What specific economic mechanism do you think is typically best?

However, the anti-revisionist movement is arguably a minority among self-described Marxists, if one can guess as such things, with Marxists accepting at least some mixture of markets and planning, usually to the detriment of the latter. For example, ruling Communist parties in China, Cuba, Vietnam and Laos all consider themselves combining markets with socialist planning. I'm not sure the level of support for such reforms here.

I was not aware that anti-revisionists were the minority. I thought we were the majority. I suppose it depends on the country in question. There really isn't a lot of support for China in particular here. Some people defend Cuba despite it already having allowed private capital to exist (most people seem to support it for anti-imperialist reasons against the U.S.). Not too many people seem to talk too much about Vietnam or Laos. I think it's because they are seen as little versions of China. I have a Vietnamese communist friend who says that most people in Vietnam (including herself) think that China went to far with reforms and Vietnam has been handling it better. As far as I'm concerned, they all have private property and capital in existence, legalized, and enforced by the ruling communist party, so they are not socialist anymore. But their economies aren't totally privatized. China's economy is about half private owned and half public owned and there's been a recent push for more public ownership. Another thing wrong with these countries' ruling communist parties is that they no longer have international solidarity or support for struggling communist movements trying to make headways. The Communist Party of China has no support of any of the Maoist PPW's across the globe.

Have you read Stalin's work on the subject, I mean Economic Problems in the Soviet Union?

Have you read Stalin's work on the subject, I mean Economic Problems in the Soviet Union?

Yes I have, and I can tell you that Economic Problems in the Soviet Union is entirely about the reasons why communism will never be a Star Trek type economy. He also points out though that the main source of profit for the state during any economic times comes from the manufacturing sector or as he calls it light industry, and not from heavy industry or military production. Which kind of explains why China is doing so well right now as they have the manufacturing sector. Note that manufacturing is just rewording for Karl Marx use of the word "factories".

I've been trying to read more about the economics of socialist planning. Obviously there is a great diversity among self-described Marxists about what constitutes a socialist economy. It seems to me that for almost any combination of views and economic type there are supporters.

Anti-revisionists seem to emphasize the fact that the economy must work in terms of value regulation and physical planning. That is, the economy must be centered on a plan that allocates labour and resources through political decisions and associated binding orders. In this model there are still financial flows that correspond to the movement between organizations of goods and services, but they are mostly for accounting reasons and tend not to motivate behaviour in a profound way.

No system retained the traditional model for long after the death of the paramount leader that implemented it. Often there were enormous pressures for reform of the system, which are often explained by anti-revisionists in terms of relations internal to the party and so on, combined with international pressure. Most reform movements in Communist states have focused on the introduction of markets, even if in the sense of semi-autonomous state-owned firms. Anti-revisionists have typically equated this with the restoration of capitalism, and that has often followed from reform movements.

However, the anti-revisionist movement is arguably a minority among self-described Marxists, if one can guess as such things, with Marxists accepting at least some mixture of markets and planning, usually to the detriment of the latter. For example, ruling Communist parties in China, Cuba, Vietnam and Laos all consider themselves combining markets with socialist planning. I'm not sure the level of support for such reforms here.

My interest is more in discussing what sort of economic mechanism is optimal, associated evidence for that claim, possible contemporary ways of overcoming problems associated with the traditional model, and so on.

The theory of Marxist economics is based off of the work of Karl Marx. To understand his work you must understand the time period it was written in. While the problems in his day are the same we have today, our understanding is improved on it.

Let's start off by examining Marx understanding of the economic problems of his times. During Marx time there was a large number of people who worked 8 to 12 hours a day seven days a week for pay that would barely feed their families. There was also a small group of people who were paid massive amounts of wealth for not even working one hour in their entire lives. Marx set out to explain why this occurred. In his works he points out that this time point in history there are two groups of people. Those who own nothing and are forced to sell themselves in order to eat. Then there are those who own property and through this property they make money.

Marx said the problem of this unequal system came from who owned the "property" or as he called it the "means of production". As you can see from this analysis the best way to fix this unethical unequal system is to simply remove property as a source of income. This has been the goal of socialist planning, to remove private property by turning it into public property. This is what every Anti-revisionists leader has done. I think this is the reason why the system regresses after the death of said anti-revisionist leader.

