How/Why did Classes begin?

[Akshay!]

I recently read a chapter on this topic in "People's History of the World" by Chris Harman but somehow I don't find the argument convincing. He basically says that there was a guy who needed to collect and control the surplus and co-ordinate/supervise everything and so he had more power and slowly he became a ruler and had an army and so on... (I'm simplifying it a bit..)

The problem with this is that a million other alternatives are possible - and he doesn't even consider any of them. To name only a few - why couldn't they just democratically decide that "we'll keep the surplus, say, 20% of whatever we produce, at this specific place and make decisions about who will do what by voting" and co-ordinate everything themselves. Or, alternatively, they could have each person of the group controlling the surplus for one week, so that every person in the group gets the chance. And I mean I could list several other options but basically what I'm asking is - why did they HAD to have classes?

[Deity]

I can't explain exactly how it happened, but the when would be during the Neolithic revolution. Everyone started doing different things and so somewhere along the way someone decided his skill was more important than someone else's and he wanted more for doing that skill.

[Skyhilist]

Although I don't have an answer, I think that this raises another interesting question. If classes developed out of a once classless humanity, how would this be prevented from happening again in the future if communism is ever achieved?

[ind_com]

Classes probably began after tribes started clearing up lands for agriculture. Often there wouldn't be enough labour power in the tribe to till the whole land. This led to wars between tribes, and the winners enslaved the losers. Usually the spoils of war were divided among individuals according to their performance. When the loot was food or other commodities used in day-to-day life, it didn't have much impact on the long run, but when it was slaves, the slaves would generate surplus for their masters through generations. Gradually, other means of production were also divided, starting with land. Wealth generated by the slaves accumulated slowly in some families and gave rise to a distinct owner class.

[ind_com]

Although I don't have an answer, I think that this raises another interesting question. If classes developed out of a once classless humanity, how would this be prevented from happening again in the future if communism is ever achieved?

Capitalism itself overproduces. Communism will overproduce every commodity and remove the inherent economic nature of a class society. Apart from that, the masses will remain ever-vigilant to prevent potential dictators from taking power.

[Lucretia]

I recently read a chapter on this topic in "People's History of the World" by Chris Harman but somehow I don't find the argument convincing. He basically says that there was a guy who needed to collect and control the surplus and co-ordinate/supervise everything and so he had more power and slowly he became a ruler and had an army and so on... (I'm simplifying it a bit..)

The problem with this is that a million other alternatives are possible - and he doesn't even consider any of them. To name only a few - why couldn't they just democratically decide that "we'll keep the surplus, say, 20% of whatever we produce, at this specific place and make decisions about who will do what by voting" and co-ordinate everything themselves. Or, alternatively, they could have each person of the group controlling the surplus for one week, so that every person in the group gets the chance. And I mean I could list several other options but basically what I'm asking is - why did they HAD to have classes?

You're forgetting something very important with your various "possibilities": in conditions of scarcity, people will strive to acquire as much security in the form of control over surplus as possible.

[Philosophos]

I suppose at some point (haven't really studied the subject through so I can't really say when it happened exactly) someone said "Hey I'm better than you so I will gather all the power/surplus or whatever and go fuck yourself cuz I'm better"...

About why classes were created... Yeah we can be humans that try to make other humans better (I'm good for example at maths and you are good at crafting let's show each other how to do it) or we can become animals and create classes and say: "haha you are a fucking loser you can't solve any math problems, you suck"...

[Akshay!]

You're forgetting something very important with your various "possibilities": in conditions of scarcity, people will strive to acquire as much security in the form of control over surplus as possible.

But why does that control over surplus necessarily had to take the form that it did - namely, one, or a few individuals controlling the surplus? I mean, isn't it even more safe if more people are controlling it?

The other responses above are interesting but don't totally solve the main problem - How did classes come into existence? Why was it necessary? Weren't there other possibilities? Did it give some kind of evolutionary advantage? What material conditions made them inevitable?

