[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1627010342028.jpg ( 340.64 KB , 900x550 , Ancient Egypt social class….jpg )

 No.395643

Socialists and communists claim to want to abolish class, but I must ask this question: how did class originate? It seems that it may have had something to do with the advent of agriculture, but I have also heard that some hunter-gather classes had distinct social classes. At any rate, knowing how social stratification arose in the first place seems important if you want to 1) figure out how or if a complex society could function without social classes and/or 2) figure out how to prevent social classes from arising again in the future.
>>

 No.395647

The agricultural revolution. It's because as more food was available surplus resources got used to funding greater societies and class based societies naturally formed into existence
>>

 No.395652

>>395643
>how did class originate
Division of labor in society as there was enough food production to allow increasingly larger sums of the population to do work other than subsistence farming, allowing them to specialize in other tasks (basketweaving, hunting, warriors, what have you). As these classes existed for longer and more people developed inter-tribal (and eventually international) relationships these different trades developed relative worths, and the worth they produced allowed for their solidification of power relative to what their trade could afford them.
>>

 No.395658

Class in the Marxist sense of the word originated during the agricultural revolution, Rousseau implicitly talks about this in this quote
>“The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, 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. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”
>>

 No.395665

class led to more efficient gathering of resources, and as various new technologies and developments occurred the class structure changed in order to best suit the changing material conditions. In hunter gatherer societies there may have been a crude class system, say a clan chief/shaman, but these were not totally specialised roles and they still would have participated in hunting/gathering.
>>

 No.395715

>>395652
>>395647
Agriculture and the division of labour are necessary conditions to the formation of class society but not sufficient conditions. Class formation also requires the dependency of children on parents.

Children being dependent on parents leads to a respect for parents, parents are the only source of a child's subsistence. In hunter gatherer society, children can quickly start feeding themselves after growing strong enough to hunt or gather. Their reliance on the parents' labour diminishes.

In agricultural society, each generation depends on the labour of the previous. The farmers working the land are fed by the grain harvested in the previous year. Children, even when they grow up, owe their survival to the parents and ancestors who tilled the land for generations prior. This leads to a tendency for people to pay respects to their older relatives and hold them in high esteem for making life possible through their past labour. Respect for elders can transform into a religion based on ancestor worship where not just living relatives are respected but deceased and even mythical ancestors are elevated to status as gods.

Ancestor worship has obvious economic and political benefits as it gives power to the older members of to control the economic surplus. Eventually a group of non-productive clergy are required to carry out religious ceremonies and these clergy become the seed of class society.
>>

 No.395724

You are very stupid. Class in Marxism has a very different meaning to how you understand it. In Marxism your class position is related to you relation to how production is organized in all ways, politically, religiously whatever. So I’m feudal times peasants represented the largest productive class, in ancient times that was the slave, in modern times it’s the wage worker, or the working class.
>>

 No.395729

>>395724
Don't be rude. It's not very often when people are actually asking serious questions instead of posting lazy bait. We shouldn't discourage those people.

>>395643
The classes in marxist sense have a specific meaning, not exactly the same as you are using. I suggest watching this video, it explains the concept pretty good, i would also suggest watching other videos on that channel, especially one about political scale. If you have questions after that, don't hesitate to ask them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLwHsUBIK_A
>>

 No.395738

Every class has its institution, and its real organizations of people - whether organized by the will of the members, or organized by forces outside the will of the members. Hunter-gatherer society lacked classes as such because it was impossible to form coherent institutions of ruling, and the hunter-gatherer band had to function on a largely egalitarian basis to perpetuate its technology and language. Simply put, class society would have been very counterproductive, and the conditions of hunter-gatherer society did not allow for the antagonism in close quarters that defined civilized society.

There's not a lot of evidence of that period between early hunter-gatherers and just before agricultural society formed, but it is entirely plausible that people in late HG society, being acquainted with the bow and developing some warcraft, had the makings of a warrior aristocracy. It is certainly not the case that early agricultural societies were based on an imagined Garden of Eden, which somehow turned wicked because of the evil of technology. Such societies may not have had formal social classes from the very start, but they would have had to know the concept of territory and war.

It must be remembered that class society exists because certain people want it to exist. We don't "have" to do this, and we could declare outright that we're not going to practice class-based oppression any more and make a good-faith effort to not do that. There has been, in the past century, no shortage of people who aim for exactly that, who understand that class conflict is ruinous and that the privilege of a few at the expense of the many is more trouble than it is worth. You don't even need to be a communist to have such an aim. The present class society can only persist because certain groups are particularly pig-headed in demanding it. There is not a good reason why class society should have existed for the past several centuries. Even the liberal revolutionaries had to try and justify social distinctions by only allowing them so far as they served the "public good". It took proto-fascism and then the OG ultra-reactionaries to turn to the idea that the broad masses should be basically reduced openly to the status of slaves once again.
>>

 No.395742

>>395729
I’m too old to have patience for zoomer crap or stupid questions so I’ll respond with the disrespect I believe they deserve and if that puts them off they can go run into a safe space and cry.
>>

 No.395745

>>395742
Don't be a grumpy gramps.
>>

 No.395759

>>395724
This person is correct, as rude as they are

Your class is determined by your relation to the means of production

Do not be fooled by liberal ideas of class being determined by lifestyle, consumption choices or career type. Much of the Fake News MSM regularly produces lists of these liberal fake classes
>>

 No.395776

Likely it was result of written law. Side note. Ancient egypt had a centrally planned economy.
>>

