On exploitation.

[Fidelbrand]

Exploitation is very much about bargaining power.

I think capitalism has exacerbated the normality of exploitation, it can be easily proved with the mentalities of the mass at this 21st centruy.

But does the concept of "exploitation" exists in a hunter-gatherers barter-society.

Say for example:

Hunter A sees Hunter B's tribe is suffering from a drought.
Hunter A offers to exchange 5 cows and 5 sheep just for a few buckets of water.
Hunter B, given the desperate situation, has no alternative but to accept the offer.

Sure it's an hypothetical example, but it has plausibility.

Discuss.

[LSD]

But does the concept of "exploitation" exists in a hunter-gatherers barter-society.

Of course.

Exploitation is definitively pre-capitalist. Capitalism just grossly simplified class relationships, it didn't invent them.

Although to be fair, the kind of society you're describing, one in which there are "cows" and "sheep" to trade, is not truly paleolithic. A "hunter-gatherers barter society" is a contradiction. Barter society, in any meaningful sense, emerged following the neolithic revolution, not prior to it.

This is not to say that exploitation did not exist in those paleolithic societies, however. Despite the ludicrous primitavist propaganda about an "golden age", all credible anthropological research points to a rabidly xenophobic and insular society in which the murder of non-"kin" hunter-gatherer bands was common-place and accepted.

Now, of course, property exploitation could not exist as property itself did not. But at this point in our social evolution, exploitation was really the least of our concerns. Illness, starvation, thirst, death, all were a constant presence in paleolithic life.

In the end, we were forced to develop means of keeping ourselves alive, namely agriculture and domestication, and that's when stratification and hierarchical division of labour emerges. In these early neolithic societies, we see the development of property relations and the kind of early barter economies you're talking about in your example.


Say for example:

Hunter A sees Hunter B's tribe is suffering from a drought.
Hunter A offers to exchange 5 cows and 5 sheep just for a few buckets of water.
Hunter B, given the desperate situation, has no alternative but to accept the offer.

Yes, hunter A has exploited hunter B, but not in the institutional way that capitalism does.

Hunter B is put in a disatvantageous situation by material conditions not social relations. That is, hunter A is taking advantage of a weather anomoly. Theoretically, if wind and rain patterns had been slightly different, hunter B might be exploiting hunter A.

The significance of this is that it means that, overall, exploitation tends to be ephemeral and transient. Unlike in feudal and capitalist societies, power relations don't persist or perpetuate themselves.

It really speaks to the nature of mesolithic life, short, brutal, and unstable.

[Fidelbrand]

Thanks Lysergic Acid Diethylamide.

Yes, attention has to be paid to the socio-cultural and sporadic/climatic factors in causing exploitation. Since they give birth under 2 different contexts of exploitation.

It's a very well-thought and educational response. ;)

[Dimentio]

Exploitment is something that all species in nature are endeavouring in, in order to survive. Take for example the Mykkhoriza, the microscopic mushroom that is growing on the roots of mighty trees. The mushroom feeds the tree with minerals, proteines and some carbon hydrates, while the tree give back a pay in solar energy.

According to myself as a technocrat, the establishment of a classless community would not mean that exploitment is abolished, rather than exploitment is transferred from the use of human labour to automated machinery, while all citizens of the technate are allowed an equal share iof the continental abundance.

The amount of work needed to operate a technate, in this case the North American technate, would [this calculation was made in the 20;s] be 16 hours a week for every North American citizen between 25 and 45.

[drain.you]

Marx said each epoch of time had conflict which created revolution into the next epoch. The conflict always stemmed from a conflict of ideas and these conflict of ideas usually had one group suppressed and exploited by another.

[Dimentio]

Maybe, but we would need more exact and scientific definitions. Such a concept as feudalism, for example, have undergone many processes. We cannot exactly say when feudalism were established and when it were abolished [in Europe].

[drain.you]

Suppose it would be hard to state when one ends and another begins. I mean, the capitalist revolutions took about 300years. Meh...

[Dimentio]

Then, who have said that the socialist revolution necessary must be a worker overthrow of the plutocracy? Remember that capitalism evolved in an evolutionary way, it was'nt established through political revolutions.

What is your opinion on the Technocratic movement?

[drain.you]

I would say capitalism was revolution. Look at America, it fought against the British Empire for independence and became a capitalist state. Not in all countries but many, the Royal Families were gotten rid of so that capitalism could occur.

Technocratic movement doesn't call for a revolution does it? I have little understanding about it but I think I would have to say that I'm all the revolution and when there is a majority people that realise they are a) Working for a Ruling Class and b) Being Exploited, then and only then, shall we have the revolution that will move us into Advanced Communism. It will take a long time, its already begun by the fact that leftwing politics exists like it does but we shall have revolution.
Sorry if I've gone off topic or misunderstood what you asked.

[Dimentio]

Firstly, how do you interpret the concept of "Revolution". The agricultural revolution was indeed a swift change, from the perspective of herbal genomena.

Capitalism did not evolve only politically, but was already an established concept by year 1789, and had in fact been developed in stages since the high medieval age. In fact, we haven't had pure capitalism since 1929, if that, just like we haven't had pure feudalism, ever.

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:26 PM
Hunter A sees Hunter B's tribe is suffering from a drought.
Hunter A offers to exchange 5 cows and 5 sheep just for a few buckets of water.
Hunter B, given the desperate situation, has no alternative but to accept the offer.

Sure it's an hypothetical example, but it has plausibility.

Hunter B has the opportunity to say no. He can wait for hunter C to come along and to let hunter A and C go down in price. He will still pay a lot for his water, but it's goddamn worth it. I would do it. I want to live.
Besides, man doesn't live by exploitation. Man lives by production. That's a fundamental difference. You cannot steal something that is not there. The thief relies on the existence of a productive being.
I very much doubt that the man who invented the TV exploited those who didn't or that the man who invented the motor exploited those who didn't.
The example you have given may be an extreme one, but it is still trade. It would be exploitation if hunter A came along and beat the shit out of hunter B, kept his water and took everything hunter B possessed.
Another thing you completely dropped was: Why did hunter B end up in this stupid situation of having no water? You said it is pure chance. Well, it's not. If hunter A takes care of his water supply and hunter B doesn't, that's hunter B's fault, not hunter A's. You cannot blame hunter A for the stupidity of hunter B. If it weren't for hunter A, both would die. Another thing you have dropped.
Even if no hunter C existed and he had to pay such a high price, hunter B is better off because hunter A exists. Otherwise he would be dead.
Besides, I doubt that it is possible to raise cows and sheep without water. I also doubt that someone with the competence to raise sheep and cattle is stupid enough to die because of water shortage. In addition to that he still has his cows and sheep and he can drink their blood if he is desperate enough.