that the state in any form causes conflict. Perhaps there were social classes within the societies that led to antagonisms? I'll read into it further before I come up with an answer. Thank you for pointing this out.

I just created this thread because I wanted to see what others thought of this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/war-and-primitive-t148296/index.html?p=1991029

The fact that they weren't socialist is a non-issue, in primitive communist societies there were no classes, but there were warfare. How would a Marxist explain this?

[#FF0000]

the State produces war. whether this state is feudal, communist, democratic, capitalist, socialist, imperialist, monarchist, it matters not.

That is definitely true. but whether it is capitalist, feudal, fascist...etc absolutely determines who profits.

Doesn't it?

[Lt. Ferret]

Depends entirely on how responsive the State is to the needs of its various sectors of population. This changes with each and every State according to ideology, situation, and efficacy of government.

[mikelepore]

Whether or not we like it, capitalism is the most progressive force man has ever known.

That idea was answered in a pamphlet by Arnold Petersen (a Marxist):

"They boast of their capitalist system -- the system, they say, under which America has grown great. What a strange boast is that! True, America has grown great under capitalism. Being rude, uncouth Marxists, we ask: 'So what?' Greece and Rome grew great under slavery, and what has become of the glory that was Greece and the boast that was Rome? It is as if a person who has recovered from a broken leg were to insist on continuing using the crutches that helped him to recovery, for did he not grow strong with them, and through their aid? It is an argument so infantile that one is left amazed to reflect that men and women of adult, supposedly trained mentalities, are capable of advancing it. It seems trite to say, in this day and age, that there is no permanency in political and economic systems, yet the contentions of the fatuous defenders of capitalism imply precisely such permanency. They will concede that there was need of fundamental social changes once, but there is none now, they argue! There was history once, but history is no more!"

-- Excerpt from "Socialism, the World of Tomorrow", 1939

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't be non-nuanced and just say, "well it's capitalism, nothing will change until we get rid of it" and that we should, instead, explain the specific ways that the profit-system creates problems or compounds pre-existing problems. But honestly, since society is shaped based on the needs of production on whatever basis a given ruling class has organized society (slave, serf, wage labor), that fundamental organization influences everything else in society.

Why are most modern cities located near rivers or ports? To facilitate trade: capitalism. Why is food that can be grown locally instead grown across the country or in a different country and then shipped thousands of miles? It's more profitable to do production this way: capitalism. Why are processed foods utilized more than fresh meat or dairy? Because the profit-motive means that processing the meat adds value to the product (by adding labor) and returns a higher profit. Why are people eating bad quick food or unable to get enough sleep? Because the pace of work in the US has increased over the last generation: capitalism.

If "blaming capitalism" for everything seems odd, turn it on its head. Why are politicians and think tanks and academics so adverse to blaming capitalism. I mean academics blame increased population for starvation and yet in most cases where people in the industrialized world are starving, it has to do with unemployment (which rises and falls independently of simple population rates) and crisis of overproduction where fields are neglected or grain is destroyed to keep the market from imploding. So really it's capitalism, not just population or poor choices of induviduals.

This is how it always is for societies: it's like goldfish not being able to conceive of what water is because they have nothing else to reference it to. Of course in the case of societies, there are people who have an interest in defelecting blame from the slave/feudal/capitalist systems.

If we were to ask someone today why a slave ran away from their plantation - would it be deterministic to say "because of the conditions of slavery"? No, of course even the most right-wing politician would acknowledge that fact. But Plantation owners of that time and the southern ruling elites didn't see it that way. In fact they blames runaway slaves on a mental disorder called "draptomania" which was caused by slave-owners not disciplining their slaves enough which lead to confusion in the slave and eventually for him/her to run away. The cure? More whipping.

I think today we can find similar analogues. The capitalist system has just gone through a bust due to internal mechanisms of the system itself: speculative bubbles which had to be invested in otherwise investors would loose ground to their competitors and be driven out of business, but participating in the bubbles means ultimately a bust at some point. What is the answer that the ruling class has to offer to solve this problem of capitalism? More capitalism, more whipping.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No war, huh? What about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anasazi

And:

"Nevertheless, some hold the actual deaths from war have decreased compared to past centuries. In War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, calculates that 87% of tribal societies were at war more than once per year, and some 65% of them were fighting continuously. The attrition rate of numerous close-quarter clashes, which characterize endemic warfare, produces casualty rates of up to 60%, compared to 1% of the combatants as is typical in modern warfare."

http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Keeley/War-Before-Civilization.html
I think, in general, when people blame things like war on capitalism, they are actually blaming these things on class-based social orders, recognizing that many fundamental problems in their given society are in fact fundamental problems inherent in the social order that governs these societies. It is a generalisation.

Most anti-capitalists; Marxists, anarchists or whatever will blame many different social problems on 'capitalism'. Really 'we' are recognizing that many unfortunate things happen because of the socio-economic conditions these things happen in. Would there be less war, rape, murder, theft, general crime and deviance if there was not a class system/monetary system/heirarchical social order? Hopefully, yes. Can we blame many bad things on class based economic and social orders? Definitely, yes. We understand different events and phenomenons in their historical context, in relation to the economic and social conditions that they occurr in. This could be rape, war, or the fact that somebody is homeless, or almost anything you like really.

In short, people don't 'blame everything on capitalism', but people blame a lot of the world's problems on the world's economic and social conditions, and rightly so, as it is usually these conditions that lead to problems that arise within them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

They will concede that there was need of fundamental social changes once, but there is none now, they argue! There was history once, but history is no more!"

