Has America created global capitalism?

[Funky Monk]

From what i understand of the theory of the natural evolution of society from capitalism to Communism the force which drives this is the superior force of the Working Class coupled with politicisation. But for this to work i believe that the workers need a force close at hand to strike against, a visible symbol of that which oppresses at them and something which is in their reach to attack.
Now America has effectively rid the country of the working class by elevating the majority of society to the bourgeoise with the workers housed in foreign countries, which may be argued to have created safety for the heads of business within America.
This leaves the proletariet isolated, seperated from their oppressors but huge distances and without a definitive target to strike.
Does this mean that the supposed evolution of Society in America (and presumably most fo the western world) will never happen? Have the capitalists secured their survival by segregating the working class abroad?

[Invader Zim]

I would not disagree with the bulk of your post, just the title. America did not create Global capitalism, the British Empire did, with the formation of the East india Company etc. America then inherited it, and expanded upon it.

[redstar2000]

Now America has effectively rid the country of the working class by elevating the majority of society to the bourgeoisie with the workers housed in foreign countries, which may be argued to have created safety for the heads of business within America.

No, that is not true...though the Maoists argue otherwise. Only if you use a narrow definition of the working class--industrial manual labor--can it be said that "most" of "the working class" has been removed from America.

A better definition of "workers" would be those who are required to sell their labor power, who thereby generate surplus value that is appropriated by capital.

I think it is possible, in principle, to define "the working class" even more carefully...though I have to admit that I am not an accomplished Marxist economist and thus unqualified to do so.

But even I can recognize the difference between a sales clerk at WalMart (average wage $9.50 per hour) and a member of the bourgeoisie.

You should be able to see that as well.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

Does this mean that the supposed evolution of Society in America (and presumably most fo the western world) will never happen? Have the capitalists secured their survival by segregating the working class abroad? Worse case scenario is that embourgouisment and reactionary influence are fully entrenched into American society, which (as RedStar pointed out) is not the case, the same material rules still apply. The bourgeousie are entirely reliant upon the labor of the working-classes. America will be forced to capitulate or will crumble if the revolution went inter-national. A new threat of national socialism which was not so large a hundred years ago is emerging. The idea that the revolution won't go global. The working class though are not isolated from each other. They are not even isolated from their exploiters. The bourgoeisie rely on state violence to control populations from afar. The fight should be aimed at the state, disarming our enemies. The third world have only to aim at America's clients to push back the tide of modern imperialism.

[@[email protected]@]

The imperialism has happen to accomplished the new generation of proletariat in the world expansion. Today we meet in here are a very good proof. A proletariat revolution in world occurrence. Although, it has the different form in the different area. The world people unite the cooperation. Successfully is our. Please allow me to use REDSTAR the symbol. Salutes to him.

[DEPAVER]

Many activists have a tendency to view capitalism as the cause of world wide destruction (especially environmental) and socialism (non-capitalism) as the cure. Thus, "we must replace capitalism with socialism" and "Ta-Da!" we have a sustainable, peaceful world.

This ignores a couple of things:
1) Capitalism does not destroy anything, people do. Yes, capitalism rewards people who engage in environmental destruction, but it is the people who do the clearcutting, the oil dumping, the overfishing, the house building and the road construction. We are sentient beings, it says here, who are allegedly capable of understanding the consequences of our actions. What is there about humans in a non-capitalist society that would prevent them from engaging in such destructive behavior?

2) We tend to approach solutions to problems in a top-down manner: get rid of capitalism, replace it with non-capitalism and all will be well. This is not how problems start, so I seriously doubt that we can find a long-term solution by changing the overriding social system, even if that were possible.

Social systems derive from the actions of the people, reflecting those actions and instructing new members of society on how to be a successful human being. It seems unlikely that we can change our social system without first changing our behavior. There must first be a successful society of people living in harmony with local cycles, before it can be a model for all human societies, in their infinite variations on the theme.

I'm interested in the exploration of reinhabitory strategies that will allow us to live, in this world, in a manner that increasingly approaches sustainability. We can start with what we have, discard what we don't need, reject the foolishness and destructiveness of the present example and begin to ease toward a lifeway offering a path to the future. It may not be as exciting as immediate revolution, solar panels and hydrogen cars, but it is a way forward rather than over the edge.

[Faceless]

Capitalism does not destroy anything, people do. Yes, capitalism rewards people who engage in environmental destruction, but it is the people who do the clearcutting, the oil dumping, the overfishing, the house building and the road construction. So the logic would be that if you stop people from being rewarder for wanton destruction then wanton destruction will end.

We are sentient beings, it says here, who are allegedly capable of understanding the consequences of our actions. And in this society we see that "I become as the oppressor is and I will be rewarded" Socialism also promises practical means to stop the exploitation and the destruction. With no national boundary there will be no war. And also we must ask, "do the majority really want this war against the environment?" I must say no. There are the rich who, consumed with greed, get misty eyed and being so powerful they have a louder voice. So loud to seem as to be the voice of all humanity. As I see it there is no room for moderation and revolution is the only way to hit at the current disaster. Freedom for the environment is bound up with the future of TNCs (who flagrantly reject and eco-friendly alternatives) and capitalism. I believe that if the majority really had some representation then there would be some change.

We can start with what we have, discard what we don't need, reject the foolishness and destructiveness of the present example and begin to ease toward a lifeway offering a path to the future. of course we still have obligations to do this anyway.

[DEPAVER]

"...Socialism also promises practical means to stop the exploitation and the destruction. With no national boundary there will be no war. And also we must ask, "do the majority really want this war against the environment?" I must say no....."

"No national boundaries" is okay. I've never believed in any socio-political boundaries other than natural ones that define ecosystems, such as watersheds; however, I've never seen anything in socialist literature that suggests it addresses the biological needs of the planet.

Ending industrial capitalism is a great start, since it's directly responsible, but there's nothing in official WSM publications (to the best of my knowledge) that addresses the environmental aspects of production and consumption.

[Faceless]

however, I've never seen anything in socialist literature that suggests it addresses the biological needs of the planet. You would be right but as I say; the true socialists want to deliver power to the people. I trust that the majority will want to help the environment as best they can through "dictatorship of the proletariat" (that is the dictatorship of a class not of one man). It might not be "profitable" on the capitalist scale but it is socially desirable.

[edit] OK. I just read your Profile and there you state that you are an anarchist. No doubt you believe that my Communism will not develop into a system by which the masses have representation (let alone "anarchy") but a new ruling elite. This may go if topic if not careful. Anyway, what is the topic?

[Rasta Sapian]

lets face it, "communism" as a word has a bad reputation among the modern day masses, through past wars as well as years of mass media capitalist propoganda! so yes! vote "socialism" a fresh new face for the future, where people live in the same class and share the wealth and kwoledge!

socialism, a new face for communism

[Guest1]

Actually faceless, there's no reason for him to think that. Communism is meant to end with Anarchy. There is supposed to be an elimination of the state, of world boundries.

As for depaver. Socialism is an ever-changing political ideology. It represents what is good for all. What is good for all is today recognized by the vast majority of socialists to include what is good for the environment. Back when Marx was around, the ideas of global warming and the like did not exist, so it's not really surprising that he was quite vague about it.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 7 2003, 10:44 PM
Actually faceless, there's no reason for him to think that. Communism is meant to end with Anarchy. There is supposed to be an elimination of the state, of world boundries.

As for depaver. Socialism is an ever-changing political ideology. It represents what is good for all. What is good for all is today recognized by the vast majority of socialists to include what is good for the environment. Back when Marx was around, the ideas of global warming and the like did not exist, so it's not really surprising that he was quite vague about it.
Actually faceless, there's no reason for him to think that. Communism is meant to end with Anarchy. There is supposed to be an elimination of the state, of world boundries.

Just a question which I want a serious answer to which came first Marxism or communism? Did Marx invent communism, as a derivative of socialism, or did Marx merely expand on a pre existing communist ideal, which it self was a derivative of socialism?

I think its quite an interesting question. many give Marx credit for the former, but Engel’s describes the utopians as communists as well.

I ask because if communism predates Marx, then where do you get the idea that anarchism is the next stage in communism, because I have not seen any material other, than Marx and Marxist writers say this, and usually that is sketchy.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 10:38 PM
You would be right but as I say; the true socialists want to deliver power to the people. I trust that the majority will want to help the environment as best they can through "dictatorship of the proletariat" (that is the dictatorship of a class not of one man). It might not be "profitable" on the capitalist scale but it is socially desirable.


The avowed distinction between socialism and capitalism is that the
means of production are commonly rather than privately owned. Socialism
proposes that all people decide democratically on how natural resources are
used for human needs, and how these goods and services are distributed to
the people.

Both capitalism and socialism assume that raw materials, natural
resources, are among the means of production that can be owned by humans.
Socialists assume, as do capitalists, that natural resources exist for human
use, and humans can decide how and when resources can be exploited and put
to human use. In this, there is no difference between capitalism and
socialism.

We don't know how socialism would make use of natural resources, since a
socialist society has never existed. We do know that capitalism exploits
natural resources without consideration of the effect of this exploitation
on non-human species. The perceived "needs" of humans come first; all other
species must stand in line.

Therefore, we have no reason to assume that a socialist society would
organize the use of natural resources in any way differently than that which
we observe in our capitalist society. The claim that a socialist society
would use resources at a slower rate does not negate the fact that the
resources are still regarded as primarily for human use, secondarily for the
use of non-human species. In Socialist and Capitalist thought, human desires
for the products of natural resources are paramount over their support of
non-human species.