 No.396088

>>395647
>naturally
That's a nice way to say murder and oppression
>>

 No.396157

>>395724
>>395759
Well that's part of it. Large landowners have typically held a lot of privilege in pre-industrial societies. However, there were often some powerful classes, like soldiers and clergy, that didn't necessarily control much in the way of "means of production".
>>

 No.396166

>>396157
I mean most soldiers were offered land in exchange for their service: Roman Legionaries, ennobled Knights, Vikings. As for the clergy, they did not individually control the MoP but organised religion most often did: it's one of the things that the transition away from paganism to monotheism lead to: was the centralisation of land around organised churches.
>>

 No.396167

Cockshott has a series of videos on this, they're quite dry but very good:
Prehistoric economics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u2TtXVABcc
Development of Patriarchy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6plfLzRDnCA
Classical Slave economics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic-VIssclio
Classical Slave economics pt.2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSe66oOKsw
Feudal Economics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PuvPEoNK5o
>>

 No.396204

>>395643
Classes are large groups of people that are differentiated by a) their place in the historically determined system of social production b) their relation (in large part defined by law) to the means of production c) their role in the social organization of labour and hence d) from the ways in which they appropriate part of the wealth produced by society and the magnitude of this part.
Humanity was for the largest part of its life as a spiecies NOT fragmented in such a way. This is a historical development whose first traces only appeared about 12000 years ago with the agricultural revolution, whereas the human race existed for approximately 200.000 years.
Thanks to labour, men emerged from the animal world and human society arose. The distinctive feature of human labour is the making of implements of production, which was a slow and arduous proces that took thousands of years. he productive forces of primitive society were on an exceedingly low level, the implements of production were extremely primitive. This necessitated collective labour, social property in the means of production and equal distribution. In the primitive community there was no property inequality or private property in the means of production; there were no classes or exploitation of man by man. Social ownership of the means of production was confined within a narrow framework; it was the property of small communities more or less isolated from one another. In Africa men would easily find their means of subsistance and vibe for the rest of the time, however, tribes that migrated to say Messopotamia, had to develop agriculture, in that way developing also the surplus product, i.e. producing more than what is immediatly required for the subsistence of the tribe.
The basic economic law of the primitive community consists in the securing of man"s vitally necessary means of subsistence with the help of primitive implements of production, on the basis of communal property in the means of production, by means of common labour and the equal distribution of the products.Working together, men for a long time performed uniform labour. The gradual improvement of implements of production promoted the rise of a natural division of labour, depending on sex and age. Further perfecting of the implements of production and the mode of obtaining the means of life, the development of cattle-breeding and. agriculture led to the appearance of the social division of labour and exchange, of private property and property inequality, to the division of society into classes and to the exploitation of man by man. Thus the growing forces of production entered into contradiction with the relations of production, as a. result of which primitive communal society gave way to another type of relations of production-the slave-owning system. The so called natural division of labour, i.e. the differentiation of hunter-gatherers, men bread-winners/women child nutrurers, only came about because humans with reproductive organs realised it was in their intrests to stay back and not risk a miscarriage for they realised a new child would mean extra working hands that would help the whole tribe. Engels in the Origin of the Family notes that the historical defeat of the female genus, the transition to patriarchical societies, is corelated to the historic emergence of class society. Men of nomadic tribes started going on an advanced kind of hunt. Finding other tribes that knew how to develop the land. They realised that they had more intrest, instead of just eating them, in enslaving them and having them work for them. Thus people without reproductive organs became more productive. This coincided with the first social dision of labour, traces of which had started to appear before as the historical and material preconditions for its actual appearance. This is also related to the advent of religion: one member of the tribe was stronger, so they had him lift stuff, the other had a better eye, so they made him a tracker, the elder of the tribe, once agriculture was developed or prior, in leading the tribe, started looking at the sky, noticing the patters in the movement of the stars and the sun, even personafying them. Soon, with the further development of the social division of labour, i.e. the division of mental and manual labour they started having a more managerial role. This led to a detechment of thought from material reality and practice. In that way the historical conditions for the appropriation of the surplus product of the primitive societies has been met: there appeared for the first time such groups of people that one can appropriate the work of the other, thanks to the difference in position it holds within a defined system of the social economy.
>>

 No.396207

Division of labour
/thread
>>

 No.396515

>>396157
That isn’t what Marx means by class, which is where most communists get their concept of class. There are sub-class or intraclass categories that can be used for social analysis in a Marxist framework, but they aren’t equivalent to class. They’re subordinate or different from class as a category, which as those anons said is your relationship to production, particularly as Marx put it at the end of Vol 3 it is differences in sources of revenue/income. So getting income as rent as in the case of landlords or landed nobility is a separate class relation to production, for example, than getting it from employing labor. Obviously in reality these categories mix, as a landlord could definitely employ people in another line of business or otherwise in the management of their properties, but the “pure” example of the category is just an analytical tool to disambiguate all the complexities of reality into a more simple model.
>>

 No.412751

>>395643
Classes are nothing but scaled up social hierarchies that exist naturally on any tribe.
An by "naturally" I mean we are biologically designed to keep track of social stance, power, credibility, legitimacy to govern, etc.
And by "legitimacy to govern", yes, as far as our biology is concerned, violence can be legitimate. That's simply how our neurochemistry computes power.

Social class is just the abstraction of all that into a more formalized system that channels the life and work of millions of people.

Unique IPs: 18

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome