Origin of Class Society

[EusebioScrib]

How did class socities originate? What was the immediate causes?

Generally as Marxists we here it was because of an "abundance" of resources which allowed a few to accumulate more than others.

This however, does not match up with the requisites for a classless society which says that when there is an abundance, classes dissovle.

Did Marx and Engels claim this? I recall this from numerous occassions, yet I can't recall if they actually stated it or if I heard it else where.

This particular point has stumped me on numerous occassions until I realized the REAL origin of class society: overpopulation.

In days of primitive communism there was a huge abundnace of resources, hence there was no reason for a class society. There was no logical reason for one to accumulate more than another as it would piss everyone else off so much that said person's life would be in danger.

Because of this abundance, humans developed tremendously, yet populations grew rapidly. They grew until the point where there was not enough to go around for everyone. Because of this, it was no longer in a human's self-interest to live collectively, it was in it's self-interest to be self-centered and try to accumulate what it could to survive even at the expense of others (see the Human Nature thread for further details on this concept). Because of this, "survival of the fittest" set in and some humans triumped over others. This competition continued until there was a few who owned all the resources and means of production and the many who owned nothing and had to work for those with the means of production.

Hence the development of class society.

Abundance yields classlessness and too little resources yields accumlation yields classes.

Thoughts?

[KC]

The division of labour created class society.

[anomaly]

ES, I think you're pretty much spot on.

[KC]

“The division of labour inside a nation leads at first to the separation of industrial and commercial from agricultural labour, and hence to the separation of town and country and to the conflict of their interests. Its further development leads to the separation of commercial from industrial labour. At the same time through the division of labour inside these various branches there develop various divisions among the individuals co-operating in definite kinds of labour. The relative position of these individual groups is determined by the methods employed in agriculture, industry and commerce (patriarchalism, slavery, estates, classes). These same conditions are to be seen (given a more developed intercourse) in the relations of different nations to each other.” *

Class society was created by the division of labour and the separation of individuals into classes based on their relationships to the means of production. With an increase in the division of labour comes an ever greater partitioning of society into classes, into confederations acting to further their interests hostile to one another.

*Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology (New York: International Publishers, 1970), 43.


Excerpt from a paper I wrote.

[anomaly]

So do you think that, in communism, the division of labor will completely cease to exist?

I've always felt that it will probably 'fuzzy' quite a bit. But still, some people will practice medicine while others teach elementary school.

[KC]

So do you think that, in communism, the division of labor will completely cease to exist?

No.

[Leo]

How did class socities originate?

Well, it takes it's deep roots from the transition from hunter-gatherer lives to agricultural settlements... After that, one way or the another, classes did exist. The socio-economical conditions of the agricultural life made it possible, reasonable, historically inevitable, just like the way communism is right now, capitalism makes it possible and it is historically inevitable, so is our reaction against it. Intellectuals are collectively a part of the history, because only a unity of intellectuals can unite the workers.

[EusebioScrib]

The division of labour created class society.

But what caused the division of labor? That was my point. Division of labor, hence classes, didn't come flying out of one's ass. They had to come from somewhere. Over-population seems to be the most probable cause, as I demonstrated above.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by ES
Over-population seems to be the most probable cause, as I demonstrated above.
Yes, the material conditions cannot sufficiently satisfy the population's needs/wants in an egalitarian way. In such a scenario, people will compete over scarce resources. and this will lead to class.

But that's what you were saying, right?

[_omen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:53 AM

Abundance yields classlessness and too little resources yields accumlation yields classes.


I think that is a very good point. But remember that human nature isn't just to survive. I mean personaly, I want more money than I have. Greed is human nature, and even though there may be an excess of goods, that doesn't mean that one will just let them be. You will have the "fittest" control the goods, keeping the best for themselves and the lesser goods for the "weaker."

So the failure is not in the economy, its in the human.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:57 PM
Greed is human nature...
Prove it.

If primitive communalism was the earliest stage of human self-organization, then it's obvious that greed cannot be an innate human trait. Greed comes into play only when there are a lack of resources for everyone, so the individual must become self-interested to survive. Unless you can prove otherwise.

