Zompist Bboard Again

David Graeber was one of the most interesting anti-capitalists in recent years, and he was an anthropologist.
Debt goes on quite a bit into pre-capitalist societies.

in the Americas land ownership tended to be communal. There's a tendency to look at this as a model. The Zapatistas make a connection between Marxism and traditional Maya society, and you'll find left-leaning historians speak very approvingly of the Inca state. (I don't remember where I read that extraodinary claim that the Incas state eliminated poverty.)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:50 pm David Graeber was one of the most interesting anti-capitalists in recent years, and he was an anthropologist.
Debt goes on quite a bit into pre-capitalist societies.

IIRC he was an anarchist, not a Marxist.

The first half of that book was the most interesting, I think— he was in his own field, and fascinating.

Once he gets to the major civilizations, he sounds like Marvin the Android. "The Babylonians were the worst. Now the Romans, they were also the worst. The Americans, however, are the worst."

That was pretty much my impression as well.

(Graeber is very interesting but sometimes partisan to the point of caricature.)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:50 pm in the Americas land ownership tended to be communal. There's a tendency to look at this as a model. The Zapatistas make a connection between Marxism and traditional Maya society, and you'll find left-leaning historians speak very approvingly of the Inca state. (I don't remember where I read that extraodinary claim that the Incas state eliminated poverty.)

I was talking about the traditional Marxist model, not the models followed by people such as the Zapatistas. I too have read about communal land ownership in the Americas, and leftists are very often quite approving of this.

I think the one reference that Marx and Engels had about primitive communism was the Scottish Highlands, but having checked on Wikipedia, they also referenced native American hunter gatherers.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:24 pm I don't think Marxism takes the dynamics of traditional societies (e.g. tribes in New Guinea) into account adequately, considering that these societies often don't necessarily have a "means of production" in the capitalist and communist sense in the first place (what production they do have is often in terms of small-scale agriculture and/or herding). How do you bring about collective ownership of the means of production, and how would that be of any benefit to those involved, when the only means of production is small-scale agriculture or herding, and those involved in such have no interest in any kind of collectivization of such?

In those cases where self-declared Marxist states ruled traditional societies (e.g. the arctic people in the USSR), their policy was to bring them the blessings of modern industrial socialism. They forced reindeer herders into collectives and often exploited and polluted their environments. They also persecuted traditional religion (shamanism) in the name of progress and scientific atheism. What they were allowed to maintain were traditions like folk dances & music and traditional handicrafts. On the whole, not much different to what happened to them under capitalism.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:45 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:24 pm I don't think Marxism takes the dynamics of traditional societies (e.g. tribes in New Guinea) into account adequately, considering that these societies often don't necessarily have a "means of production" in the capitalist and communist sense in the first place (what production they do have is often in terms of small-scale agriculture and/or herding). How do you bring about collective ownership of the means of production, and how would that be of any benefit to those involved, when the only means of production is small-scale agriculture or herding, and those involved in such have no interest in any kind of collectivization of such?

In those cases where self-declared Marxist states ruled traditional societies (e.g. the arctic people in the USSR), their policy was to bring them the blessings of modern industrial socialism. They forced reindeer herders into collectives and often exploited and polluted their environments. They also persecuted traditional religion (shamanism) in the name of progress and scientific atheism. What they were allowed to maintain were traditions like folk dances & music and traditional handicrafts. On the whole, not much different to what happened to them under capitalism.

Precisely. Marxism-Leninism in particular is not friendly to traditional societies, even if there are Marxists who are.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:57 am Precisely. Marxism-Leninism in particular is not friendly to traditional societies, even if there are Marxists who are.

What you have to understand about Orthodox Marxism is that it doesn't believe in any values whatsoever. It claims to be an unfalsifiable "science" describing the deterministic transformation of each form of production to the next through its inner "contradictions".

"Contradictions" are not logical fallacies. They refer to the inability of any form of production to stabilize itself. For example, if capitalism produces too many goods, that leads to an economic crisis. The extras can't be sold at a profitable price fall if the market is flooded. This decreases jobs, and it spirals into a depression from there. Capitalism is "contradictory" in the sense that it both lives off and tries to eradicate scarcity at the same time.

There is no place for moralizing in this system. When the 21st century "left" moralizes against "determinism", they are spreading anti-Marxist propaganda.

Regarding traditional societies, Marxists admired their communal way of life. I suspect they decided traditional societies can't compete with capitalism. Eras are not real things that can be "saved", and pining after them is pointless nostalgia.

Having said that, I suspect it's not difficult to repackage newer observations under a Marxist rubric. Historically, traditional societies collapsed all the time. To decrease their reliance on the cooperation of natural forces and support a larger population, they innovated mechanisms like central irrigation systems that catapulted them into the next form of production.

In that light, a Marxist line of inquiry could seek to locate points of instability: Is the population growing? Will the resources hold out? Do the tribes depend on outside expertise? What path leads to a greater competitive edge?

The biggest problem is, Marx predicted that advanced capitalist countries must necessarily transform into socialist, and then communist societies simply in order to survive. While this observation was accurate, this will obviously never happen. Marx seriously underestimated humanity's urge to commit suicide.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:06 pm [The biggest problem is, Marx predicted that advanced capitalist countries must necessarily transform into socialist, and then communist societies simply in order to survive. While this observation was accurate, this will obviously never happen. Marx seriously underestimated humanity's urge to commit suicide.