I believe that Marx analysis of human relationships based off of economics is not flawed it's just unrefined. Much like how the idea of the periodic table was not flawed when it still had an "element graveyard", it was just wrongly organized. The best way then to move Karl Marx's analysis to a better understandable and useful position is simply to refine his theories.

First let's start off with his understanding of history.

Primitive Communism






The First Stage: is usually called Primitive communism. It has the following characteristics.

• Shared property: there is no concept of ownership beyond individual possessions. All is shared by the tribe to ensure its survival.
• Hunting and gathering: tribal societies have yet to develop large scale agriculture and so their survival is a daily struggle.
• Proto-democracy: there is usually no concept of "leadership" yet. So tribes are led by the best warrior if there is war, the best diplomat if they have steady contact with other tribes and so forth.

The primitive communism stage most likely begins soon after the dawn of humanity itself, at the stage where fire is developed, and communal living therefore becomes more convenient. Primitive communist societies tend to be very small, consisting of a maximum of a few hundred members, with size being dependent upon the environment. In this stage humanity is no different from any other animal, in that it has not yet found ways to bend nature to its will.
This stage ends with the development of private property, especially with the development of large scale agriculture. This in turn produces productive property, such as cattle and slaves.

Slave Society





The Second Stage: may be called Slave Society, considered to be the beginning of "class society" where private property appears.

• Class: here the idea of class appears. There is always a slave-owning ruling class and the slaves themselves.
• Statism: the state develops during this stage as a tool for the slave-owners to use and control the slaves.
• Agriculture: people learn to cultivate plants and animals on a large enough scale to support large populations.
• Democracy and Authoritarianism: these opposites develop at the same stage. Democracy arises first with the development of the republican city-state, followed by the totalitarian empire.
• Private Property: citizens now own more than personal property. Land ownership is especially important during a time of agricultural development.

The slave-owning class "own" the land and slaves, which are the main means of producing wealth, whilst the vast majority have very little or nothing. The propertyless included the slave class, slaves who work for no money, and in most cases women, who were also dispossessed during this period. From a Marxist perspective, slave society collapsed when it exhausted itself. The need to keep conquering more slaves created huge problems, such as maintaining the vast empire that resulted (i.e. The Roman Empire). It is ultimately the aristocracy born in this epoch that demolishes it and forces society to step onto the next stage.

Feudalism





The Third Stage: may be called Feudalism; it appears after slave society collapses. This was most obvious during the European Dark Ages when society went from slavery to feudalism.

• Aristocracy: the state is ruled by monarchs who inherit their positions, or at times marry or conquer their ways into leadership.
• Theocracy: this is a time of largely religious rule. When there is only one religion in the land and its organizations affect all parts of daily life.
• Hereditary classes: castes can sometimes form and one's class is determined at birth with no form of advancement. This was the case with India.
• Nation-state: nations are formed from the remnants of the fallen empires. Sometimes to rebuild themselves into empires once more. Such as England's transition from a province to an empire.

During feudalism there are many classes such as kings, lords, and serfs, some little more than slaves. Most of these inherit their titles for good or ill. At the same time that societies must create all these new classes, trade with other nation-states increases rapidly. This catalyzes the creation of the merchant class.
Out of the merchants' riches, a capitalist class emerges within this feudal society. However there are immediate conflicts with the aristocracy. The old feudal kings and lords cannot accept the new social changes the capitalists want for fear of destabilizing or reducing their power base, among various other reasons that are not all tied to power or money.
These proto-capitalist and capitalist classes are driven by the profit motive but are prevented from developing further profits by the nature of feudal society where, for instance, the serfs are tied to the land and cannot become industrial workers and wage earners. Marx says, Then begins an epoch of social revolution (the French Revolution of 1789, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, etc.) since the social and political organization of feudal society (or the property relations of feudalism) is preventing the development of the capitalists' productive forces. [3]

Capitalism
Marx pays special attention to this stage in human development. The bulk of his work is devoted to exploring the mechanisms of capitalism, which in western society classically arose "red in tooth and claw" from feudal society in a revolutionary movement.






