I don't get you guys

[Baseball]

No. Not in this banal abstract way. There is no need to speculate on how many people need basic food staples...

Of course there is-- populations change as well.

As well as desires for types of food


they do not speculate on USE-DEMAND, they speculate on profitable demand ONLY.

Production for use and production for profit are the same thing.




Because CONSUMER in capitalist jargon is NONSENSE! Anyone who EATS is a consumer.

And everyone who eats is not a farmer.


Socialism unites consumer and producer since they are the same:

Everyone who eats is not a farmer.


we produce as a society BECAUSE we want to consume this or that. In capitalism we produce, as workers, to get wages

The mechanisms of capitalist production is constantly explained- ie wages the reason for production (which does result in production).

However, the mechanics of socialist production is rarely explained - ie we want something (which can only function in a immediate sense-- somebody who wants to a bicycle needs to work in a bicycle factory)


Capitalist apologist talk about "consumers" in a total non-way. What consumption? Consumption for personal use? Consumption of resources? If that's what capitalism's goal is, then the fact of starvation or homelessness means that it is AN UTTER FAILURE in a "consumerist" sense.

Consumption for personal use or resources, yes. The steel factory is a consumer of electricity as the purchaser of a kitchen set is a consumer of metal forks and knives.

And again-- it's not enough to denounce capitalism. One must explain how socialism will do any better.


No, it is a natural part of the system - this is why there are BOOMS AND BUSTS! If the market is hot - REGARDLESS of actual demand, capitalists will be compelled to contribute to the bubble - or they will cease to exist. If it's a bust, capitalists will be compelled to sit on their wealth, fire workers, close factories and distribution to wait for more favorable market conditions - REGARDLESS of the still existing consumption needs of the population.

Sally calles an emergency meeting on her brain-phone and asks for extra support from the surpluss labor commitee who send some extra help at the weight-loss ice-cream production facility. But seriously, there would probably be gaps or incorrect estimations - or even shortages at first depending on all sorts of speculative situations or if a revolution happened after a world war or there are terrorists going around trying to blow up working class facilities or whatnot. But this is more or less an "error" that can be corrected. Again, in capitalism, this is not an error, this is business - production is planed based on speculation about potential profits... this is completely divorced from actual use and so booms and busts happen.

A "boom" or a "bust" is a correction from irrational or incorrect speculation.
It seems implied that errors in socialist speculation would occur only in the immediate afterwards of the Revolution, and I guess would vanish after things settle down.

I was asking in general of a functioning socialist community.


I agree with that. And this is why I think people will initially need to prioritize needs - let's build new housing before new recreation, now that housing has been rationalized on a social basis (rather than on a profit basis)

People already prioritize needs.


we have a good sense of the rate needed to build based on population growth etc...

Its not just a question of housing to consider. Decisions and choices need to be made about new housing vs. rehabbing old. Population growth also requires resources devoted to hospitals, schools, roads, sewer systems ect. It seems fanciful to simply focus on one issue until it is 'solved' (which implies a sort of settled, stationary, static point which of course has never existed).



Zero widgets at the start of the day... now after working in the widget shop for 4 hours, we have 300 widgets... wealth increased.

Not necessarily true: How much was consumed in producing those widgets?


But why not everybody? If a group of people go camping do they all just sit there and die of exposure because no one told them that they should start a fire and set up a tent? No, they all want to go camping and so they are all on board with the project and therefore potentially have ideas about what needs to be done.

We are not talking about a few people deciding things in unusual circumstances. We are talking millions of people deciding things in normal, hum-drum daily life.


So in a collective production effort, maybe there are some things that need a sort of point-person or someone to bottom line things. If such a position is needed, then who decides this? Well I think workers can easily appoint someone or vote for them and then their position depends on how well they do their job

This job would need to require telling somebody to peel grapes- and having the ability to enforce this decision that that person needs to peel grapes.
Otherwise, the job cannot do be done.


In capitalism, this is reversed - the supervisor depends on their job from the higher-ups; how well they perform that job depends on how well they do what the bosses want them to do in terms of controlling the workers and extrating more work out of them for as little wage as possible.

Well-- as above. The person is organizing things.


For most of human history, people have engaged in mutual productive projectes without some boss putting a supervisor on them.

I am sorry-- this is nonsense.



It is only with class societies that control from above of that labor becomes a reality, it is only with industrialization - 100 years or so - that supervision of workers has meant controlling every aspect of what they do. The need for one person or a managment team to decide the best way for others to accomplish their work, depends on labor being alienated from the end result of the labor effort.

In the socialist system also, the workers would still be working on that which they are skilled at. It makes no sense otherwise- certainly not if the objective is "production for use."


This kind of system then needs crackers with an economic whip

???





No, you are goal-post moving. When you say X can't happen without capitalism, I point out how it did happen in previous societies so there's no reason to assume that only capitalism does this. But then you claim I'm arguing for some archaic system. So then I try and speculate about vauge possiblilites and you say that's not concrete enough. When I talk about things changing and developing, you say, well that sounds too vague. When I give more concrete examples, you say: well things change.

I don't think I am changing goal posts. When examples are given, I certainly do challenge them and ask for information, for an expansion to be offered.


Capitalism doesn't have ONE PRODUCTION process - it has changed, it exists in different ways under different conditions and in different times. At the base of this is a description of capitalism as privite accumulation through labor exploitation.


This we can contrast to a system of production through mutual cooperation, democratic planning, etc. This is the generality that's possible because


A) socialism is about changing the relations of production and sociey, not prescribing to people from above how to accomplish a democratic process of production

One would still need to explain how the former supports the latter.
Changing for the sake of changing is certainly not an objective of socialism.


B) any specific context in which these decisions would be made are entirely unknown.

Socialists hereabouts certainly are not coy about explaining what is NOT socialism (ie social democracy). So I think that is sort of a cop out answer.


Marx or Ricardo could only comment on general tendencies for the future of capitalism: Marx could say that capitalism tends to want to cheapen labor and control the production process - Marx couldn't have taken that generality than then pulled predictions of Taylorism or Fordism or Management by Stress specifically out of his ass because Taylorism or any of those other examples, as a specific production tendency or technique, developed out of specific developments and needs of capital at different times.

Ok-- but there was/is a certain logic, within the capitalist system of production, for such things.
Which goes back to the socialist logic of production. For use?? Bah-- tis the same as production for profit.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/30709329.jpg

[Kill all the fetuses!]

It's incredible how someone can have more than 1,000 posts and still be so ignorant... Can we just give up on him?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Production for use and production for profit are the same thing.No they are not! Of course ANY production is done in the hope that it is used... but capitalist production is not motivated by use but for profit - otherwise there would not be subsidies to not grow food in order to maintain market prices. To make a profit SOMEBODY has to have use for something, but choosing to build McMansions and not affordable family homes is motivated by PROFIT, not USE.


I am sorry-- this is nonsense.It's nonsense that supervisors have only existed as long as there have been class divsions? So hunter-gatherers needed a supervisor? People gathering food, fishing, etc had someone sitting at the shore making sure they fished? No, this kind of control, this kind of management only exists when the laborer is alienated from the point and benifit of their labor effort. Slaves need to be controlled otherwise why would they work on their master's fields or a Roman road then to go back to their quarters and grow their own food for subsistance? No, they would just go and grow their own food (without anyone managing them) if it wasn't for compuslsion (ie management). Even if they were tied to their tools by the master, they wouldn't work very hard unless there was a whip at their back. In their own plot for farming - they work hard if they want more food. It's the same with workers. If it wasn't for the threat of not making rent or drowning in home or other debts, why would someone work hard when they are paid a wage? Taylorism was introduced because capitalists wanted to standardize work-output, to make sure that their investment in wages could be reliably quantified.


Everyone who eats is not a farmer.Don't be obtuse. You do understand that when someone gives a specific detail as an example of a generality, that the specific detail is not general. If I said I hate it when people are rude, like when someone on the Train takes up two seats... I don't mean all rude people take up two seats or that taking up two seats is the only form of rudeness.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Did you guys forget that nazism stands for national socialism? Do you guys know that Nazism is simply one of many catastrophic attempts at the political practice called socialism.

BBZZZZZTTTT!!!

I'm sorry, but thanks for playing, Mr. Hannity.