[Comrade #138672]

But why does that control over surplus necessarily had to take the form that it did - namely, one, or a few individuals controlling the surplus? I mean, isn't it even more safe if more people are controlling it?

The other responses above are interesting but don't totally solve the main problem - How did classes come into existence? Why was it necessary? Weren't there other possibilities? Did it give some kind of evolutionary advantage? What material conditions made them inevitable?I think that the unequal development made it all possible.

[Lucretia]

But why does that control over surplus necessarily had to take the form that it did - namely, one, or a few individuals controlling the surplus? I mean, isn't it even more safe if more people are controlling it?

The other responses above are interesting but don't totally solve the main problem - How did classes come into existence? Why was it necessary? Weren't there other possibilities? Did it give some kind of evolutionary advantage? What material conditions made them inevitable?

You're missing the point. In conditions of scarcity, there's not enough surplus to be spread around to the control of the vast majority of the population, while still providing the security that each person would rationally seek to acquire. Only capitalism provides that kind of massive productive power and large surplus. Until the past 150 years or so, people living in societies with sedentary agricultural methods have been one bad harvest away from starving. Sometimes not even that.

[Akshay!]

You're missing the point. In conditions of scarcity, there's not enough surplus to be spread around to the control of the vast majority of the population, while still providing the security that each person would rationally seek to acquire. Only capitalism provides that kind of massive productive power and large surplus. Until the past 150 years or so, people living in societies with sedentary agricultural methods have been one bad harvest away from starving. Sometimes not even that.

Then, in the specific case that we're talking about - namely, when classes had not yet come into existence - why didn't the people decide that each person in the tribe would control the surplus for one week or something like that? Why was it necessary that one person would do so?

I'm sorry if I'm being a little repetitive but I still don't understand why classes were necessary. I can see why they were possible - but I can also see other equally valid possibilities.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Then, in the specific case that we're talking about - namely, when classes had not yet come into existence - why didn't the people decide that each person in the tribe would control the surplus for one week or something like that? Why was it necessary that one person would do so?

I'm sorry if I'm being a little repetitive but I still don't understand why classes were necessary. I can see why they were possible - but I can also see other equally valid possibilities.

There are any number of formations possible (within a range given material limits), but due to the conditions of this kind of life, certain kinds of forms of social organization became more stable or advantageous for maintaining that society - even if the advantages were due to increased problems for some of the population.

Having a small surplus in this kind of existance doesn't mean you can just equally spread around the limited extras - you could, but then societies which organized their social surplus so that not everyone was farming but some were doing accounting of stocks, devote their time to aquiring specialized skills in manufacturing tools, homes, etc. If everyone grows, then the surplus just goes to induvidual consumption - people eat more if they have it, less if they don't. But organizing that surplus and concentrating it has some advantages. Also out of necessity, settled communities would need to develop a sort of solider caste that could defend stocks and farms from bandits.

Also I think we are talking about a long period of development and it wouldn't have been like you have band communities one day and then someone marches in and names himself Chief or King. Tribal and agricultural communities where there isn't a whole lot of surplus seem to have had less meaningful distinctions in power between classes. In a society where people are making only a little more than needed, you can't afford to purge a bunch of people or even piss them off that much, you would need to have a certain level of credibility as chief or whatnot. So a more informal power distinction could, over time as a society develops, become more of a custom and a ridged power-breakdown between groups in society.

[Lucretia]

Then, in the specific case that we're talking about - namely, when classes had not yet come into existence - why didn't the people decide that each person in the tribe would control the surplus for one week or something like that? Why was it necessary that one person would do so?

I'm sorry if I'm being a little repetitive but I still don't understand why classes were necessary. I can see why they were possible - but I can also see other equally valid possibilities.

Your understanding of the development of classes seems highly abstract and intellectualized, as if people sat around in a village and voted that one person would, or wouldn't, control the surplus. You are ignoring the fact that the division of labor was not voted upon. It evolved according to existing hierarchies, with those at the top of the hierarchy claiming strategic positions for the possession and distribution of surplus foodstuffs made possible by sedentary agriculture.