Capitalism may be considered the Fourth Stage in the sequence. It appears after the bourgeois revolution when the capitalists (or their merchant predecessors) overthrow the feudal system. Capitalism is categorized by the following:

• Market Economy: in capitalism the entire economy is guided by market forces. Supporters of laissez faire economics argue that there should be little or no intervention from the government under capitalism. Marxists, however, such as Lenin in his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, argue that the capitalist government is a powerful instrument for the furtherance of capitalism and the capitalist nation-state, particularly in the conquest of markets abroad.
• Private property: the means of production are no longer in the hands of the monarchy and its nobles, but rather they are controlled by the capitalists. The capitalists control the means of production through commercial enterprises (such as corporations) which aim to maximize profit.
• Parliamentary democracy: the capitalists tend to govern through an elected centralized parliament or congress, rather than under an autocracy. Capitalist (bourgeois) democracy, although it may be extended to the whole population, does not necessarily lead to universal suffrage. Historically it has excluded (by force, segregation, legislation or other means) sections of the population such as women, slaves, ex-slaves, people of color or those on low income. The government acts on behalf of, and is controlled by, the capitalists through various methods.
• Wages: in capitalism, workers are rewarded according to their contract with their employer. Power elites propagate the illusion that market forces mean wages converge to an equilibrium at which workers are paid for precisely the value of their services. In reality workers are paid less than the value of their productivity - the difference forming profit for the employer. In this sense all paid employment is exploitation and the worker is "alienated" from their work. Insofar as the profit-motive drives the market, it is impossible for workers to be paid for the full value of their labour, as all employers will act in the same manner.
• Warfare: capitalism spreads from the wealthiest countries to the poorest as capitalists seek to expand their influence and raise their profits. This is done directly through war, the threat of war, or the export of capital. The capitalist's control over the state can thus play an essential part in the development of capitalism, to the extent the state directs the warfare or other foreign intervention.
• Financial institutions: Banks and capital markets such as stock exchanges direct unused capital to where it is needed. They reduce barriers to entry in all markets, especially to the poor; it is in this way that banks dramatically improve class mobility.
• Monopolistic tendencies: the natural, unrestrained market forces will create monopolies from the most successful commercial entities.

In capitalism, the profit motive rules and people, freed from serfdom, work for the capitalists for wages. The capitalist class are free to spread their laissez faire practices around the world. In the capitalist-controlled parliament, laws are made to protect wealth.
But according to Marx, capitalism, like slave society and feudalism, also has critical failings - inner contradictions which will lead to its downfall. The working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the "grave digger" of capitalism. The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces. The rest is surplus value - the capitalist's profit, which Marx calls the "unpaid labour of the working class." The capitalists are forced by competition to attempt to drive down the wages of the working class to increase their profits, and this creates conflict between the classes, and gives rise to the development of class consciousness in the working class. The working class, through trade union and other struggles, becomes conscious of itself as an exploited class.
In the view of classical Marxism, the struggles of the working class against the attacks of the capitalist class lead the working class to establish its own collective control over production - the basis of socialist society. Marx believed that capitalism always leads to monopolies and leads the people to poverty; yet the fewer the restrictions on the free market, (e.g. from the state and trade unions) the sooner it finds itself in crisis. Marx is rather vague in his explanation of how the working class will come to consciousness.

Socialism
After the working class gains class consciousness and mounts a revolution against the capitalists, socialism, which may be considered the Fifth Stage, will be attained, if the workers are successful.
Lenin divided communism, the period following the overthrow of capitalism, into two stages: first socialism, and then later, once the last vestiges of the old capitalist ways have withered away, stateless communism or pure communism.[4] Lenin based his 1917 work, The State and Revolution, on a thorough study of the writings of Marx and Engels. Marx uses the terms the "first phase" of communism and the "higher phase" of communism, but Lenin points to later remarks of Engels which suggest that what people commonly think of as socialism equates to Marx's "first phase" of communism.