[KC]

But what caused the division of labor?

An increase in the productive forces led to the division of labour. The division of labour created different means of ownership based on one's relationship to the productive forces. This divides society up into four distinct stages (tribal communism, slavery, feudalism and capitalism). Division of labour, when it increased to a certain extent, created classes within the second historical epoch - slavery.

That quote above from the paper I wrote explains the creation of class society very well. Sorry that I didn't really explain the quote or anything; I guess I just thought it stood on its own. When division of labour increased to a certain extent, it created antagonisms between industrial and agricultural labour, town and country, commercial and industrial labour and separation of society into classes.

[EusebioScrib]

I think that is a very good point. But remember that human nature isn't just to survive.

Yes it is. Our nature compels us to continue living by the most practical means and to be happy by the most practical means.


I mean personaly, I want more money than I have. Greed is human nature, and even though there may be an excess of goods, that doesn't mean that one will just let them be.

So you're the lab mouse on which we should base our study of human nature? Who cares what you think or want? Being determines consciousness. The only reason you want more money is because to be happy and survive in your environment you need more money.

When there is an abundance in goods, and there is enough x, y and z's to go around for everyone, then why would someone want more z's than the other? What practical reason is there for it?


You will have the "fittest" control the goods, keeping the best for themselves and the lesser goods for the "weaker."

When there is not an abundance, yes.


KC:


An increase in the productive forces led to the division of labour. The division of labour created different means of ownership based on one's relationship to the productive forces. This divides society up into four distinct stages (tribal communism, slavery, feudalism and capitalism). Division of labour, when it increased to a certain extent, created classes within the second historical epoch - slavery.


If you're going to give examples, give an actual example. Don't regurgitate the same shit Marx said.

Even still, how did an "increase" in the productive forces lead to a division of labor? Wouldn't the increase in productive forces cause an increase in production hence there would be an abundance? Abundance is necessary for classlessness, not classes.

Slavery, Feudalism, Capitalism and Communism were never "inevitable" from the beginning of mankind. It wasn't "meant" to happen that way. Certain events happened that made Slavery the only probable outcome and the same for Feudalism and Capitalism and maybe even Communism.

Classes aren't "natural" to human development. Something went wrong during our early days that made classes necessary. Getting to a communism would be a sort of fulfillment of human nature. We're natrually supposed to live that way because we can create an abundance for ourselves.

[KC]

EDIT

[KC]

Productive forces led to the division of labour because they increased to a point where jobs were necessarily divided up among society to maintain an adequate level of resources for the population. I'm sorry I didn't clarify this earlier; I just thought it was obvious. Why is division of labour necessary in order to do this? Here is another excerpt from the same paper:


Division of labour has a threefold effect on productive forces: first, by narrowing the extent of the labour of a single person, the person becomes more specialized in the task at hand and can therefore work faster because of this increased dexterity; second, by saving time lost in passing between different sorts of work; third, by the application of more efficient tools and mechanisms used to produce. Division of labour has a profound impact on production, and because of this it also has a profound impact on society.*

*Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (New York: Random House, 1937), 7-10.

If you would like me to clarify further on this subject you will unfortunately have to wait until a few days from now as my mouse batteries just died :(

EDIT: Got my mouse working long enough to copy your post so I can quote you!:)



Wouldn't the increase in productive forces cause an increase in production hence there would be an abundance?

Not an enormous abundance, if any. Increases in productive forces coincide with increases in population.


Slavery, Feudalism, Capitalism and Communism were never "inevitable" from the beginning of mankind. It wasn't "meant" to happen that way. Certain events happened that made Slavery the only probable outcome and the same for Feudalism and Capitalism and maybe even Communism.

Yes, I completely agree.


Classes aren't "natural" to human development.

I don't think we could really argue whether or not it's "natural". We have to analyze history as it happened, not as it could have happened.


Something went wrong during our early days that made classes necessary.

I don't think anything "went wrong". It just happened.


Getting to a communism would be a sort of fulfillment of human nature. We're natrually supposed to live that way because we can create an abundance for ourselves.