[redstar2000]

In Socialist and Capitalist thought, human desires for the products of natural resources are paramount over their support of non-human species.

Well, yes.

How would or could it be otherwise? Individuals of every species seek to appropriate resources without regard for competing species.

"It's a jungle out there".

We can formulate and implement more sensible policies with regard to the environment...but it's still humans first and then "mammals that we like" and then "birds that we like", etc., etc.

If we could, we'd render a good many of the world's inspect species extinct, and as for bacteria and viruses with the temerity to attack us...we kill them at every opportunity and have a great time doing it. If it were possible to "hear" the AIDS virus scream in torment while dying an agonizing death...we'd play the recording at cocktail parties.

Does this make us an "immoral" species?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

Just a question which I want a serious answer to which came first Marxism or communism? Well Communism is in fact prehistoric; literally. Private property is as much as invention as the wheel or the automobile. The default social setting for humanity was to organise things with a local commune. Modern, Marxist Communism has been quite evolutionary though and is one (whilst favoured) of many branches.

In Socialist and Capitalist thought, human desires for the products of natural resources are paramount over their support of non-human species. These are just economic systems, of course. It may just be incidental that these things benefit the society but if for humanity alone, biodiversity is of advantage to the working classes. It is not part of any left-wing theory but the CPGB to whom I am most affiliated make a point of priority for the environment as I know other parties do. My foremost concern though is for humanity but I've always been a bit racist in that sense.
:P

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 08:07 PM

Just a question which I want a serious answer to which came first Marxism or communism? Well Communism is in fact prehistoric; literally. Private property is as much as invention as the wheel or the automobile. The default social setting for humanity was to organise things with a local commune. Modern, Marxist Communism has been quite evolutionary though and is one (whilst favoured) of many branches.

In Socialist and Capitalist thought, human desires for the products of natural resources are paramount over their support of non-human species. These are just economic systems, of course. It may just be incidental that these things benefit the society but if for humanity alone, biodiversity is of advantage to the working classes. It is not part of any left-wing theory but the CPGB to whom I am most affiliated make a point of priority for the environment as I know other parties do. My foremost concern though is for humanity but I've always been a bit racist in that sense.
:P
Well Communism is in fact prehistoric; literally.

I would disagree, I would say that socialism is prehistoric, as in the idea that material possessions should be owned by every one, equally, but communism is rather more specific than that, and is relatively modern, but how modern?

[Faceless]

I would disagree, I would say that socialism is prehistoric, as in the idea that material possessions should be owned by every one, equally, but communism is rather more specific than that, and is relatively modern, but how modern? No, really, it isn't! Communism=no private propety or state. These communes satisfied both. It is mankinds default setting!

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 02:17 PM
We can formulate and implement more sensible policies with regard to the environment...but it's still humans first and then "mammals that we like" and then "birds that we like", etc., etc.

If we could, we'd render a good many of the world's inspect species extinct, and as for bacteria and viruses with the temerity to attack us...we kill them at every opportunity and have a great time doing it. If it were possible to "hear" the AIDS virus scream in torment while dying an agonizing death...we'd play the recording at cocktail parties.

Does this make us an "immoral" species?


We are a higher order, so to speak, and as such, we'd better get our act together and realize that we can't pick and choose between what we want to keep and what we don't, including the AIDS virus.

Viruses help keep the population in check, like it or not. If there were no viruses, we'd have a completely unsustainable population.

All life, human and non-human, is equally important to our survival as a species.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Viruses help keep the population in check, like it or not. If there were no viruses, we'd have a completely unsustainable population.


What then, do you think about the current "inequality" in the distribution of these virusses?

Is it fair that Westerners can (generally) recieve treatment for diseases and ailments which Third World populations cannot? Or is this another extension of Capitalist inequality worldwide?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 08:34 PM

I would disagree, I would say that socialism is prehistoric, as in the idea that material possessions should be owned by every one, equally, but communism is rather more specific than that, and is relatively modern, but how modern? No, really, it isn't! Communism=no private propety or state. These communes satisfied both. It is mankinds default setting!
Well according to Engels communism is: -

"the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. "

Engels also says that the proletariat: -

"originated in the industrial revolution, which took place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century, and which has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the world."

If Engels is right, as Marx's partner so to speak, I would imagine he is the communism cannot be pre-historic, as the proletariat origionated in the industrial revolution of the 18th century.

I believe that you are confusing socialist co-operatives for communist socioties.

Frederick Engels The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 8 2003, 10:44 PM

What then, do you think about the current "inequality" in the distribution of these virusses?

Is it fair that Westerners can (generally) recieve treatment for diseases and ailments which Third World populations cannot? Or is this another extension of Capitalist inequality worldwide?
There is no equality of inequality in the distribution of viruses. Viruses are a natural organism only intentionally distributed via a WMD, and I don't think we want them distributed in that fashion.