[exeexe]

Are you still there Warner? It just so happens that i found this today. I think it will be good for you to read. It explains how Chris Wilson, once a libertarian capitalist, became a libertarian socialist
http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/how_a_libertarian_capitalist_became_a_libertarian_ socialist/


My experience in the work world forced me to seriously reconsider my advocacy of capitalism in any form. As I was still very committed to libertarian principles, I began to study the "socialist anarchists". (I put "socialist anarchist" in quotes, as I now consider such a term to be a redundancy -- anarchists are necessarily socialists.) I forced myself to consider the fundamental disagreement that separates Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatesta from Rand, von Mises, and Friedman.

[ralfy]

The Federal Reserve is controlled by private banks, and the same applies to the global economy.

Capitalism must be challenged because it contributes to continued economic crisis, peak oil, and global warming.

[Time Warner]

yeah the irony of arguments about "free market" policies being for the "small businesses":

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/selfemployment.png

Posts like this are the reason why I backed off of this discussion. To put it quite simply, you guys are economically illiterate. The reason why Greece, Spain and Italy have such high self-employment rate is because it is nearly impossible to get a real job out there, especially if you are a young adult (where the unemployment rate is about 50%) and people have to start up their own businesses because no one is willing to hire anyone. This is a real situation, and it is far cry from a scenario where small business are booming in those countries.

Now let me hit you with some facts. Spain for example; 50% of their start up companies have zero employees. If you want to hire someone in Spain, you have to pay a payroll tax of 31.6% on the first 36,000 euros paid. The employee has to pay 6.4% of his wages (US has a 13% payroll tax and a 50% higher per-capita income than Spain which has a 38% payroll tax). Through mandatory vacations and national holidays, you have to give each employee 44 paid vacation days each year. If your employee gets sick or injured, they can take an 18 month sick leave where you are required to pay 70% of their wages. After the 18 months, you are required to hire them back. It is illegal to discriminate against any employee for union membership/political beliefs or harass them in any way. If even accused of such things (regardless if you did it), you can be fined by the unions between 6,251 euros up to 187,000 euros, with no court procedure and by law you are required to pay. If you are accused of being unfair, such as not promoting some one who you don't like, once again you can be fined between 6,251 euros up to 187,000 euros. If you need to fire an employee, you need to give them 15 days notice. If you have a valid reason to fire someone (determined by a tribunal) you have to pay them 20 days severance pay for every year that they've worked (max 1 year's pay). If you don't have a valid reason to fire someone, you have to pay them 45 days severance pay for every year that they've worked. If you sell or merge your company and have lay off an employee, you have to pay 45 days severance pay for every year that they've worked. The list goes on...

You would have to have your head examined if you wanted to hire someone in Spain. Greece is even worse. This is not a situation of small business booming, this is a situation where small businesses have no chance to grow and 50% of them have zero employees. Quite literately, people have to set up banana stands and beg for money because no one will hire them and they themselves could never dream of hiring someone because that would bankrupt them. This is the absolute worst environment for small business.

It is glaringly obvious that you have not the slightest clue what you posted. You think that these statistics (which demonstrate massive segments of populations being forced into self-employment because no one is hiring) are a sign of strength for small businesses. The situation is sad. People are really suffering and dealing with terrible hardships in these countries, and it is people like you who are encouraging it through blind ignorance.

Thank you guys for engaging me but I don't have the free time to unscramble years, if not decades of propaganda driven economic illiteracy. I did however learn quite a few things about your religion. Perhaps a few of you will find intellectual honesty and can leave this cult at some point of your lives, but I know that most of the members here will proudly be naive and clueless till that they die.

"All I know is that I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx
Bye

[exeexe]

"All I know is that I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx
Bye
I think this is worth mentioning:


All of these - and most anarchist writings - expend a great deal of effort in attacking something called "Marxism". In every case, the "Marxism" that is attacked has little or nothing to do with the theories of Karl Marx. Reading these polemics against a "Marxism" that exists mainly in the minds of those attacking it, one can only mutter the phrase Marx himself is said to have repeated often in his later years, only regarding the works of his 'followers': "If this is Marxism, than all I know is that I am not a Marxist."
http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-AnarchismvsMarxism.htm

So according to this he wasnt talking about his own ideology...

