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
 

I understand the general Marxist theory about why class society arose, there was surplus production and that lead to the institution of private property and the rest follows.

All of that makes sense on a high level but what exactly happened on an individual human level? Conceivably those early civilizations could have elected to go for a more equitable and democratic distribution of the surplus value even if the result would probably not be 100% equitable and would result in some poverty due to material constraints at the time. How do you explain the first appearance of private property and class society on an individual level without delving into some evopsych nonsense about evolutionary instincts or whatever?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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:

We shall, of course, not take the trouble to enlighten our wise philosophers by explaining to them that the “liberation” of man is not advanced a single step by reducing philosophy, theology, substance and all the trash to “self-consciousness” and by liberating man from the domination of these phrases, which have never held him in thrall. Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse...[There is here a gap in the manuscript]

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.

[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

which gradually transformed into social leverage and an actual class, state, and more.

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?

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 5 points 6 days ago

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.