As for treatment, yes, I think corporations that develop drugs to combat disease have a moral obligation to distribute those drugs for humanitarian purposes, since the corporation uses natural resources that belong to all living things.

The problem, of course, is that the drugs aren't always invented for the purpose of curing disease. Corporations exist only to make a profit, and anything, including the distribution of medicines, that gets in the way of profits will either be eliminated or watched with a careful eye.

[redstar2000]

We are a higher order, so to speak, and as such, we'd better get our act together and realize that we can't pick and choose between what we want to keep and what we don't, including the AIDS virus.

Why ever not? Of course, we might deliberately exterminate a species that we considered harmful to us without realizing that the consequences are even "more" harmful.

But we have always "picked and chosen" according to the state of our knowledge at the time...and it seems to me that as time passes and our knowledge increases, we will make better choices, not stop choosing.


Viruses help keep the population in check, like it or not. If there were no viruses, we'd have a completely unsustainable population.

Do I take it that, in the event of infection, you will decline medical treatment and accept your preventable death in the interest of "sustainable population"?

Are you just volunteering other people?

I've read that Earth cannot sustain an advanced technological population of more than a billion or two...the numbers have to come down and quite a bit.

But it seems to me that vigorous birth control is a much better way to do that...at least one that is far more humane than epidemics and starvation.


All life, human and non-human, is equally important to our survival as a species.

I don't see how that could possibly be true.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 03:23 AM
But we have always "picked and chosen" according to the state of our knowledge at the time...and it seems to me that as time passes and our knowledge increases, we will make better choices, not stop choosing.

Do I take it that, in the event of infection, you will decline medical treatment and accept your preventable death in the interest of "sustainable population"?

Are you just volunteering other people?

...I don't see how that could possibly be true.

Wow! I'm not sure where to start with this post.

Of course we've been picking and choosing, but we shouldn't be trying to deliberately send organisms to extinction. Actually, the discussion is really pointless, because we will never be able to totally eradicate viruses.

I suppose some might want to eradicate flies, but they serve a pretty important role in the ecosystem.

No, I'm not going to volunteer to forego treatment. As an organism, I'll fight for survival; however, viruses are one way that the ecosystem keeps populations in check. That's just a fact, like it or not.

Placing man above other living creatures is a Judeo-Christian anthropocentric anachronism that makes no sense whatsoever. Native Americans called the opposite concept "The Circle of Life;" in other words, us featherless bipeds are just part of the cicle, no greater or no less important than any other organism.

All things are connected and no organism can survive independently of other organisms.

[redstar2000]

Placing man above other living creatures is a Judeo-Christian anthropocentric anachronism that makes no sense whatsoever.

Doesn't every living organism place itself "above" all other organisms? The theologies that you mention may have constructed a "divine sanction" for this viewpoint, but so what? Who "wants" to "be eaten" rather than be the "eater"?


...in other words, us featherless bipeds are just part of the circle, no greater or no less important than any other organism.

Interesting theory...what's the practice? As far as I know, native Americans were just like us...they ate everything that didn't eat them first. It's a hot argument in anthropological circles these days, but some argue that they actually wiped out most of the large mammals in the western hemisphere within a few thousand years of their arrival.


All things are connected and no organism can survive independently of other organisms.

True. But which ones? The humble ocean plankton supply a huge amount of the oxygen in the atmosphere...kill them and we have probably killed ourselves.

If all species of mosquitoes go extinct, I do not think we will miss them or mourn their departure. The same goes for flies. I think we'd not only manage to get along without them but that we'd get along better.

.........................

Some hopeful news: if we can reduce fertility to 1.85 children per woman, the world's population will decline to 2.3 billion by the year 2300 according to a UN estimate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/3302497.stm

That's what we need to do!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 02:12 PM

Doesn't every living organism place itself "above" all other organisms? The theologies that you mention may have constructed a "divine sanction" for this viewpoint, but so what? Who "wants" to "be eaten" rather than be the "eater"?



Actually, no.

Life is unitary, in the sense that the basic molecular architectures of humans, redwoods, and slime molds all indicate a common ancestor.

In the current orthodoxy the term "struggle" is endowed with Hobbesian and Social-Darwinian meanings: struggle is the war of all against all, and the survival of the fittest in a regime of continual mutual agression. This particular notion was not Darwin's, and it is not only ideologically distorted, but factually wrong.

By no means do all creatures behave in this way. In fact, no creature, not even the "king of the jungle," endures wholly through predation; while for the simplest creatures, those microscopic cellular beings on which the entire biosphere rests, the Social-Darwinian notion is without meaning.