[o well this is ok I guess]

Posts like this are the reason why I backed off of this discussion. To put it quite simply, you guys are economically illiterate. The reason why Greece, Spain and Italy have such high self-employment rate is because it is nearly impossible to get a real job out there, especially if you are a young adult (where the unemployment rate is about 50%) and people have to start up their own businesses because no one is willing to hire anyone. This is a real situation, and it is far cry from a scenario where small business are booming in those countries. >Self employment rate 2007, pre crisis
>"it's because Greece is in crisis!"
lol

[huey]

So you guys hate fascism yet you want to force everyone to conform to your ideas through violence at the hands of the state?

"Hate fascism"? The rest of your premise, and therefore post, is utter confusion so not really worth elaborating on.

But, who wouldn't 'hate fascism'? Well, all the White bourgeoisie fascists, of course. They are all around you, whether in America, Europe, or otherwise/ They are you neighbors, bosses, cops, politicians, entrepeneurs, nay, maybe(probably) even family members.

They love fascism, as most of the supporters of Nazism did back in the day in Alemanha. The materially benefit from it and the accompanying racism, so of course, of course, they do not 'hate fascism'.

And, for any intelligent human soul in these forums, I kindly suggest you DO NOT waste any of your precious life's energy on trying to convince fascists--those all around you--to not be fascists. They're done, cooked up and served on a platter by their masters and no one will ever be able to uncook them. The extent of the control of their minds by The Power structure is at once breathtaking and extremely disturbing--to anyone with an ioda of enlightened perceptive capacity still intact, that is.

So, dont argue with, try to convince, plead with, reason with the capitalistic, racist, fascists, it's an exercise in futility and will only leave you very upset and somewhat scared in the end. No, get with the few like minded souls and go from their.

[BolshevikBabe]

"All I know is that I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx
Bye

Quote-mining is fun, next you'll be putting up the "opiate of the masses" quote out of context.

Shame that he said this in response to a bizarre ultraleftist group, led by Jules Guesde, that was claiming to be Marxist, and whom Marx accused of "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and that it had nothing to do with his actual beliefs (although I doubt Marx would have had the vanity to call himself a "Marxist" at any rate, Marxism itself not becoming a codified tradition until after his death)

[Loony Le Fist]

Posts like this are the reason why I backed off of this discussion. To put it quite simply, you guys are economically illiterate. The reason why Greece, Spain and Italy have such high self-employment rate is because it is nearly impossible to get a real job out there, especially if you are a young adult...

Now let me hit you with some facts. Spain for example; 50% of their start up companies have zero employees. If you want to hire someone in Spain, you have to pay a payroll tax of 31.6% on the first 36,000 euros paid. The employee has to pay 6.4% of his wages (US has a 13% payroll tax and a 50% higher per-capita income than Spain which has a 38% payroll tax)...

Bye

Blah, blah, blah. Except, that doesn't explain NZ, Canada, Australia or Germany. Job growth is going quite well in those countries. This is why entrepreneur magazines rate NZ and Australia two of the best countries to start a new business.

You are just cherry picking the data to match your preconceived notions.

[Time Warner]

Blah, blah, blah. Except, that doesn't explain NZ, Canada, Australia or Germany. Job growth is going quite well in those countries. This is why entrepreneur magazines rate NZ and Australia two of the best countries to start a new business.

You are just cherry picking the data to match your preconceived notions.

The only difference between Greece today and in 07 was that back in 07 Greece wasn't quite yet bankrupt and was able to pretend that their welfare system was going well. Also, Germany is not Greece or Spain. Germany does not have the same level of labour laws nor the same level of self-employment.

You guys honestly believe that the Greek government is helping small business and I find that level of disconnect with reality to be scary. Explain how these statistics demonstrate a good environment for small businesses. You are not only lying to yourself, you are also lying to everyone else when you pretend that Greece and Italy are booming places for small businesses. Those countries are at the top of the list for a reason.

[Loony Le Fist]

The only difference between Greece today and in 07 was that back in 07 Greece wasn't quite yet bankrupt and was able to pretend that their welfare system was going well. Also, Germany is not Greece or Spain. Germany does not have the same level of labour laws nor the same level of self-employment.

You guys honestly believe that the Greek government is helping small business and I find that level of disconnect with reality to be scary. Explain how these statistics demonstrate a good environment for small businesses. You are not only lying to yourself, you are also lying to everyone else when you pretend that Greece and Italy are booming places for small businesses. Those countries are at the top of the list for a reason.

Greece is a very interesting topic to bring up. Except I wasn't talking about Greece. I said it doesn't explain NZ, Canada, Australia or Germany. You can't weasel your way out of this one by changing the narrative.

[Time Warner]

You guy are closet statists and it is blaringly obvious. Prentend to want anarchy, yet make up things to defend current the current roles of corrupt governments. Right...

[Time Warner]

Greece is a very interesting to bring up. Except I wasn't talking about Greece. I said it doesn't explain NZ, Canada, Australia or Germany. You can't weasel your way out of this one by changing the narrative.

Clearly you didn't read my post as I covered Germany. the narrative was that the above chart show strength for small businesses... The chart with Greece at the top lol.

[Loony Le Fist]

You guy are closet statists and it is blaringly obvious. Prentend to want anarchy, yet make up things to defend current the current roles of corrupt governments. Right...

Who is doing this? I'm just asking you to explain how your take on the economics of Spain, Greece fits in with what we observe in other countries with similar tax structures and welfare systems like Germany, NZ and Canada which all experienced job growth over the same period. If you are claiming that taxes are killing business, why are Australia and NZ, who happen to have relatively progressive taxes when compared to the states, rated by entrepreneurial magazines as great places to start businesses and experiencing a rebound in jobs? In order for your take to make sense, it has to provide the explanation for these exceptions.

[Loony Le Fist]

Clearly you didn't read my post as I covered Germany. the narrative was that the above chart show strength for small businesses... The chart with Greece at the top lol.

No you didn't. You claimed that taxes are strangulating business. Taxes are very high in Germany too. Definitely higher than the states. Why is their country experiencing job growth? How does your take explain this?

[Black Cross]

You guy are closet statists and it is blaringly obvious. Prentend to want anarchy, yet make up things to defend current the current roles of corrupt governments. Right...

I get literally none of this. Which roles of corrupt governments do we defend?

And what do we make up to defend them?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[exeexe]

Prentend to want anarchy, yet make up things to defend current the current roles of corrupt governments. Right...
Pretend to want anarchy, yet makes songs about federation
ZE2jIHw_CN8

[o well this is ok I guess]

The only difference between Greece today and in 07 was that back in 07 Greece wasn't quite yet bankrupt and was able to pretend that their welfare system was going well. Also, Germany is not Greece or Spain. Germany does not have the same level of labour laws nor the same level of self-employment. yeah, that was the only difference, nevermind the general employment rate and lack of austerity measures. And, y'know, the lack of crisis

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

"I don't get you guys."

I'm actually okay with that. :)

[Baseball]

No they are not! Of course ANY production is done in the hope that it is used... but capitalist production is not motivated by use but for profit - otherwise there would not be subsidies to not grow food in order to maintain market prices. To make a profit SOMEBODY has to have use for something, but choosing to build McMansions and not affordable family homes is motivated by PROFIT, not USE.

"McMansions" are indeed "affordable" (to some people). Else they would not be built- or sold- and occupied-- and thus used.




It's nonsense that supervisors have only existed as long as there have been class divsions? So hunter-gatherers needed a supervisor? People gathering food, fishing, etc had someone sitting at the shore making sure they fished? No, this kind of control, this kind of management only exists when the laborer is alienated from the point and benifit of their labor effort.

It exists when people lived in the stone age. When everyday is a struggle just to live-- to have food. One would think a socialist of all people would not idealize such days.

[Blake's Baby]

Except that a lot of societies in 'the stone age' (a period that has lasted about 2.6 million years, there are still some 'stone age' cultures around now) didn't have class divisions, nor was there necessarily an 'everyday struggle just to live'. The European Mesolithic (around 11-6,000 years ago in Central and Western Europe) was a society of abundance, with no sign of a class system.

Of course, as socialists, we recognise that 'primitive communism' is not the same as the future industrial, world communism. We don't 'idealise' primitive communism (by which I presume you mean, 'want to recreate it as we think it's neat'). But we do affirm its existence, against those who claim that class society is somehow eternal (and that class society is synonymous with capitalism, which it really isn't). Class society has only existed for around 8,000 years, as far as we can tell. That's around 1/3000 of the time there has been evidence for 'human-like behaviour' (ie hominins using stone tools). If class society is 'human nature', it's a good job we found out really recently that we spent 2.6 million years living unnaturally.

[Baseball]

Except that a lot of societies in 'the stone age' (a period that has lasted about 2.6 million years, there are still some 'stone age' cultures around now) didn't have class divisions, nor was there necessarily an 'everyday struggle just to live'. The European Mesolithic (around 11-6,000 years ago in Central and Western Europe) was a society of abundance, with no sign of a class system.

Of course, as socialists, we recognise that 'primitive communism' is not the same as the future industrial, world communism. We don't 'idealise' primitive communism (by which I presume you mean, 'want to recreate it as we think it's neat'). But we do affirm its existence, against those who claim that class society is somehow eternal (and that class society is synonymous with capitalism, which it really isn't). Class society has only existed for around 8,000 years, as far as we can tell. That's around 1/3000 of the time there has been evidence for 'human-like behaviour' (ie hominins using stone tools). If class society is 'human nature', it's a good job we found out really recently that we spent 2.6 million years living unnaturally.

Well, since the claim here is that development of classes seemed to coincide with tremendous progress of humanity, perhaps it ain't so bad after all.

[Blake's Baby]

What sort of progress?

After the 'neolithic revolution' people became smaller and seem to have become more likely to suffer from a variety of diseases. They also began a process of environmental degradation that is still going on, including the possible wiping out of major animal species. They also seem to have invented warfare. So, which particular 'progress' are you talking about? I don't see how you can separate these things out from each other.

But if you want to find out what Marxism thinks about 'progress' I recommend you read the Communist Manifesto. The development of human societies has been a process of working oiut the problems and contradictions of previous social forms. Capitalism to was in some ways a 'progression' from previous social forms, while also having terrible negative effects. No progression is unilinear, history doesn't work like that. There are always positives and negatives.

[RedMaterialist]

Well, since the claim here is that development of classes seemed to coincide with tremendous progress of humanity, perhaps it ain't so bad after all.

It was the development of social production, the development of a working "class" which led to the tremendous progress of humanity. (Marx: "what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?" Manifesto).

The problem now is that capitalism has reached the limits, the margin, of its effective progress. In fact, humanity may be going backwards. Capitalism has reached the point where its pursuit of profit is now in direct conflict with the continued existence of the human race. Briefly it looked like we would be destroyed by nuclear war. And remember when they told us, quite clearly, that they would rather be "dead than red?" Unfortunately "they" meant the entire world.


Capitalists now are unable to give up their profits in exchange for saving the planet from climate destruction. So, what is to be done?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, since the claim here is that development of classes seemed to coincide with tremendous progress of humanity, perhaps it ain't so bad after all.

Well, no, it's not so bad compared to the previous periods of social development (the notion that the primitive classless society was a period of "abundance" rests on a pretty hilariously rigged notion of what "abundance" is, plus some cooked-up data). Likewise capitalism represents a massive improvement on feudalism, the Asiatic mode of production etc. Anyone who can not appreciate this fact is no Marxist. And neither are people who bemoan that capitalism is destroying families, the sacred, tradition, small business, artisans, petty merchants, people who oppose the e-e-evil corporations, whatever.

Communists don't want to regress to feudalism, we want to go beyond capitalism, because, let's be reasonable, it's overstayed its welcome.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't get me either. You're fine.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, no, it's not so bad compared to the previous periods of social development (the notion that the primitive classless society was a period of "abundance" rests on a pretty hilariously rigged notion of what "abundance" is, plus some cooked-up data)...

I said the European mesolithic, not 2.6 million years of prehistory.

Are you an archaeologist? Written any papers debunking the notion of the abundant European mesolithic? Care to show where the 'cooked up data' is? Or are you going to admit you don't know what you're talking about?


... capitalism represents a massive improvement on feudalism, the Asiatic mode of production etc. Anyone who can not appreciate this fact is no Marxist...

So, Engels isn't a Marxist? We know already that Marx isn't of course, and by your logic he could never be, they're both far too kind to previous social forms to be proper Marxists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I said the European mesolithic, not 2.6 million years of prehistory.

Are you an archaeologist? Written any papers debunking the notion of the abundant European mesolithic? Care to show where the 'cooked up data' is? Or are you going to admit you don't know what you're talking about?