-- Excerpt from "Socialism, the World of Tomorrow", 1939

Or in modern capitalist poli-speak, "the end of History":laugh:

[PhoenixAsh]

(..) Keeley

O...yes...Keeley. Interesting "what-if" line of reasoning.

Fact remains that "progress" in the art of warfare did only come from `nation` forming and that serious innovations in the art of war have only been made because of economic shifts.

Warfare was fought to enable dominance and power over others...the motivations being various and many...but all boiling down to either survival, exploitation, or relgion.

Tribes did innovate weapons, but there would never have been bombs, planes, tanks if it weren't for the fact that tribes banded together, formed nations and invested serious amount of time and resources into their creation. This is also the only possibility for nations to maintain standing armies.

Only with the introduction of modern weaponry did warfare change in its complete nature and impact society over such a large cheographic area. Resulting indeed in less casualties within the armed forces and instead created tremendous amounts of casualties in the civilian population.

In tribal warfare...with some notbale exceptions, dominance was established through warfare by diminishing the fighting forces. After that happened perhaps there was slaughter and perhaps there was genocide (broadest sense) or punitative action...i.e. the so called rights of conquest (women, pillage, etc)

The focus on warfare was to destroy the capability to fight. The focus of modern warfare has been the destruction of the will to fight....specifically targetting civilian populations either intentional or unintentional but as an effect of the weapons used.

Now to get back at the innovation aspect I mentioned earlier.

Prereqiusite for being able to innovate is either a surplus or by redistributing resources....the amount of money and research necessary to innovate a bow made of wood to smart bombs is tremendous.

This was only possible because of the changes in the economic realities. To generalize and simpify...reforming tribalism into feudalism...feudalism into mercantilism...mercantilism in capitalism.
All based on exploitation of people who get a lesser share so tht somewhere a surpluse is created. I.g. taxation by churches and feudal lords during the crusades or taxation in the current system.

Where in tribalism people became warriors because the tribe as a whole had the same goals and impacted everybody to somewhat of an equal extend...the evolution of society meant that the goals were dictated and people who did not see the reason to fight some nation were forced by rule of law to defend the interests of the ruling classes without benefitting from it.

The ways wars are fought is radically differrent from the way tribal wars were fought simply because and for the same reasons we evolved away from tribalism. In tribalism the current way of wars and the current weaponry would never have existed or maintained and as such the proposition of Keeley is simply nothing more than a fantasy line of reasoning along the lines of `what if dragons truely existed`...it is interesting but nothing more than that.



@OP...capitalism evolved from everything that went before. It has had and needed prerequisites to form. One of the basic tennent that remains the same is the fact that there is expoitation of many to benefit the few. Never does Marxism say that inequality and injustice did not exist before capitalism...what it says is that capitalism brings it all to its Zenith.

Abolishing capitalism does not do anything to solve these problems....not even Marxist think that. It only resolves problems if it is replaced by something radically different in which exploitation is non existent. Marxism describes this.

...again...I say it in a very, very simplified way.

[ckaihatsu]

Those societies were more primitive forms of capitalism. Greed and clash for land were very prevalent, wars were fought over territory and wealth. Modern capitalism is, as Marx mentioned, a move towards greater equality and civility than before (as most socioeconomic revolutions are). Those primitive societies that you cite are not the EARLIEST civilizations, but civilizations at the beginning of their foray into capitalism.


This is an important point, and I'm going to offer a line of reasoning here that examines material factors -- it's only a sketch, feedback is welcome.

Consider that pre-capitalist societies made cultural artifacts, for use and for ceremony, but that these objects were not commodities, nor were they made in any kind of considerable excess (surplus). As such these societies didn't have their attentions taken up with the issue of how to manage objects and/or how to value them in any kind of abstract-quantitative-value way.

I'll submit, though, along the lines of what EUDO is saying here, that more-developed and highly developed primitive societies *were* productive in these handicrafts, and their increasing material development of such, including weaponry, would, on its own, generate an increasing *material culture* of the same. In schematic terms (see the diagrams below) this equates to a strengthening of the 'regional culture' material level, in turn providing greater material support for an emergent level *above* it, 'economic trends' -- in this case meaning a culture with an enlarged material-objects component due to developed and productive methods of hand-work, as well as a certain overall stable and resourceful existence.

This dynamic can become an increasingly self-reinforcing one, despite (or because of) warfare, spurring further developments such as the concentration of group efforts to produce certain implements, and/or improvements in tools produced, for making labor even more efficient and effective -- represented as 'technology / technique' in the illustrations.

We could reasonably begin to question at what point the increasing productivity from such basic labors might hit a certain "critical mass" threshold and become *institutionalized* as a formal, managed work routine involving a distinct, careerist-like division of labor over the productive process for large groupings of handcraft laborers. If such a threshold were to be reached it would introduce a distinctly different 'mode of production', something similar to feudalism. This is not to say that such a phase transition is *inevitable* or that North American Native peoples were bound to reach it if not for Western invasions, but rather that, materially, such a transition would be *more likely* to unfold, dependent upon environmental and political factors as well.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://postimage.org/image/34mjeutk4/


[22] History, Macro Micro

http://postimage.org/image/35q8b6o84/

[Delenda Carthago]

blame canada!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAYMJnO9LBQ
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAYMJnO9LBQ)

[thriller]

Yeh, let's bring back the monarchs and knights! Screw this capitalism shit, I'd rather be born into serfdom my entire life.

I didn't know that serfs and knights existed in Native American tribes. I bet they were Christian too huh? Read a book. The whole world did not follow European traditions, even though you may want them too.