The first sustainable systems, the mat creatures or stromatolites, whose lineage goes 3 billion years back to the Precambrian (roughly 2.4 billion years before the emergence of more complex multicellular organisms), and that still endure in certain protected locales, are composed of layers of prokaryotic bacteria, the topmost, thin as as sheet of paper, doing photosynthesis, the lower layers breaking down the waste products of the upper by fermentation, the whole given structure and nutrient by trapped grains of minerals.

It was a sustainable, completely cooperative ecosystem in miniature. Reflected in the state of the nasent biological world it is clear that cooperation and coexistence were a part of life close to its inception. Existence at base can be thought of a reciprocal rather than competitive.

[Faceless]

Enigma.
Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. This is true in so much as the existance of a proletariat is contradictory to the classless society which is Communism.
The above statements holds true for all periods (even though it wouldn't mean much) To liberate the proletariat is to remove this condition of inferiority from them and destroy classes. In modern society the prerequisite of Communism is the liberation of all classes. In the feudal era it would have been the equitable distribution of property but this couldn't have happened until the evolution of society to the point where religion and monarchy too are dead. This was not a problem at the start of history with no classes but when they formed the conditions for revolution changed. In the modern day the above is entirely true for Communism. Don't dogmatize Engels' work. The pre-historic communes were undescovered by archaeologists in his time.

[Faceless]

The golden age was first; when Man yet new,
No rule but uncorrupted reason knew:
And, with a native bent, did good pursue.
Unforc'd by punishment, un-aw'd by fear,
His words were simple, and his soul sincere;
Needless was written law, where none opprest:
The law of Man was written in his breast:
No suppliant crowds before the judge appear'd,
No court erected yet, nor cause was heard:
But all was safe, for conscience was their guard.
The mountain-trees in distant prospect please,
E're yet the pine descended to the seas:
E're sails were spread, new oceans to explore:
And happy mortals, unconcern'd for more,
Confin'd their wishes to their native shore.
No walls were yet; nor fence, nor mote, nor mound,
Nor drum was heard, nor trumpet's angry sound:
Nor swords were forg'd; but void of care and crime,
The soft creation slept away their time.
The teeming Earth, yet guiltless of the plough,
And unprovok'd, did fruitful stores allow:
Content with food, which Nature freely bred,
On wildings and on strawberries they fed;
Cornels and bramble-berries gave the rest,
And falling acorns furnish'd out a feast.
The flow'rs unsown, in fields and meadows reign'd:
And Western winds immortal spring maintain'd.
In following years, the bearded corn ensu'd
From Earth unask'd, nor was that Earth renew'd.
From veins of vallies, milk and nectar broke;
And honey sweating through the pores of oak.

A beautiful poem (Ovid's Golden Age)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 07:45 PM
Enigma.
Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. This is true in so much as the existance of a proletariat is contradictory to the classless society which is Communism.
The above statements holds true for all periods (even though it wouldn't mean much) To liberate the proletariat is to remove this condition of inferiority from them and destroy classes. In modern society the prerequisite of Communism is the liberation of all classes. In the feudal era it would have been the equitable distribution of property but this couldn't have happened until the evolution of society to the point where religion and monarchy too are dead. This was not a problem at the start of history with no classes but when they formed the conditions for revolution changed. In the modern day the above is entirely true for Communism. Don't dogmatize Engels' work. The pre-historic communes were undescovered by archaeologists in his time.
Again I belive that you confuse communism with socialism, communism is a direct sub-ideology of socialism. Socialism being the ideal of equil distribution of material possessions, the means of production, etc. This has significant bearing on this statement from you: -

In the feudal era it would have been the equitable distribution of property but this couldn't have happened until the evolution of society to the point where religion and monarchy too are dead.

The "fair" or "just" distribution of property is an idea which is more suited to socialism, and is not specific enough to be labeled as communism. Communism is rather more specific to class emansipation. In fact Marx was highly attacking of the utopian socialists, who preached property equality rather than class equality. Your description of communism in the Feudal, " the equitable distribution of property" is actually rather a good description of the view held by the Utopian socialists. These people are widly accepted as being socialists rather than communists.

was not a problem at the start of history with no classes but when they formed the conditions for revolution changed.

I believe that is rather an iccurate view of history. Class's have always existed, in every historical socioty, from early man, where tribal leaders ruled there small group. This can even be seen in the behaviour of primates, the expression the "dominant male" springs to mind, would you not consider this to be an early class system? After that class has always existed in one form or another.

Don't dogmatize Engels' work. The pre-historic communes were undescovered by archaeologists in his time.

Perhaps not pre-historic communes, but more modern communes or socialist communities certainly existed before Engels was writting, and where widley known about. Try reading about the New Lanark socioty.

