phknrocket1k
7th May 2005, 00:15
I was wondering if anybody would help me expand or add more bullets to this document.
___
These states of socio-economic development are not merely descriptive and simple generalizations but contain factual observations about the sequence of development of modern societies and onward. They have an inner logic and continuity, as well as possessing an analytical structure from which to derive information from.
Primitive Society
We spent a better part of human history (approximately 2.3 million years) in this stage. This is the longest lasting socio-economic stage of humanity.
Economic systems in primitive society were, while not institutionalized, often fairly complex. The basis was reciprocity, of which there are three types: generalized, balanced, and negative. Generalized involved the giving of food and gifts to visitors, and to some extent the sharing of food among a group (often, there were systems based on kinship that determined the amount of a particular catch given to people based on their relations to the catcher). Balanced, reciprocity, more formalized, included gift exchange (or barter), and was noticeable especially in terms of bride wealth and dowry. Negative was the basis of competition, whereby political figures in tribal life might try to out give the others in large giving ceremonies.
A traditional society is whose structure is developed within limited production functions. No modern science, rather primitive science was developed to help explain natural phenomena; humanity had questions (nature of thunder, earthquakes, rain, and sickness) but no answers. We specifically utilized creation-myths and the like, which gave explanations for various natural phenomena. These, along with kinship instruction, were central elements in oral history for preliterate societies. Also notable is that perception was limited, a global understanding generally absent. For example, forest tribes unable to see long distances in their habitat may not have any concept of depth perception
The conception of a traditional society is, however in no sense static and it would not exclude gradual increases in output. Acreage would be expanded; some ad hoc technical innovations, often highly productive innovations in such fields as agriculture could rise with say for example, the improvement of irrigation works or the discovery and proliferation of a new crop.
The central fact about the traditional society was that a ceiling resulted from the fact that potentialities which flow from modern science and technology were either not available or not regularly and systemically employed. However we had technology because we had to have production. Without production, we cease to exist.
Unspecialized labor - everybody could do most everything that was natural for their age or sex.
Most interestingly, primitive societies have been shown to have the most leisure time; some groups only required three hours per person per day to attend to all needs for survival!
Many reading will refer to this as the “Hunter/Gatherer” society, but primitive sorts of slash and burn agriculture had developed. The slash and burn is more formally called swidden horticulture. There are other horticultural forms as well. There's also hunter-gatherer, as well as pastoralism, wherein the main source of food and wealth is livestock.
The tools were collectively owned and controlled. Maybe because of kindness, but most possibly out of necessity. “You wanna borrow my bow? Sure, just bring it back so the next person can use it” idea. This was because private property was, to some extent, a luxury. Furthermore, true wealth was believed to be drawn from giving away one's material possessions rather than hoarding them (a more politically adept choice for those on the rise to chiefdom). Also, polygamy was practiced by the overwhelming proportion of societies (of all societies that have existed, only 5% were strictly monogamous), showing another form of collectivization, that, in an apparent paradox, also included the hoarding of women (Although many societies developed age restrictions for men to counteract this).
The most striking aspect of primitive society is that there were NO FORMAL SOCIAL CLASSES! It was an egalitarian society where all were equal; a striking concept was that since societies had been primarily nomadic that great amounts of wealth could not be accumulated. Which generally were quantities of food which were sooner or later, disposed of as waste. However kinship was a normal way to develop tribal relations, and some forms of politics were developed in groups that had become stationary with a greater population density.
Egalitarianism, but still sexism to a certain extent. Most societies either matrilineal or partrilineal (tracing ancestry through mother's or father's line). Family definitions were also considerably different; in matrilineal societies mother's brothers were often the main male caregivers for children.
What I find interesting is especially, the Inca's structure was based on whole villages producing one product (one village produces cloth, another produces a certain food, etc.) and these were distributed equally amongst the citizens of the empire, along with other social services. Widows, orphans, and the infirm were given a little more, out of compassion I figure. Perhaps this was a form primitive communism, but its easy to forget that the Inca rulers were hardly socialist minded. The Inca rulers lived in complete comfort, while the peasants lived in horrible conditions, and were taught to worship the leaders, as they were living gods. Sounds like Stalin, I suppose.
Even though this sounds great, there are some drawbacks.
Unfortunately there was no protection against famines, plagues, floods and so on. The total social output (economic terms, everything that was produced) was at a minimum sustenance level. You lived and died based on how much food you were able to find. Which essentially means that primitive societies were not as well-nourished as today's people, and therefore women did not ovulate monthly, but indeed much more rarely. Chances of pregnancy from sexual activity were lower, and many groups were far more liberal with sexual practices (also as a function of less privacy).
Slavery
This is the first class society (elite, middle class, and lower classes). A small group of people owned everything, a group of slave-owners (about 4% of the total population). While the majority of the residents lived below the poverty line and subsistence levels, with a large amount of wealth and capital allocated to the ultra wealthy.
It’s important to think about this in terms of Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman slavery, where 80% of the population was owned by the 4%.
The unique of defining feature of this era is people owned slaves, and most of the production is agricultural (farming). Even though America in its early history had slavery, it was not dependent on the slaves’ production to survive.
The slaves were never paid money, but received payment in different forms (clothes, shelter, food).Since the slaves were the means of production, they would produce the food, a proportion of which would go to their superiors and perhaps to the clergy, and the rest they could exchange for goods and services from the middle class of artisans.
The social surplus (the social output above needed subsidence of the population) was generally given to the upper class and was used for luxury goods for the slave-owners (palaces, monuments).
Polytheism was religion in this era, so temples building (Temple of Artemis, Statue of Zeus, and the Great Oracle) were a popular thing to do back then. Roman and Greek Mythology as well as Hinduism became strong faiths at this time. Monotheism was barely cracking the surface.
This is the first time in human history that warfare began. Why fight? To replace the slave population (the slave population was not allowed to procreate/have kids, if they did, the family was split up and sold off). Who would have fought in these wars? The other 14% or the intermediate strata (made up of merchants, artisans, teachers, farmers, architects).
The worst part was that most of the fighters in the Ancient Greek society were expected to provide their own means of transportation (horse or legs) and weapons, these people were known as “hoplites.” Even the great philosopher Socrates was a hoplite (great thinker, unfortunately he condoned slavery, in fact he suggested ways to keep the slaves complacent and passive).
The ideology of this system (way they interpreted reality) was that slavery was the natural system; it was designed by the Gods and Goddesses. The elite slave-owners used this to keep the masses under control.
Great things did come out of this system though; the idea of democracy was born (but only practiced by the “citizens” meaning slave-owners and maybe the middle class). But Slavery did seem natural at the time for efficient economic production.
(The last country to ban slavery was Saudi Arabia)
Feudalism
When I speak of Feudalism, it is in terms of Western style feudalism (although there were different types Asian, Ottoman, etc). But the basic concept is still the same.
The ruling classes, the few wealthy, own/control the means of production, i.e. the term Feudal Landlord. Feudalist manors, ruled by a nobleman, were mostly self-sufficient, including artisan laborers such as blacksmiths to attend to all needs.
The serfs were the actual producers, mostly agricultural production. They essentially were not slaves but they were in effect if not principle. Serf’s had more freedom; they couldn’t be bought and sold. They were treated like human beings for the most part, but they were tied to the land they worked. In addition to this they had the privilege to own land, tools, animals, and to raise a family.
There was no nation state idea (like in many Arab countries today, people go by tribal or clan relationships, owing no allegiance to a country/nation).
Almost all of the social output was produced by serfs. They got food, clothing, and shelter. The rest of the output was divided among the rich for luxury, cathedral-building (art and architecture), and the rest of feuding (wars between land lords).
Soldiers were again from the intermediate status; knights were honored as full time warriors, but were bought by the highest bidder. The only war that the serfs did participate in was the Crusades against the “infidel” Muslims. With promises of land (if they made it back alive) and heaven if they died in their holy war against the Muslims for the Holy Land (Places like Jerusalem), the serfs were forced to fight.
The ideology was that the monarchy system was designed by God, backed by the ruling class, which were God’s servants. The largest land owner in this era was the Church (also the central government). Monarchy and God - Divine Right.
There were kings, but these depended on the nobility's support, and had less of a hold on manors.
Capitalism
The bare basic essentials of capitalism are these.
1. Capital is the portion of a nation’s wealth that is man-made and thus reproducible, not counting ecosystem services.
2. A society’s capital equipment, its means of production is owned by a minority of astute investors who have the legal right to use this property for personal/private gain.
3. Capitalism relies on the market system to take care of distribution, allocation of resources to certain tasks and the incomes, wages, rents and profits of the different socio-economic classes.
This perspective of economics can be traced to the writings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Smith and Ricardo were reacting to economic controls that existed under mercantilism between the 16th and 19th centuries, in order to expand a national power and wealth. They stressed that the best way to increase national wealth was to allow for unrestricted exchange among individuals in domestic and international markets.
As we approach the age of high-mass consumption, where in time leading sectors shift toward durable consumer goods and services, as societies achieved eventual maturity. Two important things happened
1. Real income per person rose to a point where the large number of persons gained a command over consumption which went beyond the basic necessities of food, shelter, and clothing.
2. The structure of the work-force changed in ways which increased not only the proportion working in offices or in skilled factory jobs, but also in the sense that these workers want to grasp the upper starry strata of the class system.
Three assumptions must be made by capitalist.
1. Individuals are the principal actors within the political economy.
2. Individuals are rational, utility-maximizing actors.
3. Individuals are able to maximize utility by making trade-offs between goods.
This is known as “free enterprise,” free market, private enterprise, market system.
This essentially means that the factors of production are controlled in private/state ownership.
Capitalist arguments for the economy stress that there are no basis for conflict in the market-place. Because market exchanges are voluntary, and the best scenario is if there are no market impediments upon anybody.
Capitalists believe the economic role of government should be quite limited. They argue that many forms of government intervention in the economy intentionally or unintentionally restrict the market and thereby prevent potentially rewarding trades from occurring. Capitalists also reason that the government should manage international macroeconomic policy in the same manner that they conduct and enact domestic macroeconomic policies.
Capitalists believe that the best scenario for all countries is when goods and services move freely across international borders in potentially rewarding transactions between individuals. It is argued, that if universal free-trade were allowed to exist, that all countries would enjoy a high standard of living and that there would be no economic basis for international conflict and war.
Labor power has become a commodity! The ability to produce has been sold in the market. This is the unique aspect of Capitalism, that your wage is based on time (in almost all cases, few exceptions).
Labor is even freer, but still in a virtual sense, low paid workers, on the whole, had little hope of social advancement and was tied to jobs. Movements to cities to take advantage of industrial positions; industrialization creates greater farm efficiency, allows for fewer workers who have to find industrial jobs - technology and population spiral.
Another government efficiency example - Pemex of Mexico and Petrobras of Brazil in their early years.
Rise of nationalism - centralization of tools production renders self-sufficiency obsolete and inefficient on regional level - continued grappling with self-sufficiency on international level (imperialism to globalization; Paraguay under Francia as example of national industrial self-sufficiency)
Different types of capitalism:
-Laissez faire capitalism- SES 95% Private, 5% State Enterprise
(Under the assumption that there are no monopolies, oligopolies) Young capitalism has a self-correcting mechanism (market mechanism- self adjusting movement of price toward equilibrium b/w supply and demand). There is limited government intervention w/ the exception of police, legal system, infrastructure (roads, highway, bridge, and railroad), foreign policy, military, and public works, and courts.
-Mixed Economy- SES - 60% Private, 40% Public, Big business and big government.
This is still capitalism, but huge private sector is offset by big government. Decisions are made by the bureaucrats, technocrats (nothing to do with techno music), and politicians. To learn more, look up Sir John Maynard Keynes, the father of mixed economy. Both Government and Business can be efficient or inefficient (government efficiency examples for you skeptics- Thiat , Runo [French])
[i]-State Capitalism- SES- 10% private, 90% Public aka “communist/socialist”
Everyone owns it (but in reality it is a few technocrats or specialist that makes the decisions, not the people). Elite few are in charge; profit maximization is the essential goal of the decision makers. Self interest and material incentive are extremely important (used to motivate).
Socialism (Marx & Engels)
Socialism and Communism both existed well before Marx wrote anything. They have been ideas passed down for quite some time. Marx had popularized them though with his writings. Marxism was a response to the proliferation of capitalism.
Marx saw capitalism and the market creating extreme disparities of wealth between social classes, which he referred to as; bourgeoisie and proletariat. While everyone may have been better off than before, but that some classes were expanding their wealth much faster. Marx rejected the notion that exchange between individuals necessarily maximizes the welfare of the whole society.
Marx makes three essential assumptions from his observations.
1. Classes are the dominant actors in the Political Economy
2. Classes act in their material economic interests.
3. Basis of Capitalist economy is exploitation of labor via capital.
His analysis began with the labor theory of value, which states that the value of any product is determined by the amount of past and present labor used to produce it. He broke down the value of a product into three parts.
1. Constant Capital, or past labor that was needed to produce the factors of production, (plants, factories).
2. Wages paid to present labor to produce said product.
3. Surplus value, which is defined as profits, rents and interest.
Marx asserted that the surplus value is expropriated away from the proletariat worker to further enrich the bourgeoisie.
Modern Marxists are concerned with the poverty and continued relative underdevelopment of the third world. It is argued that the development is blocked by domestic ruling classes who choose to pursue narrow personal interests at the expense of national economic progress and readiness. Likewise, “dependency-theorists” extend the analytical framework to an international level. The global system is stratified into an area autonomous self-sustaining growth. In this world-view, capitalism is responsible for the extraction of surplus-value from the periphery and concentrates this in the core just as capitalists exploit workers within a single country.
Trends towards re-publicization of assets and political decisions, perhaps toward modern global version of tribal society. This sort of trend raises questions about the interlude between Tribalism and outright slavery however, as to whether the change was altogether a gradual effect of the agricultural revolution's new efficiency, or whether the change was as abrupt as their proximity as systems would seem to indicate.
(Memo: Write notes on Nepal, Peru, Latin America)
(Memo: Write notes on Black-Panthers)
Different types of Socialism/Marxism.
Democratic Socialist
Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have none-the-less won many victories for their people. Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few with a belief of radical reform while still working within the left-end of the capitalist framework. These democratic socialists are either members of the proletariat class who are not yet sufficiently clear about embracing full-blown Marxism, or that they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, an economic class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
Bookchinite
Also known as eco-anarchism, Bookchinism is a hybrid political theory developed primarily by Murray Bookchin (thus the name), is a combination of environmentalism, Marxism and the decentralization inherent in Anarchist philosophy. Bookchin proposed the idea of dialectal naturalism, a growth of dialectal materialism that combines social evolution with that of the natural world, and that capitalist economy is responsible for the destruction to the environment. Therefore, according to these principles, the ecosystem can only be saved by the institution of socialism and eradication of capitalism. Usually, "Bookchinism" is used as a derogatory term by an opponent of environmental causes, and is not generally used by Eco-anarchists themselves (Used in the graph above out of convenience).
Democratic Marxist
Democratic Marxists believe that the state is a relatively autonomous "contestable terrain" for the organized, self-conscious constituencies of the working class, through an open, inclusive political party (a left Democratic Party or third party) and a radical labor movement. Socialists organize a coalition of the sinking bottom third and the sliding middle third of America (the bulk of the poor and the working middle class) against the wealthy and corporations; central, necessary role for organized labor. Influenced by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci; socialists struggle to wrest ideological hegemony away from the ruling class, and gain hegemony for radical ideology. The leading exponent in the U.S. has been Michael Harrington. Also well described in the pamphlet "Toward a Democratic Socialism: Theory, Strategy, and Vision" (1991) by Joseph Schwartz, member of the DSA National Political Committee.
Castroist
Also called Fidelism and Guevarism, Castroists believe that the bourgeois capitalist state must be overthrown in order to create a socialist alternative. Instead of leading the masses through a vanguard party, however, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara developed the idea of focoism: acts of guerilla warfare and heroism by a small band of warriors against the establishment will inspire the masses to support and join the revolution. Castroism also pushes for a strong, authoritarian and centralized government, but not the totalitarian bureaucracy displayed by Stalinism, Maoism or Kimism. In the US, the largest Castroist party today is the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).
Anarchist
Anarchism is an ideology that emphasizes the belief that all forms of government are inherently exploitative, and therefore should be eradicated immediately. The father of modern anarchism was Pierre Joseph Proudhon, while (violent) revolutionary anarchism is generally attributed to Mikhail Bakunin. Many hybrid forms of anarchism exist as well, including:
Libertarian Socialist
While traditional anarchists would believe in a revolutionary need for the overthrow of government and would shun the idea of participating in political parties, libertarian socialists feel that government can be overthrown in a less violent manner and that some political parties are productive. Many punk rock bands could be classified as libertarian socialist.
DeLeonist
Form of political thought engineered by American radical Daniel De Leon. De Leon combined the rising theories of Syndicalism in his time with orthodox Marxism. According to DeLeonist theory, militant trade unions are the vehicle of class struggle. Trade unions serving the interests of the "proletariat" (working class) will bring about the change needed to establish a socialist system. Today, two American groups claim to follow the ideas of DeLeon: the Socialist Labor Party and the New Union Party.
Leninist-Trotskyist
Form of Marxism created by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Leon Trotsky, leaders of the Bolsheviks and co-founders of the Soviet Union. Leninists believe in insurrectionary Marxism. They feel that the old capitalist government aparatus must be completely destroyed in order to create a new socialist state, governed by the dictatorship of the proletariat (dictatorship of the working class). A Leninist vanguard party, led by the most educated and "advanced" of the working class, is necessary to give the working class's revolutionary spirit direction. This is what occurred in October/November of 1917 in Russia, when the workers (led by the Bolsheviks) overthrew the capitalist Provisional Government of Alexander Kerensky. Leninists believe that, after a period of transition under the dictatorship of the proletariat, society will become classless and the dictatorial state will "whiter away," creating a very pure democracy. After Lenin's death, Trotsky and Stalin competed for rule over the Communist Party, eventually parting into wholly separate ideologies. Trotskyism was closer to the original intent of Lenin, while Stalinism sought to strengthen its hold on the dictatorship, creating a very totalitarian state.
Progressive
Progressives believe in reform and evolutionary means to improve conditions rather than revolutionary methods. Well-known Progressives include Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Progressive-Party founder Robert M. La Follette. Many left-wing Democrats today consider themselves progressives. Progressivism is very similar to Social Democratic movements, except Progressives tend to work with groups further to the left than Social Democrats usually do.
Shachtmanite
Hybrid political ideology that mixes (in varying ratios) Trotskyism and Social Democracy. Shachtmanites believe that the Stalinist rulers of Communist countries are a "new (ruling) class", completely distinct from the workers. Therefore, they go beyond Trotsky's description of Stalinist Russia as being a "degenerated workers' state"; describing it as a "bureaucratic collectivist" society or "state capitalism".
Kimist
Also known as Hoxhaism or anti-revisionism, a form of extremely totalitarian ideology based on hardline Maoism or Stalinism. It is based on the theories of Kim IL Sung Enver Hoxha (1908-1985). Kimists often classified Khrushchev's Russia as "state capitalist" or "social imperialist" (a term often used to describe Stalinists and Kimists!), and often depend on totalitarian and isolationist policies to survive. Most Communists find Kimism distasteful.
Stalinist
While claiming to uphold the traditions of the Leninism, Stalinism institutes a vast bureaucratic hierarchy, stunt or destroys free speech and completely centralizes the executive structure of the nation, usually around a demagogue. Socially, economically, and politically, Stalinism shifts chaotically from purist, ultra-leftism (violent collectivization of farms and other property, purging of non-Stalin leftists, the "Third Period", etc.) to reactionary conservatism (militarism, patriotism, anti-Semitism, the Popular Front, and strong persecution of civil dissent). Stalinism is one of the two main forms of Leninism (the other being Trotskyism). Stalinists practices nationalism, believing in "Socialism in one country". Many Marxists of the world's Left blame Stalinism for beginning the chain of events which eventually led to the destruction of the Soviet Union.
Maoism
Political theory that mixes Stalinism and Populism. Named after Mao Zedong, the ideology relies on militant, insurrectionary and populist strategies in organizing revolution. Once in power, however, Maoists tend to install a traditionally corrupt Stalinist regime: bureaucratic, totalitarian, militaristic, and dictatorial. Maoists also believe that the world socialist revolution will begin in the "Third World".
Christian Socialist
Social Democratic philosophy which believes that the humanitarian messages of Jesus point towards socialism.
Social Democrat
Socialism cannot be achieved without democracy. Not to be confused with Social Democracy, an ideology more centrist than left. Democratic Socialism is opposed to both communism and capitalism, pointing out that while capitalism has economic inequality, communism exhibits political inequality (although those countries defined as "Communist" are rarely communist in any sense).
Collective ownership/control of the means of production and resources which means that there is democratic ownership and control, everyone makes decisions.
Need to know who’s in power, look at who owns and controls.
Changes to Revision to 2.0 from 1.1
Introductory Note
2 new bullets to primitive society
2 revisions to primitive society
7 new bullets to capitalism
1 revision to capitalism
19 new bullets to socialism
___
These states of socio-economic development are not merely descriptive and simple generalizations but contain factual observations about the sequence of development of modern societies and onward. They have an inner logic and continuity, as well as possessing an analytical structure from which to derive information from.
Primitive Society
We spent a better part of human history (approximately 2.3 million years) in this stage. This is the longest lasting socio-economic stage of humanity.
Economic systems in primitive society were, while not institutionalized, often fairly complex. The basis was reciprocity, of which there are three types: generalized, balanced, and negative. Generalized involved the giving of food and gifts to visitors, and to some extent the sharing of food among a group (often, there were systems based on kinship that determined the amount of a particular catch given to people based on their relations to the catcher). Balanced, reciprocity, more formalized, included gift exchange (or barter), and was noticeable especially in terms of bride wealth and dowry. Negative was the basis of competition, whereby political figures in tribal life might try to out give the others in large giving ceremonies.
A traditional society is whose structure is developed within limited production functions. No modern science, rather primitive science was developed to help explain natural phenomena; humanity had questions (nature of thunder, earthquakes, rain, and sickness) but no answers. We specifically utilized creation-myths and the like, which gave explanations for various natural phenomena. These, along with kinship instruction, were central elements in oral history for preliterate societies. Also notable is that perception was limited, a global understanding generally absent. For example, forest tribes unable to see long distances in their habitat may not have any concept of depth perception
The conception of a traditional society is, however in no sense static and it would not exclude gradual increases in output. Acreage would be expanded; some ad hoc technical innovations, often highly productive innovations in such fields as agriculture could rise with say for example, the improvement of irrigation works or the discovery and proliferation of a new crop.
The central fact about the traditional society was that a ceiling resulted from the fact that potentialities which flow from modern science and technology were either not available or not regularly and systemically employed. However we had technology because we had to have production. Without production, we cease to exist.
Unspecialized labor - everybody could do most everything that was natural for their age or sex.
Most interestingly, primitive societies have been shown to have the most leisure time; some groups only required three hours per person per day to attend to all needs for survival!
Many reading will refer to this as the “Hunter/Gatherer” society, but primitive sorts of slash and burn agriculture had developed. The slash and burn is more formally called swidden horticulture. There are other horticultural forms as well. There's also hunter-gatherer, as well as pastoralism, wherein the main source of food and wealth is livestock.
The tools were collectively owned and controlled. Maybe because of kindness, but most possibly out of necessity. “You wanna borrow my bow? Sure, just bring it back so the next person can use it” idea. This was because private property was, to some extent, a luxury. Furthermore, true wealth was believed to be drawn from giving away one's material possessions rather than hoarding them (a more politically adept choice for those on the rise to chiefdom). Also, polygamy was practiced by the overwhelming proportion of societies (of all societies that have existed, only 5% were strictly monogamous), showing another form of collectivization, that, in an apparent paradox, also included the hoarding of women (Although many societies developed age restrictions for men to counteract this).
The most striking aspect of primitive society is that there were NO FORMAL SOCIAL CLASSES! It was an egalitarian society where all were equal; a striking concept was that since societies had been primarily nomadic that great amounts of wealth could not be accumulated. Which generally were quantities of food which were sooner or later, disposed of as waste. However kinship was a normal way to develop tribal relations, and some forms of politics were developed in groups that had become stationary with a greater population density.
Egalitarianism, but still sexism to a certain extent. Most societies either matrilineal or partrilineal (tracing ancestry through mother's or father's line). Family definitions were also considerably different; in matrilineal societies mother's brothers were often the main male caregivers for children.
What I find interesting is especially, the Inca's structure was based on whole villages producing one product (one village produces cloth, another produces a certain food, etc.) and these were distributed equally amongst the citizens of the empire, along with other social services. Widows, orphans, and the infirm were given a little more, out of compassion I figure. Perhaps this was a form primitive communism, but its easy to forget that the Inca rulers were hardly socialist minded. The Inca rulers lived in complete comfort, while the peasants lived in horrible conditions, and were taught to worship the leaders, as they were living gods. Sounds like Stalin, I suppose.
Even though this sounds great, there are some drawbacks.
Unfortunately there was no protection against famines, plagues, floods and so on. The total social output (economic terms, everything that was produced) was at a minimum sustenance level. You lived and died based on how much food you were able to find. Which essentially means that primitive societies were not as well-nourished as today's people, and therefore women did not ovulate monthly, but indeed much more rarely. Chances of pregnancy from sexual activity were lower, and many groups were far more liberal with sexual practices (also as a function of less privacy).
Slavery
This is the first class society (elite, middle class, and lower classes). A small group of people owned everything, a group of slave-owners (about 4% of the total population). While the majority of the residents lived below the poverty line and subsistence levels, with a large amount of wealth and capital allocated to the ultra wealthy.
It’s important to think about this in terms of Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman slavery, where 80% of the population was owned by the 4%.
The unique of defining feature of this era is people owned slaves, and most of the production is agricultural (farming). Even though America in its early history had slavery, it was not dependent on the slaves’ production to survive.
The slaves were never paid money, but received payment in different forms (clothes, shelter, food).Since the slaves were the means of production, they would produce the food, a proportion of which would go to their superiors and perhaps to the clergy, and the rest they could exchange for goods and services from the middle class of artisans.
The social surplus (the social output above needed subsidence of the population) was generally given to the upper class and was used for luxury goods for the slave-owners (palaces, monuments).
Polytheism was religion in this era, so temples building (Temple of Artemis, Statue of Zeus, and the Great Oracle) were a popular thing to do back then. Roman and Greek Mythology as well as Hinduism became strong faiths at this time. Monotheism was barely cracking the surface.
This is the first time in human history that warfare began. Why fight? To replace the slave population (the slave population was not allowed to procreate/have kids, if they did, the family was split up and sold off). Who would have fought in these wars? The other 14% or the intermediate strata (made up of merchants, artisans, teachers, farmers, architects).
The worst part was that most of the fighters in the Ancient Greek society were expected to provide their own means of transportation (horse or legs) and weapons, these people were known as “hoplites.” Even the great philosopher Socrates was a hoplite (great thinker, unfortunately he condoned slavery, in fact he suggested ways to keep the slaves complacent and passive).
The ideology of this system (way they interpreted reality) was that slavery was the natural system; it was designed by the Gods and Goddesses. The elite slave-owners used this to keep the masses under control.
Great things did come out of this system though; the idea of democracy was born (but only practiced by the “citizens” meaning slave-owners and maybe the middle class). But Slavery did seem natural at the time for efficient economic production.
(The last country to ban slavery was Saudi Arabia)
Feudalism
When I speak of Feudalism, it is in terms of Western style feudalism (although there were different types Asian, Ottoman, etc). But the basic concept is still the same.
The ruling classes, the few wealthy, own/control the means of production, i.e. the term Feudal Landlord. Feudalist manors, ruled by a nobleman, were mostly self-sufficient, including artisan laborers such as blacksmiths to attend to all needs.
The serfs were the actual producers, mostly agricultural production. They essentially were not slaves but they were in effect if not principle. Serf’s had more freedom; they couldn’t be bought and sold. They were treated like human beings for the most part, but they were tied to the land they worked. In addition to this they had the privilege to own land, tools, animals, and to raise a family.
There was no nation state idea (like in many Arab countries today, people go by tribal or clan relationships, owing no allegiance to a country/nation).
Almost all of the social output was produced by serfs. They got food, clothing, and shelter. The rest of the output was divided among the rich for luxury, cathedral-building (art and architecture), and the rest of feuding (wars between land lords).
Soldiers were again from the intermediate status; knights were honored as full time warriors, but were bought by the highest bidder. The only war that the serfs did participate in was the Crusades against the “infidel” Muslims. With promises of land (if they made it back alive) and heaven if they died in their holy war against the Muslims for the Holy Land (Places like Jerusalem), the serfs were forced to fight.
The ideology was that the monarchy system was designed by God, backed by the ruling class, which were God’s servants. The largest land owner in this era was the Church (also the central government). Monarchy and God - Divine Right.
There were kings, but these depended on the nobility's support, and had less of a hold on manors.
Capitalism
The bare basic essentials of capitalism are these.
1. Capital is the portion of a nation’s wealth that is man-made and thus reproducible, not counting ecosystem services.
2. A society’s capital equipment, its means of production is owned by a minority of astute investors who have the legal right to use this property for personal/private gain.
3. Capitalism relies on the market system to take care of distribution, allocation of resources to certain tasks and the incomes, wages, rents and profits of the different socio-economic classes.
This perspective of economics can be traced to the writings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Smith and Ricardo were reacting to economic controls that existed under mercantilism between the 16th and 19th centuries, in order to expand a national power and wealth. They stressed that the best way to increase national wealth was to allow for unrestricted exchange among individuals in domestic and international markets.
As we approach the age of high-mass consumption, where in time leading sectors shift toward durable consumer goods and services, as societies achieved eventual maturity. Two important things happened
1. Real income per person rose to a point where the large number of persons gained a command over consumption which went beyond the basic necessities of food, shelter, and clothing.
2. The structure of the work-force changed in ways which increased not only the proportion working in offices or in skilled factory jobs, but also in the sense that these workers want to grasp the upper starry strata of the class system.
Three assumptions must be made by capitalist.
1. Individuals are the principal actors within the political economy.
2. Individuals are rational, utility-maximizing actors.
3. Individuals are able to maximize utility by making trade-offs between goods.
This is known as “free enterprise,” free market, private enterprise, market system.
This essentially means that the factors of production are controlled in private/state ownership.
Capitalist arguments for the economy stress that there are no basis for conflict in the market-place. Because market exchanges are voluntary, and the best scenario is if there are no market impediments upon anybody.
Capitalists believe the economic role of government should be quite limited. They argue that many forms of government intervention in the economy intentionally or unintentionally restrict the market and thereby prevent potentially rewarding trades from occurring. Capitalists also reason that the government should manage international macroeconomic policy in the same manner that they conduct and enact domestic macroeconomic policies.
Capitalists believe that the best scenario for all countries is when goods and services move freely across international borders in potentially rewarding transactions between individuals. It is argued, that if universal free-trade were allowed to exist, that all countries would enjoy a high standard of living and that there would be no economic basis for international conflict and war.
Labor power has become a commodity! The ability to produce has been sold in the market. This is the unique aspect of Capitalism, that your wage is based on time (in almost all cases, few exceptions).
Labor is even freer, but still in a virtual sense, low paid workers, on the whole, had little hope of social advancement and was tied to jobs. Movements to cities to take advantage of industrial positions; industrialization creates greater farm efficiency, allows for fewer workers who have to find industrial jobs - technology and population spiral.
Another government efficiency example - Pemex of Mexico and Petrobras of Brazil in their early years.
Rise of nationalism - centralization of tools production renders self-sufficiency obsolete and inefficient on regional level - continued grappling with self-sufficiency on international level (imperialism to globalization; Paraguay under Francia as example of national industrial self-sufficiency)
Different types of capitalism:
-Laissez faire capitalism- SES 95% Private, 5% State Enterprise
(Under the assumption that there are no monopolies, oligopolies) Young capitalism has a self-correcting mechanism (market mechanism- self adjusting movement of price toward equilibrium b/w supply and demand). There is limited government intervention w/ the exception of police, legal system, infrastructure (roads, highway, bridge, and railroad), foreign policy, military, and public works, and courts.
-Mixed Economy- SES - 60% Private, 40% Public, Big business and big government.
This is still capitalism, but huge private sector is offset by big government. Decisions are made by the bureaucrats, technocrats (nothing to do with techno music), and politicians. To learn more, look up Sir John Maynard Keynes, the father of mixed economy. Both Government and Business can be efficient or inefficient (government efficiency examples for you skeptics- Thiat , Runo [French])
[i]-State Capitalism- SES- 10% private, 90% Public aka “communist/socialist”
Everyone owns it (but in reality it is a few technocrats or specialist that makes the decisions, not the people). Elite few are in charge; profit maximization is the essential goal of the decision makers. Self interest and material incentive are extremely important (used to motivate).
Socialism (Marx & Engels)
Socialism and Communism both existed well before Marx wrote anything. They have been ideas passed down for quite some time. Marx had popularized them though with his writings. Marxism was a response to the proliferation of capitalism.
Marx saw capitalism and the market creating extreme disparities of wealth between social classes, which he referred to as; bourgeoisie and proletariat. While everyone may have been better off than before, but that some classes were expanding their wealth much faster. Marx rejected the notion that exchange between individuals necessarily maximizes the welfare of the whole society.
Marx makes three essential assumptions from his observations.
1. Classes are the dominant actors in the Political Economy
2. Classes act in their material economic interests.
3. Basis of Capitalist economy is exploitation of labor via capital.
His analysis began with the labor theory of value, which states that the value of any product is determined by the amount of past and present labor used to produce it. He broke down the value of a product into three parts.
1. Constant Capital, or past labor that was needed to produce the factors of production, (plants, factories).
2. Wages paid to present labor to produce said product.
3. Surplus value, which is defined as profits, rents and interest.
Marx asserted that the surplus value is expropriated away from the proletariat worker to further enrich the bourgeoisie.
Modern Marxists are concerned with the poverty and continued relative underdevelopment of the third world. It is argued that the development is blocked by domestic ruling classes who choose to pursue narrow personal interests at the expense of national economic progress and readiness. Likewise, “dependency-theorists” extend the analytical framework to an international level. The global system is stratified into an area autonomous self-sustaining growth. In this world-view, capitalism is responsible for the extraction of surplus-value from the periphery and concentrates this in the core just as capitalists exploit workers within a single country.
Trends towards re-publicization of assets and political decisions, perhaps toward modern global version of tribal society. This sort of trend raises questions about the interlude between Tribalism and outright slavery however, as to whether the change was altogether a gradual effect of the agricultural revolution's new efficiency, or whether the change was as abrupt as their proximity as systems would seem to indicate.
(Memo: Write notes on Nepal, Peru, Latin America)
(Memo: Write notes on Black-Panthers)
Different types of Socialism/Marxism.
Democratic Socialist
Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have none-the-less won many victories for their people. Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few with a belief of radical reform while still working within the left-end of the capitalist framework. These democratic socialists are either members of the proletariat class who are not yet sufficiently clear about embracing full-blown Marxism, or that they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, an economic class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
Bookchinite
Also known as eco-anarchism, Bookchinism is a hybrid political theory developed primarily by Murray Bookchin (thus the name), is a combination of environmentalism, Marxism and the decentralization inherent in Anarchist philosophy. Bookchin proposed the idea of dialectal naturalism, a growth of dialectal materialism that combines social evolution with that of the natural world, and that capitalist economy is responsible for the destruction to the environment. Therefore, according to these principles, the ecosystem can only be saved by the institution of socialism and eradication of capitalism. Usually, "Bookchinism" is used as a derogatory term by an opponent of environmental causes, and is not generally used by Eco-anarchists themselves (Used in the graph above out of convenience).
Democratic Marxist
Democratic Marxists believe that the state is a relatively autonomous "contestable terrain" for the organized, self-conscious constituencies of the working class, through an open, inclusive political party (a left Democratic Party or third party) and a radical labor movement. Socialists organize a coalition of the sinking bottom third and the sliding middle third of America (the bulk of the poor and the working middle class) against the wealthy and corporations; central, necessary role for organized labor. Influenced by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci; socialists struggle to wrest ideological hegemony away from the ruling class, and gain hegemony for radical ideology. The leading exponent in the U.S. has been Michael Harrington. Also well described in the pamphlet "Toward a Democratic Socialism: Theory, Strategy, and Vision" (1991) by Joseph Schwartz, member of the DSA National Political Committee.
Castroist
Also called Fidelism and Guevarism, Castroists believe that the bourgeois capitalist state must be overthrown in order to create a socialist alternative. Instead of leading the masses through a vanguard party, however, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara developed the idea of focoism: acts of guerilla warfare and heroism by a small band of warriors against the establishment will inspire the masses to support and join the revolution. Castroism also pushes for a strong, authoritarian and centralized government, but not the totalitarian bureaucracy displayed by Stalinism, Maoism or Kimism. In the US, the largest Castroist party today is the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).
Anarchist
Anarchism is an ideology that emphasizes the belief that all forms of government are inherently exploitative, and therefore should be eradicated immediately. The father of modern anarchism was Pierre Joseph Proudhon, while (violent) revolutionary anarchism is generally attributed to Mikhail Bakunin. Many hybrid forms of anarchism exist as well, including:
Libertarian Socialist
While traditional anarchists would believe in a revolutionary need for the overthrow of government and would shun the idea of participating in political parties, libertarian socialists feel that government can be overthrown in a less violent manner and that some political parties are productive. Many punk rock bands could be classified as libertarian socialist.
DeLeonist
Form of political thought engineered by American radical Daniel De Leon. De Leon combined the rising theories of Syndicalism in his time with orthodox Marxism. According to DeLeonist theory, militant trade unions are the vehicle of class struggle. Trade unions serving the interests of the "proletariat" (working class) will bring about the change needed to establish a socialist system. Today, two American groups claim to follow the ideas of DeLeon: the Socialist Labor Party and the New Union Party.
Leninist-Trotskyist
Form of Marxism created by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Leon Trotsky, leaders of the Bolsheviks and co-founders of the Soviet Union. Leninists believe in insurrectionary Marxism. They feel that the old capitalist government aparatus must be completely destroyed in order to create a new socialist state, governed by the dictatorship of the proletariat (dictatorship of the working class). A Leninist vanguard party, led by the most educated and "advanced" of the working class, is necessary to give the working class's revolutionary spirit direction. This is what occurred in October/November of 1917 in Russia, when the workers (led by the Bolsheviks) overthrew the capitalist Provisional Government of Alexander Kerensky. Leninists believe that, after a period of transition under the dictatorship of the proletariat, society will become classless and the dictatorial state will "whiter away," creating a very pure democracy. After Lenin's death, Trotsky and Stalin competed for rule over the Communist Party, eventually parting into wholly separate ideologies. Trotskyism was closer to the original intent of Lenin, while Stalinism sought to strengthen its hold on the dictatorship, creating a very totalitarian state.
Progressive
Progressives believe in reform and evolutionary means to improve conditions rather than revolutionary methods. Well-known Progressives include Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Progressive-Party founder Robert M. La Follette. Many left-wing Democrats today consider themselves progressives. Progressivism is very similar to Social Democratic movements, except Progressives tend to work with groups further to the left than Social Democrats usually do.
Shachtmanite
Hybrid political ideology that mixes (in varying ratios) Trotskyism and Social Democracy. Shachtmanites believe that the Stalinist rulers of Communist countries are a "new (ruling) class", completely distinct from the workers. Therefore, they go beyond Trotsky's description of Stalinist Russia as being a "degenerated workers' state"; describing it as a "bureaucratic collectivist" society or "state capitalism".
Kimist
Also known as Hoxhaism or anti-revisionism, a form of extremely totalitarian ideology based on hardline Maoism or Stalinism. It is based on the theories of Kim IL Sung Enver Hoxha (1908-1985). Kimists often classified Khrushchev's Russia as "state capitalist" or "social imperialist" (a term often used to describe Stalinists and Kimists!), and often depend on totalitarian and isolationist policies to survive. Most Communists find Kimism distasteful.
Stalinist
While claiming to uphold the traditions of the Leninism, Stalinism institutes a vast bureaucratic hierarchy, stunt or destroys free speech and completely centralizes the executive structure of the nation, usually around a demagogue. Socially, economically, and politically, Stalinism shifts chaotically from purist, ultra-leftism (violent collectivization of farms and other property, purging of non-Stalin leftists, the "Third Period", etc.) to reactionary conservatism (militarism, patriotism, anti-Semitism, the Popular Front, and strong persecution of civil dissent). Stalinism is one of the two main forms of Leninism (the other being Trotskyism). Stalinists practices nationalism, believing in "Socialism in one country". Many Marxists of the world's Left blame Stalinism for beginning the chain of events which eventually led to the destruction of the Soviet Union.
Maoism
Political theory that mixes Stalinism and Populism. Named after Mao Zedong, the ideology relies on militant, insurrectionary and populist strategies in organizing revolution. Once in power, however, Maoists tend to install a traditionally corrupt Stalinist regime: bureaucratic, totalitarian, militaristic, and dictatorial. Maoists also believe that the world socialist revolution will begin in the "Third World".
Christian Socialist
Social Democratic philosophy which believes that the humanitarian messages of Jesus point towards socialism.
Social Democrat
Socialism cannot be achieved without democracy. Not to be confused with Social Democracy, an ideology more centrist than left. Democratic Socialism is opposed to both communism and capitalism, pointing out that while capitalism has economic inequality, communism exhibits political inequality (although those countries defined as "Communist" are rarely communist in any sense).
Collective ownership/control of the means of production and resources which means that there is democratic ownership and control, everyone makes decisions.
Need to know who’s in power, look at who owns and controls.
Changes to Revision to 2.0 from 1.1
Introductory Note
2 new bullets to primitive society
2 revisions to primitive society
7 new bullets to capitalism
1 revision to capitalism
19 new bullets to socialism