huge population and communism

[black magick hustla]

the most egalitarian societies had very small amounts of inhabitants. primitive communist societies were really small, the iraqouis weren't that many etc.

Does population growth inevitably leads to class society? When people organize into large structures, there tends to appear an administrative layer, specialized people, etc. We know egalitarian societies had existed, but they were generally small and very primitive. How do we deal with this? How can there be a world communist revolution encompassing so many people?

Basically, how can it work on a large scale?

[The-Spark]

Does no one really have an answer for this?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:28 pm
the most egalitarian societies had very small amounts of inhabitants. primitive communist societies were really small, the iraqouis weren't that many etc.

Does population growth inevitably leads to class society?
No, economic growth - producing more than the bare minimum for survival - inevitably led to class society. Both growth and class society led to the emergence of the state, and larger political structures.

Obviously bands of hunter-gatherers were not going to produce large political federations.

So, are you trying to go back or forward? If it's forward, this doesn't apply.

In fact, the problem that workers' revolutions have faced so far has been too underdeveloped and limited an economic base. To advance to communism, revolutions woulda been needed in a much larger area including more advanced countries.

Primitive communism was based on their being so little production it couldn't possibly support a privileged elite. Future communism will be based on a post-scarcity economy, where it's possible for everyone, not just a privileged elite, to have all their needs and reasonable wants met.

[partizan604]

This is the problem- will the future communists grow into some kind of elite and create a new social group? Economical growth will constantly create some disbalance between people's material position through temproary deficiency in means of production.
i think "future communism united" will be a system of high organised groups or communities, with their own economy created on one scheme. there won't be any classes - because everyone 's gonna be economically free, relative and at the same time very dependable.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:28 am
Does population growth inevitably leads to class society? When people organize into large structures, there tends to appear an administrative layer, specialized people, etc.
'Bourgeois' history tends to portray it this way. This is not intirely true.

The material conditions (the agricultural society of the neolithic) made hierarchy possible. The surplus of agriculture made it possible to maintain an administrative layer and a layer of full time specialists. However It does not automaticaly create this layer.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:37 am
The material conditions (the agricultural society of the neolithic) made hierarchy possible. The surplus of agriculture made it possible to maintain an administrative layer and a layer of full time specialists. However It does not automaticaly create this layer.
What do you mean? If you're saying that it was possible for humanity to completely bypass class society - how?

[Tower of Bebel]

No it was not possible.

Early agricultural societies, egalitarian in the beginning (tribes), were all victims of a few bigger tribes who evolved into chiefdoms. Chiefdoms, small empires or dominant cities (Uruk, Chatal Huyük, ...) were much stronger than tribes.
Also, when egalitarian tribes were confronted with war or competition from the biggies, they also turned into chiefdoms as leaders emerged from the struggles.

The problem is: the "neolithic revolution" was accompanied with religion and war, because of inequalities and the accumulation of wealth in certain regions. Where war was not necessary egalitarian tribes survived.

But those who grew bigger and were confronted with competition and war started to rule or attack the egalitarian tribes as well.

The succes of hierarchy and greed killed the egalitarian tribes.

[Weapon_of_Transparency]

Jean Jaques Rousseau once wrote that

"The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into
his head to say, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to
believe him, was the true founder of civil society."

In other words, the state is not the source of the oppression, as Anarchists think; rather, the oppression is the source of the state.

Drastic revolutionary reforms like the transition to communism cannot happen overnight. With so many people to worry about, a revolution that did not establish workers' rule would inevitably collapse back into a class system, as you say. However, without the existence of private propery and money, there would be nothing for people to fight over, therefore no crime, and therefore no need for a state to control the crime.

But these things cannot happen overnight. The real problem with the logic of anarchists and other libertarian socialists is that they believe that either:

1. Necessary reforms like the abolition of money and property will happen overnight

or

2. These necessary reforms can be made during capitalism.

Neither of these arguments is very sound.

To say that with the abolition of the state comes the abolition of property and money is an argument full of holes because the state is not the source of these ills. If these ills are not removed before the state is removed, it would cause the stateless society to inevitably collapse back into the capitalist mode of production.

On the other hand, we cannot expect these reforms to occur under capitalism because capitalism depends on the property system.

So the only real solution is to establish a period of workers' rule after a revolution to make these necessary reforms. After these reforms are made, the use of the state ceases to exist because there will be an extremely small amount of crime (if any at all), and as Lenin said, the state will wither away into non-existence.

If there is no property, money, or any kind of exchange, a class system cannot exist, especially in an economy based on the mass actions of the workers, which is what communism is.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Severian+August 20, 2007 09:46 am--> (Severian @ August 20, 2007 09:46 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 08:28 pm
the most egalitarian societies had very small amounts of inhabitants. primitive communist societies were really small, the iraqouis weren't that many etc.

Does population growth inevitably leads to class society?
No, economic growth - producing more than the bare minimum for survival - inevitably led to class society. Both growth and class society led to the emergence of the state, and larger political structures.

Obviously bands of hunter-gatherers were not going to produce large political federations.

So, are you trying to go back or forward? If it's forward, this doesn't apply.

In fact, the problem that workers' revolutions have faced so far has been too underdeveloped and limited an economic base. To advance to communism, revolutions woulda been needed in a much larger area including more advanced countries.

Primitive communism was based on their being so little production it couldn't possibly support a privileged elite. Future communism will be based on a post-scarcity economy, where it's possible for everyone, not just a privileged elite, to have all their needs and reasonable wants met. [/b]
yeah,

economic growth has an obvious correlation with population growth. surplus resources did lead to a layer of specialized individuals that would later form the state-

however....

modern revolutionary movements have faced this type of problems. the spanish anarchist organizations, that started to have millions of members, had to face bureacratic consequences. the bolsheviks had to face bureacratic consecuencies too etc...

you dont need to be a rocket scientist to realize that smaller organizations can be more flexible, and as such, more egalitarian. the bigger a certain state becomes, the more prone to bureacratic deformities it becomes.

your analysis on primitive societies is correct. however, this primitive societies also mantained their egalitarian nature to their flexibility.

[The-Spark]

Do you know what Bureaucratic consequences the Spanish Anarchist Organization and the Bolsheviks faced?

[RGacky3]

I think the answer is decentralization, plain and simple, you don't need a centralized system at all. infact its a bad thing because it leads to classes.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:07 pm
Modern revolutionary movements have faced this type of problems. the spanish anarchist organizations, that started to have millions of members, had to face bureacratic consequences. the bolsheviks had to face bureacratic consecuencies too etc...
Not simply because they were large! There were a lot of other things involved....


you dont need to be a rocket scientist to realize that smaller organizations can be more flexible, and as such, more egalitarian.

Can they? I know of plenty of small organizations that aren't democratic at all; in fact they can easily be cults run around a single leader.