[Faceless]

Communism (esp "Marxism") is not just the equitable distribution of property or even the collective ownership of everything by everyone. Sorry. I did omitt a few things. For instance I also meant the destruction of the state in feudal system etc. The people you considered "Utopian Socialists" have been called "Utopian Communists" too. The Blanquists have been described as such for instance. The difference I see between so called "communes" of modern times which have existed have not being Communist is that they existed under existant states. There was no state in the primeval societies. They were Communist for that reason (ie economis and social respects)

Class's have always existed, in every historical socioty, from early man, where tribal leaders ruled there small group. This can even be seen in the behaviour of primates, the expression the "dominant male" springs to mind, would you not consider this to be an early class system? Early man and original man we must distinguish between. Early on property (and notably the state in its primitive tribal form) took shape but there was a "history" so to speak before this. All relevant history has been the history of class struggle. The only history which is relevant is that which was written about by the newly formed state. Tribes existed in a class free manner with no war or territory. As for the "dominant male" idea; primates of the non-homo-sapien variety are too primitive to form relations beyond the immediately physical. Humans have formed relations based upon their greater attibute: intellect. Capital/Socialist societies are in this respect two sides of the same coin. Intellectual relations can be based upon equality but their are always differences and inequalities in the physical world. We transcend apes in our social skills by so much that our societies should be likened more to those od dolphins who, whilst clever enough to form equal intellectual and mutually dependant relationships are too primitive to form a heirachical system.

[redstar2000]

...where tribal leaders ruled their small group.

This misunderstands the nature of "rule" in tribal societies.

In the first place, all social interaction in the most primitive tribal societies is governed by custom. The "chief" existed primarily to resolve disputes between members of the tribe in accordance with custom. He was not and could not be a "ruler" in the modern sense of that word...his "autonomy" was almost as constrained as those of his "subjects".

The one area where the chief did have considerable autonomy was as "war-chief"...but that too was often limited by both some form of "council of tribal elders" and by the actual willingness of the tribe to fight.

"War chiefs" were usually temporary appointments. The institution of "permanent chiefdom" is a late development.

Whether or not human societies were truly classless prior to this very primitive form of proto-class society is unknown. Those who assume that "there have always been classes" have usually turned out to be apologists for modern class society.


This can even be seen in the behaviour of primates, the expression the "dominant male" springs to mind, would you not consider this to be an early class system? After that class has always existed in one form or another.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise...which is inaccurate. In some primate species, it is females that "dominate". Among our very close relatives, the bonobos, there does not appear to be much of a hierarchy at all; if some male tries to "dominate", the senior females gang up on him and beat him up. Afterwards, they all have sex. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+Dec 9 2003, 09:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DEPAVER @ Dec 9 2003, 09:37 AM)
[email protected] 9 2003, 02:12 PM

Doesn&#39;t every living organism place itself "above" all other organisms? The theologies that you mention may have constructed a "divine sanction" for this viewpoint, but so what? Who "wants" to "be eaten" rather than be the "eater"?



Actually, no.

Life is unitary, in the sense that the basic molecular architectures of humans, redwoods, and slime molds all indicate a common ancestor.

In the current orthodoxy the term "struggle" is endowed with Hobbesian and Social-Darwinian meanings: struggle is the war of all against all, and the survival of the fittest in a regime of continual mutual aggression. This particular notion was not Darwin&#39;s, and it is not only ideologically distorted, but factually wrong.

By no means do all creatures behave in this way. In fact, no creature, not even the "king of the jungle," endures wholly through predation; while for the simplest creatures, those microscopic cellular beings on which the entire biosphere rests, the Social-Darwinian notion is without meaning.

The first sustainable systems, the mat creatures or stromatolites, whose lineage goes 3 billion years back to the Precambrian (roughly 2.4 billion years before the emergence of more complex multicellular organisms), and that still endure in certain protected locales, are composed of layers of prokaryotic bacteria, the topmost, thin as as sheet of paper, doing photosynthesis, the lower layers breaking down the waste products of the upper by fermentation, the whole given structure and nutrient by trapped grains of minerals.

It was a sustainable, completely cooperative ecosystem in miniature. Reflected in the state of the nascent biological world it is clear that cooperation and coexistence were a part of life close to its inception. Existence at base can be thought of a reciprocal rather than competitive. [/b]
I don&#39;t contest your philosophy on this matter, but I don&#39;t think you really answered my question.

Do you wish to eat or be eaten?

Do you wish to exterminate the virus or be exterminated?

Do you wish to "use nature" or "be used by nature"?

I don&#39;t think your outlook--the unity of life, reciprocity, etc.--helps to answer this kind of question. It&#39;s true abstractly, but what are the practical consequences?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 09:26 PM
Communism (esp "Marxism") is not just the equitable distribution of property or even the collective ownership of everything by everyone. Sorry. I did omitt a few things. For instance I also meant the destruction of the state in feudal system etc. The people you considered "Utopian Socialists" have been called "Utopian Communists" too. The Blanquists have been described as such for instance. The difference I see between so called "communes" of modern times which have existed have not being Communist is that they existed under existant states. There was no state in the primeval societies. They were Communist for that reason (ie economis and social respects)

Class&#39;s have always existed, in every historical socioty, from early man, where tribal leaders ruled there small group. This can even be seen in the behaviour of primates, the expression the "dominant male" springs to mind, would you not consider this to be an early class system? Early man and original man we must distinguish between. Early on property (and notably the state in its primitive tribal form) took shape but there was a "history" so to speak before this. All relevant history has been the history of class struggle. The only history which is relevant is that which was written about by the newly formed state. Tribes existed in a class free manner with no war or territory. As for the "dominant male" idea; primates of the non-homo-sapien variety are too primitive to form relations beyond the immediately physical. Humans have formed relations based upon their greater attibute: intellect. Capital/Socialist societies are in this respect two sides of the same coin. Intellectual relations can be based upon equality but their are always differences and inequalities in the physical world. We transcend apes in our social skills by so much that our societies should be likened more to those od dolphins who, whilst clever enough to form equal intellectual and mutually dependant relationships are too primitive to form a heirachical system.
Communism (esp "Marxism") is not just the equitable distribution of property or even the collective ownership of everything by everyone.

No like I said, it is not specific enough to describe a communist society, it could however describe the very, basis of socialism, economic equality.

For instance I also meant the destruction of the state in feudal system etc.

When you say the destruction of the state, do you mean that from an anarchist or Leninist view point?

The people you considered "Utopian Socialists" have been called "Utopian Communists" too.

Really that would be interesting to see, of course in Engel&#39;s "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" he describes Fourier, Saint-Simon and Owen as Utopian socialists, but then describes Owen&#39;s views as "Owen&#39;s communism", which is quite interesting.

There was no state in the primeval societies. They were Communist for that reason (ie economis and social respects)

Simply because a society is stateless does that mean that all obtain equality economic and social, I find it unlikely.

This misunderstands the nature of "rule" in tribal societies.

Quite possibly, I have not done reading into this subject, just what I have picked up here and there so to speak.

In the first place, all social interaction in the most primitive tribal societies is governed by custom. The "chief" existed primarily to resolve disputes between members of the tribe in accordance with custom. He was not and could not be a "ruler" in the modern sense of that word...his "autonomy" was almost as constrained as those of his "subjects".


I will take your word for it.

The one area where the chief did have considerable autonomy was as "war-chief"...but that too was often limited by both some form of "council of tribal elders" and by the actual willingness of the tribe to fight.

Would not the very existence of a &#39;council of tribal elders&#39; be a sign of a primitive hierarchy in society out side of war, etc?

Whether or not human societies were truly classless prior to this very primitive form of proto-class society is unknown.

I suppose its all how you define class, by modern standards they were class less, but a hierarchy of sorts can be seen.

In some primate species, it is females that "dominate".

I think that you take the &#39;dominant male&#39; idea a little to literally, I was using it as an example of the possibility of early hierarchy.

if some male tries to "dominate", the senior females gang up on him and beat him up.

Well I would not know about the specifics of the "bonobos", as until you mentioned them I had never even heard of them... however your mention of "senior females" would suggest a hierarchy, unless of course senior rather, than a reference to their standing within "society", is a reference to their age or something.

BTW what is your belief regarding the origination of class?

[redstar2000]

...what is your belief regarding the origination of class?

I don&#39;t think "hunter-gatherer" societies were really class societies at all...though they may have contained elements that would eventually contribute to the emergence of classes--the permanent chief, for example.

It seems to me that true classes begin with the rise of private property in herd animals, women, and children. The "Biblical patriarch" with his wives and his cattle and his sheep and all the younger members of his family bound to do his will and his alliances with other patriarchs...all of this sounds to me like the genuine beginnings of a ruling class.

When some of these folks developed fixed abodes, began to till the soil, began to acquire and exploit slaves, etc., and finally began to build proto-cities under a ruling despot...the transition to early class society was complete.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 04:40 PM
I don&#39;t contest your philosophy on this matter, but I don&#39;t think you really answered my question.

Do you wish to eat or be eaten?

Do you wish to exterminate the virus or be exterminated?

Do you wish to "use nature" or "be used by nature"?

I don&#39;t think your outlook--the unity of life, reciprocity, etc.--helps to answer this kind of question. It&#39;s true [b]abstractly, but what are the practical consequences
Actually, I did, but probably didn&#39;t make it clear, or it was buried in my overly verbose soliloquy.
;)

I said that I, as an organism, would struggle to preserve my life against another organism and believe that I am genetically predisposed to do so.