I don't think there's any way we're "naturally" supposed to live. It would be much more beneficial to society, yes, but that doesn't make it "natural" in any way. I don't think we can bring human nature into this as it doesn't really exist.

[Fistful of Steel]

Class society developed because as people managed to tap into the abundance of resources and food into the world, life-expectancy increased dramatically and when agriculture was discovered it allowed people to settle and live permanently as opposed to hunter-gather socities. With new resources and the ability to accumulate them, people inevitably began to unrealizing begin the wheel of exploitation gaining power and my resources than others for stupid reasons like divinity of the Gods and nobility.

I think so anyway, I'm no anthropologist.

[Entrails Konfetti]

As we read and heard about in the Paris Commune the workers took tasks from the previous divisions of labour. One persons job had tasks and duties from the various pre-existing divisions of labour. They determined the directions of things, as well as clean up, and sort things.

The division of labour of manager and employee will end, but the division of labour of what you do as a career won't.

[Pawn Power]

Engels wrote on the subject; The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm)

[chimx]

I don't think we know enough about the early examples of civilzation to say why they sprung up. It is all entirely conjecture as to the reasons behind the growth of Ur or Uruk, but population growth probably played a role by making agricultural practices all the easier (resulting in labor divisions).

[peaccenicked]

I have an essay on my website, http://www.geocities.com/paulanderson9/ess...ir/Marxism.html (http://www.geocities.com/paulanderson9/essaysdir/Marxism.html)

[Hit The North]

Surely class society began when a minority group seized the surplus production and called it private property.

[EusebioScrib]

CZ:


Surely class society began when a minority group seized the surplus production and called it private property.'

Well, then I assume that means under communism, when we have a massive surplus production, there will be a minority group who will seize it and call it private property? What motive would people have to accumulate more than others if there is such a surplus? Your theories don't fit with reality.

KC:



I don't think we could really argue whether or not it's "natural". We have to analyze history as it happened, not as it could have happened.

Perhaps natural wasn't the write word to use. What I meant by saying it was that under normal conditions, we humans live in such an un-alienated manner. Under normal conditions there is not a need for classes.



I don't think anything "went wrong". It just happened.

It certainly didn't "just happen" and fall out of the sky. Something had to cause the need to form a class society. Hence my arguement of overpopulation.


I don't think there's any way we're "naturally" supposed to live. It would be much more beneficial to society, yes, but that doesn't make it "natural" in any way. I don't think we can bring human nature into this as it doesn't really exist.

Well, our nature is very flexible (being determines consciousness), yet when are we "truely" human? What makes us 100% human?

It seems to be when we are fully-aware, fully-happy, and fully-social that we are humans i.e. when we are un-alienated.

Under "ideal" conditions, we are able to create an abundance for ourselves. This leds to classlessness and we hence have no divisions.

Communism is our natural way to be under ideal or normal conditions.

My arguement is that something disrupted these "normal" conditions hence making classes necessary.

Classes were not inevitable, they became necessary when something happened that made them necessary for survival.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:28 PM
CZ:


Surely class society began when a minority group seized the surplus production and called it private property.'

Well, then I assume that means under communism, when we have a massive surplus production, there will be a minority group who will seize it and call it private property? What motive would people have to accumulate more than others if there is such a surplus? Your theories don't fit with reality.



WTF? I think you're confusing a surplus with abundance.

When early agricultural societies managed to produce enough corn to be stored away for the winter, they are creating a surplus. Only then does it make sense for groups to sieze that surplus and organise it to their own advantage.

Class makes no sense at all unless it is seen as a property relation.


Classes were not inevitable, they became necessary when something happened that made them necessary for survival.

It's just as likely that early class divisions were forced on people. Classes don't arise to meet the uniform needs of all people as the above quote indicates. Don't forget that the "history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". In other words, subject classes resist the control of ruling classes - at all times, in all class societies.

Don't labour under the illusion that class was invented in order to meet the requirements of all humanity!

[EusebioScrib]

WTF? I think you're confusing a surplus with abundance.

Surplus:

an amount that remains when a use or need is satisfied

Being more than or in excess of what is needed or required:

Abundance:

A great or plentiful amount.

the property of a more than adequate quantity or supply

:blink:


Only then does it make sense for groups to sieze that surplus and organise it to their own advantage.
:unsure: Err...what?

So, lets say in communist society, a commune which is based almost entirely on organge production has some surplus (or abundance :huh: ) oranges and puts them in their orangery for the winter. That means because there is a surplus (or abundance) someone would want to seize that surplus? That makes no sense at all.



Class makes no sense at all unless it is seen as a property relation.


Uhh...duh?


It's just as likely that early class divisions were forced on people. Classes don't arise to meet the uniform needs of all people as the above quote indicates. Don't forget that the "history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". In other words, subject classes resist the control of ruling classes - at all times, in all class societies.

Well, I never said the idea was welcomed. Of course there would be hostility, who likes to be exploited? Surely not I :angry:

However classes were entirely necessary for the survival of humanity in general otherwise anarchy would have reigned supreme. Some had to suffer along the way, but it was a necessary stage of development considering something went wrong.

Many horrible things were necessary to get where we are today. Simply because people struggled against it, doesn't mean it wasn't necessary.

Lets take for example a bourgeoisie "hero." John Smith came to Jamestown to find it with people dying of starvation and commiting canabalism. In order that the colony needed to survive, Smith had to institute a policy of "no work, no eat" and create a very authoritarian atmosphere. People were very resistive towards this and many ran off to the Indians and some actually struggled against him. Surely, no one was "happy" with this atmosphere. Yet, had he not done such a thing, the colony would have collapsed.

Get it?

[KC]

Perhaps natural wasn't the write word to use. What I meant by saying it was that under normal conditions, we humans live in such an un-alienated manner. Under normal conditions there is not a need for classes.


"Normal conditions" is just as bad as saying "natural". It doesn't exist.


It certainly didn't "just happen" and fall out of the sky.

Of course not. That's not what I meant. I meant that nothing "went wrong". Events just happened the way they did. There was nothing "wrong" about it. I believe this has to do with your idea that there is such thing as "normal conditions," which don't exist.


Well, our nature is very flexible (being determines consciousness), yet when are we "truely" human? What makes us 100% human?

We're "truly human" and "100% human" when we're humans. Are you a human? If so then you're totally human. Again this argument is coming from a moral standpoint, and as communists we can't argue from such subjective positions. We deal with what is objective and what is objective is that your environment determines the way you think, act, react to nature, etc... In other words, your environment determines your consciousness. This also means that your environment determines your moral attitudes. This is why you can't argue from this standpoint, because everyone has a different idea of what is "moral" and what isn't. This is also why we don't deal with what is "right" or "wrong" but what is most beneficial to society as a whole.



Under "ideal" conditions, we are able to create an abundance for ourselves.

But these so-called "ideal conditions" existed during tribal/primitive communism, even though there wasn't an "abundance of resources".



Classes were not inevitable, they became necessary when something happened that made them necessary for survival.

Nothing "made them necessary for survival". What happened was that people were divided based on their relationship to the productive forces when productive forces increased to such an extent that division of labour was implimented. As the division of labour increased, so did the division of society into classes. Social being determines consciousness; this is why classes were formed as a result of the division of labour.



However classes were entirely necessary for the survival of humanity in general

This actually has some truth in it. The division of labour was required to increase the productive forces to an extent where production for society could be maintained.

[Hit The North]

unsure.gif Err...what?

So, lets say in communist society, a commune which is based almost entirely on organge production has some surplus (or abundance huh.gif ) oranges and puts them in their orangery for the winter. That means because there is a surplus (or abundance) someone would want to seize that surplus? That makes no sense at all.

Why do you keep returning to a future society in order to explain an historical phenomona? Perhaps it's because you still confuse a situation of abundance (which did not exist in primitive communism) with the production of a surplus. In a future Communist society, there will be no access to private property, which has been abolished, and therefore a minority group will be unable to sieze a surplus for its own ends.



However classes were entirely necessary for the survival of humanity in general otherwise anarchy would have reigned supreme. Some had to suffer along the way, but it was a necessary stage of development considering something went wrong.

Well, you need to explain in what way classes became necessary for survival.

The problem with your theory of overpopulation is that it doesn't account for the fact that population pressures within a particular territory will most likely stimulate migration.

Even if you're correct in your assertion that overpopulation sets the problem to which class is a solution - you still need to identify how the reorganisation of society into unequal classes achieves such a solution.

Actually, the solution to expanding populations is met by the agricultural revolution which allows a society to feed more people. It is upon this material basis (that agricultural production allows the creation of a higher surplus) that larger populations can be maintained. This, then , frees some sections of the population from food production and stimulates an increase in the division of labour. See below:

http://www.missouri.edu/~socbrent/agrev.gif

Only once these material conditions are met does social stratification becomes a possibility and from that emerge an elite which gains control of the surplus and defends their position with arms. This centralization of power and resources eventually leads to the development of the state as the rich and powerful develop the institution of the state to further consolidate their gains.

EDIT: In other words, the land which is farmed in common by the commune is expropriated by an elite and transformed into their private property. Only when this is done can a ruling class, able to reproduce itself across time, be said to exist.

This situation is never to the benefit of the subject classes as your rather curious example of John Smith and Jamestown implies.

[EusebioScrib]

Why do you keep returning to a future society in order to explain an historical phenomona?

Why? Because that society was something we call communism. Primitive yes, but communism none the less.


Perhaps it's because you still confuse a situation of abundance (which did not exist in primitive communism)

Please, explain for me the difference between an abundance and surplus. As I see it it's the same thing. Also, how was there not an abundance under primitive communism? The human populations were small and there was certainly more than enough food (hunting and gathering) to go around for everyone. If there wasn't an abundance, then there would have been classes.


In a future Communist society, there will be no access to private property, which has been abolished, and therefore a minority group will be unable to sieze a surplus for its own ends.

No access at all? So we will be classless forever after? That would be nice, but I doubt it. Classes become necessary when there is not enough for everyone to go around. If such a thing happens again in our history, then classes will probably arise again with new modes of production or maybe even the same. Who knows? I don't.

In primitive communism there was also "no access" to private property, yet private property somehow appeared. Your theories still don't seem to fit.


Well, you need to explain in what way classes became necessary for survival.
The problem with your theory of overpopulation is that it doesn't account for the fact that population pressures within a particular territory will most likely stimulate migration.

Your exactly right. Migration occured on massive scales. Human populations followed their food to every continent until the animal populations dwindled slowly, so they developed agriculture in order to maintain the type of classless society they had. However, agriculture was an amazing advancement, food production created a massive abundance, yet the ratio of population to production began to grow uneven to the point that there was not enough to go around hence Darwinism set in, and the "fittest" bunch of us accumulated more than others. Hence class society.


Even if you're correct in your assertion that overpopulation sets the problem to which class is a solution - you still need to identify how the reorganisation of society into unequal classes achieves such a solution.

Good question. Lets examine it. So gradually more people accumulate more than others. Those without are desperate and starving. Those with have all the food and say "if you come and work on my farms, I will give you food." Hence those without agree because they are desperate. This is a general hypothesis. None of this happens all at once at the same time. Depending on condtions, environment, culture etc things will look and develop a bit differently, but along the same lines.


Actually, the solution to expanding populations is met by the agricultural revolution which allows a society to feed more people. It is upon this material basis (that agricultural production allows the creation of a higher surplus) that larger populations can be maintained. This, then , frees some sections of the population from food production and stimulates an increase in the division of labour. See below:

So the bourgeois anthropologists say, but our theories and theirs just don't seem to match up, do they?

With overpopulation I'm refering to the time period during the "agricultural revolution", as I demonstrated above a bit. The agr. rev. was what caused such an overpopulation.


This situation is never to the benefit of the subject classes as your rather curious example of John Smith and Jamestown implies.

Yes, it is. Marx agrees with this point a lot when he discusses history and on many occassions people have called it "racism" and "bigotry" but he wasn't implying either. He was saying a, b, c no matter how horrid were entirely necessary for the society we have today. Had a, b, c not happen, we would not be at x, y, z.

Example. Capitalism could not have developed to where it is today had it not conquered the Americas, had the English colonists not massacred millions of natives etc. It's very sad, but from the perspective of capital it was entirely necessary. From a workers perspective, it was unjust and could have done without, yet workers power did not exist at that time to counter capital.

KC:

In regards to the "normal" and "ideal" conditions, they certainly exist. Perhaps you are right that they do mean "natural."

I believe there is a way we are supposed to live. I base this on the fact that we are alienated, and Marx believed the same. Alienation means just that, "something's wrong." We're detached from our reality.

The objective is to figure out what's wrong and why it happened and to fix that.

Ideal conditions for humanity are communism: peace, abundance, and equality.

[KC]

Classes become necessary when there is not enough for everyone to go around.

This isn't true at all. There "[was]n't enough" back before classes existed. You have completely failed to back up this assertion and acknowledge people's responses on this issue.



In primitive communism there was also "no access" to private property, yet private property somehow appeared.

As a result of the division of labour.


Your theories still don't seem to fit.

It is yours that don't fit.


In regards to the "normal" and "ideal" conditions, they certainly exist. Perhaps you are right that they do mean "natural."

I don't know what you're talking about here. Could you please quote which part of my post you are referring to and reword this?



I believe there is a way we are supposed to live.

Well, you're wrong. There's no way that we're "supposed to live" because that would mean that that way is right and this one is wrong. This is again a moral argument and because of that is rather worthless. Communism is preferrable because it is the most beneficial to society, not because it's right.


I base this on the fact that we are alienated, and Marx believed the same.

Marx didn't argue from a moral standpoint, so no, your assertions aren't agreeable with Marx's.



The objective is to figure out what's wrong and why it happened and to fix that.


No, what we are supposed to do is to figure out how to make society a better place to live. "Right" and "wrong" are moral arguments and aren't objective at all.



Ideal conditions for humanity are communism: peace, abundance, and equality.

Yes, but not because communism is "right" and capitalism is "wrong".

[EusebioScrib]

acknowledge people's responses on this issue.

Acknowledge? Or do you mean I don't agree with you? :P

I've responded to everything everyone has said in this thread to the best of my ability. Your responses never seem to get better than "I can't believe you said that. That's wrong."


As a result of the division of labour.

But what caused the division of labor??? :rolleyes:


Well, you're wrong. There's no way that we're "supposed to live" because that would mean that that way is right and this one is wrong. This is again a moral argument and because of that is rather worthless. Communism is preferrable because it is the most beneficial to society, not because it's right.

Explain to me then why we are alienated? What are we alienated from? Surely it must be something. Alienation implies that something's wrong.

Saying we're natrually supposed to live someway implies that there is a right and wrong. Saying we're alienated implies this.

Classes weren't the "right" way to live, but they were the most practical way to survive given the circumstances.


Marx didn't argue from a moral standpoint, so no, your assertions aren't agreeable with Marx's.

O RLY? Perchance you should read some of his earlier more humanist stuff which is highly moralistic in many cases. Marx's theories of alienation come from a moral standpoint. Who say's materialism can't be ethical?


No, what we are supposed to do is to figure out how to make society a better place to live. "Right" and "wrong" are moral arguments and aren't objective at all.

My arguements are entirely objective and based on material reality. I don't base my arguement on the fact communism is nicer or more equal, I base it on the fact that humans are alienated, hence meaning something is wrong. In a communist setting, we're not. This would lead to the obvious assertion that something is "wrong" with class society. We're not made to live that way in normal conditions.


Yes, but not because communism is "right" and capitalism is "wrong".

According to our class, this is the case.

[KC]

Acknowledge? Or do you mean I don't agree with you? tongue.gif

I've responded to everything everyone has said in this thread to the best of my ability. Your responses never seem to get better than "I can't believe you said that. That's wrong."

You failed to respond to this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50122&view=findpost&p=1292074658) post. Also, both me and Citizen Zero have been providing arguments with some substance, and have pretty much successfully debunked your theory.