There was never some moment you've imagined in your head where people were sitting in the bronze age equivalent of a high school gymnasium -- presumably a large thatched hut -- deliberating over who would control the surplus, why, and for how long. These questions were already decided organically by the development of the gift economy in egalitarian communities transitioning to more advanced production techniques. And once decided, there was no committee meeting called by the beneficiaries to re-examine the issue.

[Lucretia]

I will note, for the second time in this thread, that most of the answers to your questions are covered here: http://www.marxists.de/science/harmeng/engels2.htm#how
(http://www.marxists.de/science/harmeng/engels2.htm#how)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I will note, for the second time in this thread, that most of the answers to your questions are covered here: http://www.marxists.de/science/harmeng/engels2.htm#how
(http://www.marxists.de/science/harmeng/engels2.htm#how)Just to pull out some of the relevant argument:



But this does not explain why a group which had not previously exploited and oppressed should suddenly start doing so, nor why the rest of society put up with this new exploitation and oppression.

The only way to answer such questions lies in Marx’s stress on the interaction between the development of relations of production and forces of production. [161] (http://www.marxists.de/science/harmeng/engels2.htm#n161) Classes arise out of the divisions which occur in society as a new way of advancing production emerges. A group discovers it can increase the total social wealth if it concentrates resources in is own hands, organising others to work under its direction. It comes to see the interests of society as a whole as lying in its own control over resources. It defends that control even when that means making others suffer. It comes to see social advance as embodied in itself and in the protection of its own livelihood against sudden outbreaks of scarcity (due to harvest failure, pests, wars etc) that cause enormous hardship to everybody else.

It is not difficult to see how the spread of farming led to pressures for changes in production that required direction from above. The first farming communities probably established themselves in localities with exceptionally fertile soil. But as they expanded, survival came to depend on coping with much more difficult conditions. That required a further reorganisation of social relations.
...
But agriculture that produces more also demands “units of labour greater than the family” and “a more complex” level of “social organisation” which is achieved through “the medium of ranked chiefdoms and socially stratified states with a dependent peasantry”. [164] (http://www.marxists.de/science/harmeng/engels2.htm#n164)

Groups with high prestige in preceding, non-class societies would set about organising the labour needed to expand agricultural production by building irrigation works or clearing vast areas of new land. They would come to see their own control of the surplus – and the use of some of it to protect themselves against natural vicissitudes – as in everyone’s interest. So would the first groups to use large scale trade to increase the overall variety available for consumption. So too with those groups who were most proficient at wresting surpluses from other societies through warfare. In this way, the advance of the forces of production in each locality would turn groups and individuals who previously gained prestige by fulfilling redistributive or ceremonial functions into classes which imposed the demand of surplus extraction upon the rest of society.

In many parts of the world societies were able to prosper right through to modern times without resorting to labour intensive methods such as the use of heavy ploughs or extensive hydraulic works. This was true of much of North America, the islands of the Pacific ocean, inland Papua-New Guinea, and parts of Africa and south east Asia. But in other conditions survival came to depend on adopting new techniques. Ruling classes arose out of the organisation of such activities, and so did towns, states and what we usually call civilisation. From this point onwards, the history of society certainly was the history of class struggle.

Such groups could not keep the surplus in their own hands at times when the whole of society was suffering great hardship unless they found ways of imposing their will on the rest of society, unless they established coercive structures, states, and legal codes and ideologies to back them up. But once such structures and such ideologies were in existence, they would perpetuate the control of the surplus by a certain group even when it no longer served the purpose of advancing production. A class which emerged as a spur to production would persist even when it was no longer such a spur. And it would be protected by a military-juridical-ideological superstructure which could constitute a growing burden on the production of society as whole.

[Lucretia]

Akshay's question totally reminds me of this:

JvKIWjnEPNY