Socialism may be categorized by the following:

• Decentralized planned economy: without the market, production will be directed by the workers themselves through communes or workers' elected councils.
• Common property: the means of production are taken from the hands of a few capitalists and put in the hands of the workers. This translates into the democratic communes controlling the means of production.
• Council democracy: Marx, basing himself on a thorough study of Paris Commune, believed that the workers would govern themselves through system of communes. He called this the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, overthrowing the dictatorship (governance) of capital, would democratically plan production and the resources of the planet.
• Labor vouchers: Marx explained that, since socialism emerges from capitalism, it would be "stamped with its birthmarks". Economically this translates into the individual worker being awarded according to the amount of labor he contributes to society. Each worker would be given a certificate verifying his contribution which he could then exchange for goods.

Communism





Some time after socialism is established society leaps forward, and everyone has plenty of personal possessions, but no one can exploit another person for private gain through the ownership of vast monopolies, and so forth. Classes are thus abolished, and class society ended. Communism will have spread across the world and be worldwide. Eventually the state will "wither away" and become obsolete, as people administer their own lives without the need for governments or laws. Thus, stateless communism or pure communism, which may be considered the Sixth Stage, is established, which has the following features:

• Statelessness: there are no governments, laws, or nations any more.
• Classlessness: all social classes disappear, everyone works for everyone else.
• Propertylessness: there is no money or private property, all goods are free to be consumed by anyone who needs them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history

As you can see there are six stages to Marx theory of history. In addition to confusing stages of history like what is the difference between primitive communism and the six stage communism, we also have contradictions with his theory of class conflict in which stages like socialism which does not have a reason not to being down the class system, when it destroy private property.

I will post my refinements to Marx theory of history in my next post here.

An interesting post. I look forward to your next one. I have a few ideas of my own which I shall go into after you post your views on refining theory.

An interesting post. I look forward to your next one. I have a few ideas of my own which I shall go into after you post your views on refining theory.

Theory of economic mechanisms

First off I like to point out that this is a refinement not a rejection of Karl Marx materialistic study of history. I believe as Marx did that people form into groups based off of similar self-interest. In order to refine Karl Marx work I must also redefine certain terms that he used. I will explain the stages of history as I have restructured them, in the most precise and consistent way I can. This will help with explaining my redefinition of certain terms that we anti-revisionists use.


Karl Marx points out that there are six stages to human history. But Karl Marx stages have both overlapping and inconsistent statements to them. For example there is a large amount of overlap between the final stage, pure communism and the first stage primitive communism. There also seems to be an inconsistency with his statement that history is defined by class conflicts and the definition that class only develops during the capitalist stage.


My refinement differs from Karl Marx in respects to the fact that I only have four stages to human history instead of six. In addition I redefine the meaning of the word “state”, “class”, and many others. The thing is not change between the two of us is that we both define each staged based off of their economic mechanisms or their material interests.


Economic theory of history:
The Consumer age; is defined by a people who lack compensation. While people from every age consume, people under the consumer age do nothing more than consume everything in the area around. This is why they develop in the hunter gatherer societies as soon as they have depleted all resources in the area through consumption, they must move on to new, “hunting grounds”. They remain a hunter gatherer society as the new hunting grounds become the depleted as the old one. After which the list keep on moving on to new hunting grounds.


This is the first stage in human development as when man first walked the earth he has nothing but himself. This group retains no idea of property or ownership as the resources are already depleted. They also have no need for a state, but does not mean that they are defenseless, as the hunters in their group can still hunt other humans. The society builds itself around one alpha male or chief, very much a pack of lions builds itself around one dominant male. They also no need for money as everyone consumes what is available in the area, and does not need to receive compensation for work done.


This consumer society can be seen as one big extended family. This is what led to the misconception of pro-democracy by Karl Marx. As the alpha male sometimes ask for advice from his children. It also leads to another misconception by him that this society does not have slavery. What normally happens is that two of these families eventually meet each other. Because they both wanted to consume the same resources, they both end up being forced to hunt each other down. One family eventually wins these hunts, and just like in any hunt, the hunter takes home a trophy, which in this case is female slave.

