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

ChestRockwell@hexbear.net

Cowbee@hexbear.net

LeninWeave@hexbear.net

oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net

How exactly did class society come to be? (hexbear.net)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by space_comrade@hexbear.net to c/theory@hexbear.net

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 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.