But what caused the division of labor???

I answered your question in this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50122&view=findpost&p=1292073312) post:

"An increase in the productive forces led to the division of labour. The division of labour created different means of ownership based on one's relationship to the productive forces. This divides society up into four distinct stages (tribal communism, slavery, feudalism and capitalism). Division of labour, when it increased to a certain extent, created classes within the second historical epoch - slavery.

That quote above from the paper I wrote explains the creation of class society very well. Sorry that I didn't really explain the quote or anything; I guess I just thought it stood on its own. When division of labour increased to a certain extent, it created antagonisms between industrial and agricultural labour, town and country, commercial and industrial labour and separation of society into classes."

And this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50122&view=findpost&p=1292073818) post:

"Productive forces led to the division of labour because they increased to a point where jobs were necessarily divided up among society to maintain an adequate level of resources for the population. I'm sorry I didn't clarify this earlier; I just thought it was obvious. Why is division of labour necessary in order to do this? Here is another excerpt from the same paper:


Division of labour has a threefold effect on productive forces: first, by narrowing the extent of the labour of a single person, the person becomes more specialized in the task at hand and can therefore work faster because of this increased dexterity; second, by saving time lost in passing between different sorts of work; third, by the application of more efficient tools and mechanisms used to produce. Division of labour has a profound impact on production, and because of this it also has a profound impact on society.*

*Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (New York: Random House, 1937), 7-10.



Saying we're natrually supposed to live someway implies that there is a right and wrong.

That's why you can't say that. ;)


Saying we're alienated implies this.

No it doesn't.



Classes weren't the "right" way to live, but they were the most practical way to survive given the circumstances.


They weren't right or wrong. Again, you can't argue from morality. And also, they weren't the "most practical way to survive". They arose as a result of people's social being. "Social being determines consciousness". This is why the division of labour led to the development of classes.


Perchance you should read some of his earlier more humanist stuff which is highly moralistic in many cases.

Perhaps you should provide some evidence of this instead of telling me to go read stuff.


Marx's theories of alienation come from a moral standpoint.

No it didn't.

Why can't we argue from a moral standpoint? Let's refer to The German Ideology:


Originally posted by Marx
The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people.

Emphasis mine.



My arguements are entirely objective and based on material reality.

Saying something is right or wrong is entirely subjective.


According to our class, this is the case.

Wrong again. Communism is preferred because it is more beneficial to society, not because it's "right".

[EusebioScrib]

You failed to respond to this post.

No I responded. Why waste time quoting every single reply you made? They all said the same thing. So rather than regurgitating the same thing 10-12 times, I found it more practical to only do it once.


Also, both me and Citizen Zero have been providing arguments with some substance, and have pretty much successfully debunked your theory.

Oh you did? I must have missed it. Alas...well I guess this is the end of the debate then eh? :rolleyes:


I answered your question in this post:

Yes, you answered me, yet you never explained to me how this happened. You think to reiterate the same thing over and over again makes something true. Tha'd be nice, but it doesn't work that way.

I'm asking you to be specific and not regurgitate the same shit Marx said.

It's easy to "win" an arguement by quoting Marx or just saying "the division of labor made classes." The key to being a Marxist is to be able to analyse things yourself without having Marx's words do it for you.


increase in the productive forces led to the division of labour. The division of labour created different means of ownership based on one's relationship to the productive forces.

Well, there seems to be a misunderstanding in time periods we're discussing. I'm discussing the period known as primitive communism, which existed largely during the agricultural revolution. In primitive communism there was a division of labor, yet there were no classes. So explain to me HOW the division of labor caused classes? Division of labor doesn't cause classes. Comrade X chopping wood and Comrade Y fishing doesn't create a class society. If it does, as you claim, explain to me how.


it created antagonisms between industrial and agricultural labour, town and country, commercial and industrial labour and separation of society into classes

In the period between primitive communism and slavery there was no major distinction between industrial and agricultural labor, town and country, commerce and industry. All these things were effects of a the first class society slavery, not causes.