These families normally present these women as wives to the chief (leading to the idea of harems) or one of his sons (leading to the idea of marriage). There are a number of stories from the Wild West in which tribes or extended families hunt down a family of settlers. In which they take the women as otherwise even when these women do not wish to be married. There were also reports of women who fit her captivity being mutilated very much like black slaves during slavery in America.


Karl Marx I believed mislabeled the stage primitive communism.


This system is normally championed by anarchists and survivalist groups who wish to return to some form of primitivism. In fact it is easily championed in zombie movies in which the heroes normally go around consuming every available resource in the area until they run out. Then they must move on while avoiding the zombies to a new location in order to survive.


The User age; is defined by people whose compensation comes from rent. During this age people start to work the land and then receive rent of natural resources from the land they work. They are normally said to be producing resources for their own consumption. In reality the land produces these resources and these peasants take a share or rent of nature. Rent is not limited to nature alone, people can charge rent to each other under a number of reasons.


This is the second stage of human development, as not everyone in the previous age can be on the move all the time. These people who were left behind can no longer consume the depleted resources in the area. Instead they move to “use” the land to produce what they need. Money at this stage is normally in the form of food and whenever you hear of taxes or rent being charged is normally in something to eat. For example in Europe around the Middle Ages rent in tax is charged not in the form of coins but in the form of chickens and pigs, and an Asian countries going through their middle-age. It was charged in the form of rice.


At this stage in human development, a system of protection was needed in order to suppress the previous age from consuming resources from other people's property. Mostly against the hunter gatherer societies which to these peasants presented themselves as “barbarians”. Many of us have seen some show or read some book about a group of landless bandits that come to a town and ransack it for all it's worth. The answer during this stage is the creation of a militia or part-time soldiers. The soldiers only pick up their weapons when the town or should I say city-state comes under attack. After which they go back to their fields to extract the rent needed to survive. Like everything in life there needs to be compensation for work done. Weapons are expensive, and a man needs to be compensated for when he has to fight instead of work is fields. In order to pay for this militia a State is formed, in which rent is not extracted from the land, but from citizenship of said town or area. It is normally charged to you by an aristocrat who an officers in the militia.


When someone charges you rent on your citizenship it is called taxes. Citizenship is determined a number of different ways, for example. I could be a citizen of the country if my land is inside its borders, in which I am charged “property tax”. I could also be a citizen if they say I’m one, at which point I am normally charged ”income tax”, and so on.


There is still slavery under this system, in the form of serfdom. In which one man owns another. The state also does not prevent the selling of one person to another in fact it helps these Land users with tending their crops. This does remove though the need to gather slaves for reproduction, as said off springs would inherit the land.


The societies are mostly agriculturally based and are normally championed by the Ultra Left non-anarchist. As this form of society does not have a centralized government or the idea of property. It normally shows up in shows and books that advocate a small community being able to take care of itself from both bandits and incompetent governments.


This age is equal to Karl Marx second and third stage combined.

The Seller age; is defined by people whose compensation comes from selling themselves or the works of others. This is the age but currently in, which we sell ourselves in order to receive our daily bread, while others sell the products of our work to receive their daily bread. As farmers work the land eventually run into a number of rocks, which cannot be consumed but can be used. Most well-known of these rocks is silver and gold. Silver and gold cannot be eaten and therefore cannot be consumed, but can be used as a consistent measurement of labor. Gold and silver do not deteriorate and therefore are constant. What happens at this age is a primary focus of society shifts from an agricultural society to a natural resource base economy. Where resources like iron, coal, and oil are measurements of the survival of the nation.

This third age of human development leads to a conflict between those who use the land and those who sell. Very much by the conflict that arose between the hunter gatherer societies in the city states. This normally takes the form of monarchs versus those who want a Democratic system, as these sellers, are even willing to sell political power. The state under this age must not only suppress the barbarian hordes of the previous age failed to destroy, but also must suppress the aristocrat militias. The only way this can be done is to transform the militia of the nation-state into what is called the standing army. In which soldiers fight in the Army full-time. This means that the military is no longer a part time job. With the increase in power comes an increasing cost. In order to pay for this new army the nation-state develops the idea of property. The same reason which lead a distinction between rent and taxes, also leads to distinction between private and public property. In this case the state owns public property even if this public property is political power. The distinction is needed to prevent conflicts of interest. Private property is the selling of other people's works, while public property is the selling of citizenship or political power. The nation-state then sells public property in order to raise the funds for their army. While capitalist as they are normally called, sell the works of other people and are considered private individuals.

It should be noted that taxes are not a part of this age and are leftovers from the previous age.

The capitalist are the ones responsible for slavery during this age, in the form of wage slavery. It differs from the other two ages by the fact that one agrees to sell themselves in the slavery. This new slave them produce a product which the capitalist turn around and sell. Political reform of the system is not possible as the capitalist can simply just by political power from the nation-state which needs the funds.

Socialism under my view is nothing more than the nation-state's right to sell the product of others. This means this age is equal to Karl Marx fourth and fifth stage combined.

This system is normally championed by fascist, as one of the tenements of corporatism the economics of fascism is the ability for corporations and governments to cooperate. The cooperation comes from the fact that corporations can buy government interest, and therefore force the government to cooperate with. You see this in both the movie and the book starship troopers. In which one must by political power by selling themselves to the government. While not shown in the movie, and not told out right in the book, employees of corporations can move from civilian status to citizen status (voters in the book and movie), through the use of donation of money to the nation-state.

The Producer age; is defined by people who gain their income through cooperation. Now every group cooperates with each other on the other same similar interest. The difference between this group and others is that the group every person has a share in every work done. The best mechanism to represent this system is a dividend economy.

A dividend economy starts by first selling the products of labor. The money received from the sell the products of labor is then divided between the citizens of the civilized state, very much like how dividends are paid to shareholders. The products produced are not controlled by what sells best, like the previous system, but instead they are controlled through economic planning, which leads to another name for the system; plan economy. This system has no need for “scavenging”, “self-production”, or “wages” (“ ” because they have a number of other names), as compensation for one's labor is received through the dividend system. Under the theory of human nature normally presented by the previous age, people under a dividend system would have every reason to work. They would still receive dividends if they do not work, but not as much as they would receive if they did. As I need to work in order for their works to be sold. Under this system people would not have to fear dying it inability to work, but would work to get well again in order to increase their income.

Just had the previous ages before, the civilized state must also suppress the previous ages. You must now battle three groups, barbarians, militias, and nation-state standing armies. This is done by creating the most powerful military of the all, the professional army. The professional army is numbly made up of conscripts; people are forced to serve, in order to receive some benefit from the state. I champion that there should be a bachelor conscription in which one is in the military until they get married. The benefit they should receive from the state though is free medical care is the one thing that is too expensive for the average person to afford, but too infrequent for the civilized state to go bankrupt.

I believe this would be a better embodiment of the ideas of Marx six and final stage why we would not have removed the idea of the state, we can create a civilization, a civilized state which is both ethical and equal.
I believe the state would be championed by anti-revisionist Communist would see this idea as a way to show that communism does not support freeloaders both at the bottom and the top of any system.

Class- caste theory:
I believe differently than Karl Marx with respect to the creation of caste and class systems. I believe there are they are the same event that happened from time to time. From time to time no one age holds a monopoly on power. This forces in to existence a system in which multiple ages coexist. I believe this is called the caste or class system. For example right now the sellers age cannot longer hold on to the monopoly of power are falling apart as are finding less and less to sell. But on the other hand the producer age has yet to come, full will, due to the lack of a true vanguard party. This leads to the production of a class system in which we have two different societies coexisting. The only way to destroy a class system is to enforce a monopoly on one side or the other.

I am ruminating upon Comrade Stalin's post and I can see a few points to it that I do agree with, however, I am not sure about the "bachelor army" for two reasons that we'd need young unmarried men in different trades; such as the factories and farms which should be an important part of the national economy; secondly, I would presume that we'd have free health-care as there was in the USSR; or at the very least a model like the UK's NHS.

I do agree that we'd need a large, strong army however and we should have conscription as not having national service is a luxury for states that are not under threat of invasion from forces of imperialist nations.

