this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2026
23 points (100.0% liked)
theory
963 readers
1 users here now
A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for !literature@www.hexbear.net will be removed.
The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A combination of simply lacking the technology to advance production and the rise of the division of labor. Marx has a quote from The German Ideology that is immensely useful:
This is the basis of historical materialism. Early slave societies rose and then transformed into feudalism through successive improvements in production technology, development, and transformations in the division of labor. When early communalist societies began agriculture, this gave some groups more time than others, which gradually transformed into social leverage and an actual class, state, and more. This is also why communism abolishes the division of labor as such, and why many socialist countries try to focus on polytechnical education and development of the productive forces.
Yeah this is my question I guess, why exactly did this social leverage appear? Conceivably they all could have collectively chosen not to form social classes but rather distribute what they had more equitably however little that surplus was, why was it absolutely materially necessary for slaves to exist in those times for example? Couldn't the same labor be performed by free people?
It wasn't necessarily an intentional process. When one group gained more free time, the division of labor became critical for advancement. With the division of labor came the rise of class society. It was a gradual process, almost like boiling a frog. Some societies did choose to be more equitable to certain degrees, but ultimately the material forces behind historical development compelled the development into social classes.
Yeah I guess "choose" was the wrong word here, I understand this didn't happen in a planned and intentional manner, what I'm asking is why didn't they cool the frog rather than boil it, why did so many civilizations drift into hierarchy and class and not the other way around? Conceivably rather than drifting slowly into class society they could have continued nurturing a more egalitarian form of being.
The social relations generally arise from the level of material development. That's the central point of Marx, at certain levels of productive capacity, certain social formations become more suitable. It's also where the debates about stageism came from in the Bolshevik/Menshevik understanding. The Mensheviks vulgarized Marx's conception of historical development, thinking the bourgeois democratic revolution needed to develop before the proletarian revolution could happen.
The abolition of private property cannot happen without developed means of production suitable for the total abolition of private property. In this way, communism rhymes with early communalism, this is the negation of the negation.