Productive forces led to the division of labour because they increased to a point where jobs were necessarily divided up among society to maintain an adequate level of resources for the population.

In shorted words this says: Productive forces led to the divsion of labor because the productive forces increased and caused a division of labor.

You only gave a definition of division of labor and it's purpose, not how it was caused.

Which increases in the productive forces caused the division? How did the division cause classes?


That's why you can't say that.

Oh but I did :P


No it doesn't.

Then answer me this: Why are we alienated? What are we alienated from? Are we alienated?



They weren't right or wrong. Again, you can't argue from morality.

I'm not argueing from morality. It's entirely objective. Using a fork to cut steak is "wrong." Trying to drive a car in water is "wrong." Using a fork to pick up a piece of chicken is "right." Driving a car on a road is "right." Why? Because that's how things are supposed to work correctly.

Communism is right because that's how we humans function. Communism is without alienation, hence it means we're doing something right. If we're alienated, it implies that we're doing something wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be alienated would be.


And also, they weren't the "most practical way to survive". They arose as a result of people's social being. "Social being determines consciousness". This is why the division of labour led to the development of classes.

You answered my question. The social being of humans at the time was thus: there isn't enough for all to go around and people are starving to death, fuck everyone else I want to live so I'm going to try and get as much as I can so that I can stockpile it and hey, maybe I can even use it as a means of getting people to side with me or work for me.

My entire arguement is based on being determines consciousness, or did you forget me using it several times in the beginning of this debate?


Perhaps you should provide some evidence of this instead of telling me to go read stuff.

Well, being that I was in school, it would have taken too much time to go looking up quotes. However, here's one I recall off hand:


Marx “On the Choice of a Profession”, 1837
“If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.”

But lets discuss morality. Being determines consciousness. Morality is apart of our conscious, so doesn't that mean it's directly related to our being? You can't argue from one without argueing from the other. But this is straying off topic really. Back to the crux of the matter.


No it didn't.

Actually it did. But like I said, it's going off topic...


Why can't we argue from a moral standpoint? Let's refer to The German Ideology:

I don't see exactly how that quote said "we can't arguemtn from a moral standpoint", but if it does, who cares? If someone wishes to argue their point from a moral stand point (which would be saying "you can't do this or that because it's good or bad"...I don't see how I'm doing this...but okay) then why shouldn't they?



Saying something is right or wrong is entirely subjective.

No. You're misreading my use of right and wrong. Is using a tooth brush to comb your hair not "wrong."? That is not a subjective arguement, it's based on material reality, hence it's objective. I gave more examples of this further up.


Wrong again. Communism is preferred because it is more beneficial to society, not because it's "right".

Saying it's more beneficial sounds awfully moral to me. :rolleyes:

Anyway I responded to this "right" "wrong" stuff a few times...no need to do it again...

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:05 AM

Well, there seems to be a misunderstanding in time periods we're discussing. I'm discussing the period known as primitive communism, which existed largely during the agricultural revolution. In primitive communism there was a division of labor, yet there were no classes. So explain to me HOW the division of labor caused classes? Division of labor doesn't cause classes. Comrade X chopping wood and Comrade Y fishing doesn't create a class society. If it does, as you claim, explain to me how.


We do indeed have a misunderstanding of time periods. As far as I'm concerned, Primitive Communism refers to tribal hunter-gatherer societies and predates the agricultural revolution which occured between 10,000 to 8,000 BC and quickly produced the first city states and slave societies.

Hence, primitive communism (which I think is a needlessly misleading epithet) refers to mainly nomadic tribal societies which, due to the low level of production, are unable to produce a meaningful surplus and have an extremely low level of division of labour.

Agricultural societies, on the other hand, due to their settled nature and the refinement of techniques, begin to produce a surplus and allow the development of a division of labour.

I agree that the existence of a division of labour does not necessarily lead to the formation of classes - for instance, within a capitalist society, the main division of labour lies within the working class. What is required is for the means of production to be transformed into private property (or, in the Asiatic Mode of Production, State property) by a minority, controlling group. This was most likely achieved through violent expropriation. So, from the outset, class society was about domination, exploitation and elite control over the means of production.