We should supplement it with a fully collectivised farming industry which should be implemented sooner than in the USSR in my opinion. This would be easier in more industrial nations such as the Western European, North American and certain East Asian (such as Japan) countries.

Comrade Stalin' post is interesting, but I still think the 6-stage theory that we Marxist-Leninsts have been using for over a century now is accurate and adequate enough when describing the course of the history of the world. You illuminated some other aspects of history that sort of evolve over time, but the main point in Marxist historical materialism is to focus on the means of production. Or, that is, the 6 stages are named after their means of production (mostly in European sense because that's what Marx focuses mostly on). This isn't necessarily a rejection or "revision" of Marxist history, but is more of an elaboration on some other aspect. Good work, Comrade Stalin.

Comrade Stalin' post is interesting, but I still think the 6-stage theory that we Marxist-Leninsts have been using for over a century now is accurate and adequate enough when describing the course of the history of the world. You illuminated some other aspects of history that sort of evolve over time, but the main point in Marxist historical materialism is to focus on the means of production. Or, that is, the 6 stages are named after their means of production (mostly in European sense because that's what Marx focuses mostly on). This isn't necessarily a rejection or "revision" of Marxist history, but is more of an elaboration on some other aspect. Good work, Comrade Stalin.

Could you tell me then the "means of production" for each, because I can only tell you four.

People producing nothing (living of the land).
People producing for themselfs.
People producing for other
People producing as team (which require team pay)

Beacuse these are the only four reason why I can see for anyone to produce (or lack of in the first case). I still get them same result when I look at the what from of resources they back the most.

hunter-gather
Agriculture
natural-resources
manufacturing

But to back up my point I found that in the 6-stage system that we have a current class graveyard in the from of the petit bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petit_bourgeoisie

Two extra class of people who don't fit into Marx 6-stage class theory. Under my theory, the "lumpenproletariat" and the "Petit bourgeoisie" are the suppressed previous qroup before the bourgeoises.

I will agree though my theory itself need more work, but that why I posted here.

People producing nothing (living of the land).
People producing for themselfs.
People producing for other
People producing as team (which require team pay)

Well there are many different people who fall into those categories at the same time during different stages. See the point of saying x society is capitalist or feudal is that the main mode of production is capitalism or feudalism. Right now, in capitalist society, there are people who produce nothing (capitalists, lumpen, homeless people, thieves), people who produce for themselves (petty bourgeoisie), people who produce for others (the proletariat), and people who produce as a team (hippy communes and anarchist co-ops and whatnot). Yet regardless of that we still say that the U.S. is a capitalist country.

Well there are many different people who fall into those categories at the same time during different stages. See the point of saying x society is capitalist or feudal is that the main mode of production is capitalism or feudalism. Right now, in capitalist society, there are people who produce nothing (capitalists, lumpen, homeless people, thieves), people who produce for themselves (petty bourgeoisie), people who produce for others (the proletariat), and people who produce as a team (hippy communes and anarchist co-ops and whatnot). Yet regardless of that we still say that the U.S. is a capitalist country.

well what you said is true many people would fall under one of these four groups, in fact it is designed so that everyone will fall under one of these four groups. But it seems that I need to improve my ability to explain my theories to you guys as some of the people seem to fall into the wrong groups.

My refinements changes Karl Marx view on the modes of production from what people do to what form of society they would support. For example Marx current system is exactly what you've just stated. My refinements though change which group falls into what category. They are as follows:

people who produce nothing: which is supported by thieves, lumpena, homeless people(that wish to be homeless, not those who are forced to) and anarchistco-ops, and therefore part of the group.

people who produce for themselves :which is supported by petty and hippy communes and petty bourgeoisie, and therefore part of the group.

people who produce for others:which is supported by capitalists, and therefore part of the group.

people who produce as a team:which is supported by proletariat, and therefore part of the group.

As you see each type of person you listed fall into a group because they support it mode of production, which I point out remove the incorrect answer given by Karl Marx that people fall into their groups by what they do. We don't call someone a militarist because they're in the Army, but we do call them that if they do support the Army.