No, in fact I am not an archaeologist, and after trying to and failing to work my way through a text on "post-processual" archaeology, I'm quite sure I could never be one. But archaeology and anthropology are among the fields I follow from time to time, particularly when they intersect politics. I have read the papers that introduced the notion of an "original abundant society", and the notion of "abundance" used in them is not something most modern human beings would recognise as abundance.

The notion relies partly on anthropological work among the San, which among other things ignored domestic labour-time, which is a pretty glaring omission, particularly for us Marxists (as a complete aside, I can't but chuckle at pop-anthropological texts that state that San women are "relatively" equal to the men).


So, Engels isn't a Marxist? We know already that Marx isn't of course, and by your logic he could never be, they're both far too kind to previous social forms to be proper Marxists.

Marx and Engels were never perfectly consistent Marxists, Marx more so than Engels. But in this case, their major fault was overestimating the ability of capitalism to spread and develop the means of production - which led to e.g. Marx supporting British rule in India for a time, Engels supporting free trade, nearly half of the Manifesto consisting of proposals to carry out the capitalist revolution to a conclusion etc. I honestly don't know where you get the notion that M&E were "kind to previous social forms" from.

[Blake's Baby]

The work on abundance in the European mesolithic that I'm most familiar with is based on biomass and biodiversity estimates, and comparisons with the Evenks of Siberia (sedentary hunter-gatherers) and the Native American cultures of the Pacific North-West (again, sedentary hunter-gatherers, though no longer an existing culture). Comparison with the !San is invalid as the !San live in an environment that can be considered marginal at best (for example, the massive shell-middens of the NW European mesolithic show a high degree of reliance on marine food). The point about NW Europe at this period was that it supported an immense diversity, as well as an immense mass, of plant and animal life - unlike the Kalahari now. Exploitation of this environment required less social labour time than the farming cultures that followed.

My notes and references on this are in storage in a different city I'm afraid, so I'm not able to cite sources.

[4thInter]

I don't care what decisions you make, has long as they don't effect your work ethic you can do whatever you want.:)
My motto is
i don't care what you skin color is,
I don't care about your criminal past,
i don't care about your gender or the gender you think you should be,
or your sexuality
But i do care that you help your neighbor.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The work on abundance in the European mesolithic that I'm most familiar with is based on biomass and biodiversity estimates, and comparisons with the Evenks of Siberia (sedentary hunter-gatherers) and the Native American cultures of the Pacific North-West (again, sedentary hunter-gatherers, though no longer an existing culture). Comparison with the !San is invalid as the !San live in an environment that can be considered marginal at best (for example, the massive shell-middens of the NW European mesolithic show a high degree of reliance on marine food). The point about NW Europe at this period was that it supported an immense diversity, as well as an immense mass, of plant and animal life - unlike the Kalahari now. Exploitation of this environment required less social labour time than the farming cultures that followed.

My notes and references on this are in storage in a different city I'm afraid, so I'm not able to cite sources.

I thought it was just the San? I'm not trying to be smug, I realise there are numerous languages and ways of self-identifying among the San, I just though the form "San", without the click, was more common.

As for the rest - sure, NW Europe supported an immense diversity of flora and fauna (the middens were from the Spanish coast, right? I think I know that article, then). But the ability of early humans to exploit this diversity was limited, particularly when it came to manufactured objects. (The point about marginal environments also doesn't work in your favour, I think - during the agricultural revolution our ability to modify our environment increased significantly.)

I would like to see the articles about the socially necessary labour-time expended to exploit the environment - like I said, the one study I am familiar with concerns the !Kung group of the San, and it's seriously flawed. I also don't think it's fair to compare late hunter-gatherer societies with the first agricultural societies - any shift in the mode of production causes short-term economic problems. Early socialism isn't going to be peachy either, what with the civil war and so on.

Finally, I would like to know where, in your opinion, M&E are "kind to previous social forms". I am genuinely interested in what you're referring to.

[Blake's Baby]

My understanding is that !San is considered the correct form. Perhaps it currently isn't.

I don't get your point about 'marginal environments' - the point was that we can't really compare what the !San do with the mesolithic in Europe, as the !San (even with our levels of technology) live in a marginal environment, while the hunter-gatherers in the European mesolithic lived in an abundant environment (even with their technology). The shell-middens I'm thinking of were actually in Scotland and Denmark, but Spain works too. I think your best tack here is to claim that the advantage the agricultural societies had was that they were capable of sustaining greater populations. I have no counter to that.

In the Manifesto M&E discuss the debasement of all forms of relationship through the cash nexus. I don't see any reason to regard these passages as sarcastic. In the discussions of community relations in the 'Origins of the Family...' Engels discusses how the advent of capitalism breaks apart the emotionally and psychologically more satisfying feudal community and replaces it with a desperate alienated (pseudo-)community instead. Capitalism is the society in which humanity is most alienated from its own 'species-being', a point that Marx makes from the very beginning of his revolutionary writings.

So, I'll go back to history is not unilinear. Economic progress brings social disintegration. You yourself just claimed that the introduction of new economic forms bring problems for the societies adopting them.

By the way, on the introduction of farming to Europe - it does at the moment seem to have been done substantially by new populations bringing new techniques, rather than old populations adopting new techniques. So the argument that the hunter-gatherers needed to adjust to new economic/productive forms doesn't (seem, at the moment) to hold up. The old farmers just had to move up the valley or into the next one, and continue doing what they'd been doing before (since about 8,000BC or even earlier).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't get your point about 'marginal environments' - the point was that we can't really compare what the !San do with the mesolithic in Europe, as the !San (even with our levels of technology) live in a marginal environment, while the hunter-gatherers in the European mesolithic lived in an abundant environment (even with their technology). The shell-middens I'm thinking of were actually in Scotland and Denmark, but Spain works too. I think your best tack here is to claim that the advantage the agricultural societies had was that they were capable of sustaining greater populations. I have no counter to that.

The thing is, Mesopotamia was also largely comprised of marginal environments before the introduction of irrigation by slave-owning state societies of the region. The Kalahari, too, could be transformed with currently-existing technology. If capitalism had first developed in present-day Namibia or Botswana, this would probably have happened already. As it is, the nature of capitalism as a global mode of production requires the retention in the periphery of economic forms that are obsolete in the metropole.


In the Manifesto M&E discuss the debasement of all forms of relationship through the cash nexus. I don't see any reason to regard these passages as sarcastic.

The Manifesto is an early work, but even here, the point is not that relationships are debased by the cash nexus, but that they are stripped of their former ideological forms:

"The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.


The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.


The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.


The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades. "

(Emphasis mine.)

Sadly, Marx's statements were far too optimistic. The heroic age of the bourgeoisie did not, and could not, last long, since immediately after destroying the old feudal relations it found itself face-to-face with a strengthened proletariat. Then the formerly revolutionary bourgeoisie reached a mutually-agreeable compromise with all of the dregs of the old order, from the priesthood to the remaining large landowners.


In the discussions of community relations in the 'Origins of the Family...' Engels discusses how the advent of capitalism breaks apart the emotionally and psychologically more satisfying feudal community and replaces it with a desperate alienated (pseudo-)community instead.

Sorry, what section is that? I recall a discussion about Bulgarian and Serbian village communities, but I haven't been able to find the discussion you're referring to.


Capitalism is the society in which humanity is most alienated from its own 'species-being', a point that Marx makes from the very beginning of his revolutionary writings.

Right, and which he stopped making over time, for good reason - "species being" is an idealist notion cribbed from Feuerbach, nothing in the Marxist analysis of society demands it and in fact dialectical materialism is pretty much incompatible with "species beings".


So, I'll go back to history is not unilinear. Economic progress brings social disintegration. You yourself just claimed that the introduction of new economic forms bring problems for the societies adopting them.

Of course, but whether an economic form is progressive or not doesn't depend on the social disintegration it causes (and why is social disintegration bad? after all, communism will result in nothing less than a massive destruction of existing social forms), but on its relation to the means of production, whether it is able to develop them etc.

As a personal aside, I think my own life would be much better if the cash nexus was truly the only social form and the old reactionary forms had died off as Marx predicted.


By the way, on the introduction of farming to Europe - it does at the moment seem to have been done substantially by new populations bringing new techniques, rather than old populations adopting new techniques. So the argument that the hunter-gatherers needed to adjust to new economic/productive forms doesn't (seem, at the moment) to hold up. The old farmers just had to move up the valley or into the next one, and continue doing what they'd been doing before (since about 8,000BC or even earlier).

Fair enough, but in any case the expansion of economic forms, particularly the earlier ones, often brings its associated problems.