I recognize that I am a living organism, however, not the only one. Perhaps it comes down to morality or spirituality. Should one take an action that preserves their own life without regard to the life of others? Should I knowingly exterminate an entire species without knowing the long term, potentially negative consequences for my own species?

Or, maybe it doesn&#39;t, since there are examples in the animal kingdom of organisms that apparently sacrifice their own lives for the good of the colony.

Interesting questions....

[redstar2000]

Perhaps it comes down to morality or spirituality. Should one take an action that preserves their own life without regard to the life of others? Should I knowingly exterminate an entire species without knowing the long term, potentially negative consequences for my own species?

Those are two different kinds of questions. The first is a "moral" or "spiritual" question. I&#39;ll defer to the "believers" on that one...they have millions of "answers" all of which contradict one another.

The second question is more relevant...you&#39;re really asking: is it a good idea to make a decision without knowing the consequences?

Or, is ignorance a "good" strategy?

Lots of people think it is, oddly enough...based on the premise that the "full consequences" of any act are inherently unknowable. We do A to achieve B...and what other letters of the alphabet may pop up is something that cannot be predicted with any degree of confidence.

As time passes and our science gets better, we can begin to anticipate certain obvious consequences and act in such a way as to avoid immediate catastrophe...sometimes.

But if we do not act until all consequences are known, does that not completely paralyze us?

And would that be a "good thing"?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 12:17 PM

But if we do not act until all consequences are known, does that not completely paralyze us?


You act based on all of the known information at the time. If you are uncertain and have time to research further, do so.
If an immediate decision is required, otherwise you die, you act immediately.

[peaccenicked]

This thread is really interesting. I would only like to add a few things to it which may help in terms of clarity.
Firstly, socialism and communism were interchangeable in Marx and Engels.
Lenin in the "State and Revolution" begins the seperation of terms, implying
or whatever, that Socialism was the lower phase and communism the higher.
A distinction Marx reffered to in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme".
The higher stage was in essence no different from the anarchist stateless society.
Socialism and communism as terms grew further apart because of the First World War Lenin took the title communist so as to emphasise the split in the second international between those who supported the war and those who opposed it. The latter being the communists. The history of Stalinism has bastardised the term communism and many have turned towards the term &#39;socialist&#39; and many the term &#39;anarchist&#39;. These differences have been made obscure by Stalinism and reformism. I think clarity can only arise through some non sectarian historical understanding.
Secondly, I wish to address the environment, Marx and Engels were not entirely ignorant on this subject. This is evident in the "Dialectics of Nature".
This is not an easy text to absorb but as far as I can see Engels agrees with the American singer Jonnie Mitchelle when she sings "Something is gained and something is lost in living everyday". Here Engels in using this very idea, said that the social plan of a new society would for the first time be able to consider the impact of enviromental loss on the long term needs of society.
No decision will be perfect but short term profit hungriness shall be gone forever or criminalised out of existence.
Thirdly and finally, I would like to address the issue of primitive communism.
The key to undersanding this pre historical form, that is pre written history, is scarcity. There just was not enough to go round for a profit to be skivved off the community. It was perhaps communism by default. Yet because no surplus product was needed to be protected there was no need for a State.
Early crimes were punished by ostracising the culprit. This almost certainly meant an early death. Even Robinson Crusoe needed some company. The culprit would be up against the forces of nature without any help. Modern Communism as advocated by Marx is based on the war against scarcity and poverty in all its forms, the so called bourgeoisfication of the working class
is partly a process of atomising the working class in imperialist countries
partly a process of deflecting attention away from the world impoverishment
both material and spiritual of the vast majority. The world market whose origins are in early forms of society is now dominated be the American dollar
and military might. It can be ended as it is merely a human construction
controlled and regulated by human beings, who have as a bottom line. Choice.
Workers and their allies everywhere also have. Choice. The final battle is coming. Communism in a higher form is the only sound and sensible way for human beings to organise things.

[Faceless]

When you say the destruction of the state, do you mean that from an anarchist or Leninist view point? Neither. I do not see anarchism as workable but I see Lenin as having done nothing but try and institutionalise the military-beurocratic dictatorship of his. I am a Marxist. I believe in democracy as being what the man meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat" (that is as oppose to the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie). Communism in our life time; not the indeffinate future.

Thirdly and finally, I would like to address the issue of primitive communism. Interesting but I considered it too be the opposite. On the virgin Earth there was no need for competition. It would have been a terrible and ferocious world in such scarcity. I always thought that man had no means to harness the produce of the world although he had ample to eat and live from as the Earth chose to give us. The state came with the inventions to pillage the Earth and a dash of xenophobia and religion too became a tool to hold down growing population.

Modern Communism as advocated by Marx is based on the war against scarcity and poverty in all its forms Even now there is no scarcity just poor distribution and a hell of a lot of inefficiency with millions unemployed yet a billion jobs need doing.