Log in

View Full Version : Theory of Economic Evolution



which doctor
29th December 2005, 01:33
I am interested in the Theory of Economic Evolution. It states that different economic/political theories change according to what works for that time period. I'm still working out the little details and would like some input.

I will lay down a rough timeline of economic/political theories of the past, present and perhaps future. I will start with the beginning of Homo-sapiens.

Beginning of modern man, 200 thousand years ago- Collectivism, primitive anarchy. Think of them as advanced animals. They lived hunter-gatherer lives in small clans. There was often a dominant male, but for the most part it was collectivism. There was no spoken language, it was rather a system of primitive grunts and moans. There were no concepts of currency or exploitation. Trading was in its early form and was usually only practiced on rare occasions when it occured between clans.

Beginning of Modern Civilization- The earliest accounts of modern civilization occur in 10,000 BCE along the Nile river. Characteristics of this period include the development of individual cultures and established cities. They had their own languages, and later developed their own forms of primitive written language. Some cultures practice the art of long distance trade. Many cultures are dominated by a hierarchy, but most citizens are still workers. Civilizations are not interested in world domination. There is now material wealth among the rulers.

Beginning of Large Cultures- Most notably the Greek and Roman cultures. They are interested in domination. War is more prevalent and trading for items is extensive. Currency has been established by now.

Feudalism- There are large established cultures and expansive spoken and written languages. This was practiced during the middle ages in Europe and in other parts of the world. There were many different classes and everyone was ruled by the aristocracy. Also, primitive capitalism.

Capitalism- The overthrow of monarchies and the establishment of faux democracies. The common man is ruled by the wealthy. There is a free market. The poor are exploited to produce goods for the rich. Competition drives corporations to exploit their workers even more. Many freedoms are being restricted in the interests of the ruling class. Income disparity is very high.

Social Demoracy- Similar to the welfare states of Scandinavia also known as the Scandinavian Model. This is thought to be the most advanced form of captitalism. It still, however has yet to be achieved. These nations are often characterized by high taxes, large social safety nets, and a relatively high standard of living. This is far from laissez-faire capitalism.

The next step is the stateless communism as we know it.

As you can see there is no room for laissez-faire capitalism. The transition also to communism also seems quite smooth and perhaps non-violent. Anyways I may have missed a few important concepts, but this is by no means a complete summary.

Anyways feel free to criticize.

Pardon my grammatical errors.

ComradeRed
29th December 2005, 02:48
Well, I think the economic evolution which you are referring to is Marx's historical Materialism. He describes essentially the same thing in The German Ideology.

One thing though...


Social Demoracy- Similar to the welfare states of Scandinavia also known as the Scandinavian Model. This is thought to be the most advanced form of captitalism. It still, however has yet to be achieved. These nations are often characterized by high taxes, large social safety nets, and a relatively high standard of living. This is far from laissez-faire capitalism. How is this the most advanced form of capitalism? Logically as capitalism progressed, the capitalist class would grow smaller and smaller (by the concentration of capital -- that is, by the shrinking numbers of firms that grow larger and larger) and capitalism will begin to openly act more and more barbaric (as though the U$ doesn't show this all ready).

Scandanavian capitalism is reformism in its prime, not the nearing death of capitalism.

It is like throwing a large bone to a dog (ahem, workers) to prevent it from biting your ass...after rigorously beating the dog for your own pleasure. The problem is that you are safe and not in danger! That's the whole point: the capitalists are fine!

"Social Democracy" is simply not an option...it's either barbarism or communism.

which doctor
29th December 2005, 03:12
Well, capitalism could go two ways. It could go worse, or it could go a little better. I predict it depends on the nation. If capitalism turns into the situation you predict then there will indeed be a violent revolution. I do think that a transition from social democracy to communism would still be very rough. According to history the transitions between the ideologies tend to be quite gradual. I call the transition between capitalismMAX to communism as quite a change. Perhaps you could call it, a revolution. Although I don't deny this as a possibility, I am unsure of it.

Do not mistake me for a reformist, if there was a revolution outside my door I would surely join it because It may be the closest thing I ever see to a revolution in my lifetime.

Also remember that I'm still ironing out the details of my thoughts, so hold with me.

Manack
29th December 2005, 03:19
Evolutionary social theory is similar to that of biological evolutionary theory in that is says that society evolves towards the fittest system.

If ones trends the prime attributes of society throughout history there are a couple of factors in the evolution of society that stand out which seem to indicate what makes a fit system.

Firstly is increasing levels of co-operation. When tribal groups began agricultural communities and founded towns divisions of work vastly outgrew the hunter/gatherer mode and systems of co-operation developed which allowed specialisations of skills. An artisan could trade pottery for food from a hunter. This type of increasing levels of co-operation have continually allowed greater and greater efficiency. From city states, to fuedalism to nation states to modern globalised capitalism each state can been seen as having an increased levels of co-operation between people than the previous state of society.

Secondly is the increasingly levels of communication and knowledge. Access to information allows for better planning and preparedness. The alphabet and a codified system of writing saw an explosion of innovation and improvement in each society it appeared in. The printing press did the same. And the internet is catapulting things ahead right now in this area at an unprecedented pace.

Thirdly increasingly levels of participation in society is an attribute which has solidly been continuing to advance throughout history. From autocratic chiefdoms, to a comittee of sentators to modern, representative democracy the greater a populations involvement the more successfull the society.

Those societies that prosper seem to be those that do those three things best.

Game theory applied mathematics suggests that society will evolve towards those which provide the best non zero sum results. Which typically are those in which a populations interdependance is greatest. As in where my self interest lies in helping other people.

Which could be considered the basis of communism. I best help myself by helping everyone according to my ability. The fittest state would be one which most efficiently achieves this.

ComradeOm
29th December 2005, 18:15
Out of curiosity, how does this economic evolution differ from historical materialism? As far as I'm aware this matter was settled over a century ago.

which doctor
29th December 2005, 18:20
I suppose it is basically the same concept with a different name. I am not the most skilled in the works of Marx, so I was unaware that Marx had his Historical Materialism, pardon my lack of intelligence.

Manack
29th December 2005, 23:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:15 PM
Out of curiosity, how does this economic evolution differ from historical materialism? As far as I'm aware this matter was settled over a century ago.
Social evolutionary theory, is an offshoot of historical materialism. They are mostly identical.

There are a couple of differences I believe.

Historical Materialism tends to suggest that the speed of historical progress is determined by the conciousness of the working class and that revolution often is required for improvements in productive forces. Class struggle is the driving force of progress.

Evolutionary theory suggests that historical progress occurs through the propagation of memes. Memes being political doctrines, economic theories, cultural behaviours, etc. Memes that are good for society will prosper, while those which are bad will die out. The struggle of ideas is the driving force of progress.

So in summary Historical Materialism puts an emphasis on class struggle and revolutionary leaps forwards. While Evolutionary theory suggests exchanges of ideas and constant incremental steps forward.

anomaly
30th December 2005, 02:23
It seems to me that both models are correct.

It is rather like geology, and the changes in it. For some time, most people were convinced that change in our planet occured very slowly and gradually. Just recently has it been found that catastrophes can produce 'revolutionary' (if you will) changes in earth very rapidly. So, I am guessing the same is true for history. Usually, it moves forward very slowly and gradually, but, every now and then, something revolutionary happens. 'Something revolutionary' is, of course, exactly what we are looking for.