Well, the jury is still out on that. Like many perceptive people, Marx was very good at diagnosing the shortcomings and problems of a system and bad at prescibing a cure. Up to now, capitalism has adapted repeatedly to challenges and changing circumstances; it's quite possible that it will also succesfully adapt to environmental threats.

See the thing is that in parts of the world traditional societies survived for thousands of years until contact with colonialists, implying that they did not fail due to their internal contradictions but due to colonialism. This contradicts Marxists' assertions that such societies must become capitalist.

I don't think their is a single answer and frankly capitalism doesn't need to adapt,
ultimately it just needs to successfully convince people that the rhetorical trick of "I just don't care" is convincing enough.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:37 am Well, the jury is still out on that. Like many perceptive people, Marx was very good at diagnosing the shortcomings and problems of a system and bad at prescibing a cure. Up to now, capitalism has adapted repeatedly to challenges and changing circumstances; it's quite possible that it will also succesfully adapt to environmental threats.

Capitalism has mostly succeeded in convincing people that its failures are what success looks like.

Capitalism fails every few decades. This routine failure has become an expectation. No one's even surprised anymore.

Of course, Marxism has failed too. My understanding of socialism and communism are very different from the old Marxists.

Capitalism has also succeeded at some things, like turning the whole world into one global capitalist system subdivided into racial castes. That way, its contradictions look like the effects of different civilizational values.

Mortality from malnutrition is high in Africa? That's just who Africans are; don't you get it? They are a civilization that breeds a lot and doesn't take care of their infants!

I have to admit, that was a stroke of genius. The lie looks so obviously true, there is no way to convince the zombies who buy into this theory that they are mistaken. Checkmate.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:22 am See the thing is that in parts of the world traditional societies survived for thousands of years until contact with colonialists, implying that they did not fail due to their internal contradictions but due to colonialism. This contradicts Marxists' assertions that such societies must become capitalist.

No, they just kept failing and getting replaced by more of the same. Just like capitalism has been doing.

I don't think humans normally adapt. If they change their ways, that's usually because they made a mistake. The bad mistake makers die out. The good mistake makers survive fractionally better. Things may be different in times of emergency.

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:39 pm I don't think their is a single answer and frankly capitalism doesn't need to adapt,
ultimately it just needs to successfully convince people that the rhetorical trick of "I just don't care" is convincing enough.

Time will run out after peak oil. The only question is whether the survival of Jeff Bezos counts as the survival of humanity.

Marx is interesting, but obviously a 19th century early economist isn't necessarily going to be much right about the 21st century.

But I think in a sense Marx was right. The Victorian-era capitalism he was familiar with didn't turn out to be sustainable and disintegrated messily.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 2:44 pm

hwhatting wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:37 am Well, the jury is still out on that. Like many perceptive people, Marx was very good at diagnosing the shortcomings and problems of a system and bad at prescibing a cure. Up to now, capitalism has adapted repeatedly to challenges and changing circumstances; it's quite possible that it will also succesfully adapt to environmental threats.

Capitalism has mostly succeeded in convincing people that its failures are what success looks like.

Capitalism fails every few decades. This routine failure has become an expectation. No one's even surprised anymore.

Of course, Marxism has failed too. My understanding of socialism and communism are very different from the old Marxists.

…
No, they just kept failing and getting replaced by more of the same. Just like capitalism has been doing.

I don't think humans normally adapt. If they change their ways, that's usually because they made a mistake. The bad mistake makers die out. The good mistake makers survive fractionally better. Things may be different in times of emergency.

Well, you may call it failing, people with a less bleak world view would call it self-repair. I think it's erroneous to assume that there ever will be systems that are stable and changeless, without crises. People assuming that their preferred system is like that just haven't thought through all implications of their systems.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 2:44 pm Capitalism has also succeeded at some things, like turning the whole world into one global capitalist system subdivided into racial castes. That way, its contradictions look like the effects of different civilizational values.

Mortality from malnutrition is high in Africa? That's just who Africans are; don't you get it? They are a civilization that breeds a lot and doesn't take care of their infants!

I have to admit, that was a stroke of genius. The lie looks so obviously true, there is no way to convince the zombies who buy into this theory that they are mistaken. Checkmate.

Tribalism and people caring more about their immediate in-groups than about people far away and newcomers are as old as humanity. If anything, capitalism tends to break these things down, as it breaks down all loyalties except loyalty towards money. Racism and nationalism are rather reactions against the corrosive effects of capitalism, as people are trying to shield their in-groups and build coalitions against the corrosion. This gets complicated by that capitalists and certain instantations of capitalism can have an interest in using and manipulating ideas like racism and nationalism.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 2:44 pm Time will run out after peak oil. The only question is whether the survival of Jeff Bezos counts as the survival of humanity.

I'm quite sure that we'll overcome peak oil (that's a problem already being solved), and we'll find a way to limiting climate change, even if not as well as we could, and with some fuck-ups and disasters on the way, like always.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:24 am Well, you may call it failing, people with a less bleak world view would call it self-repair. I think it's erroneous to assume that there ever will be systems that are stable and changeless, without crises. People assuming that their preferred system is like that just haven't thought through all implications of their systems.

The question is not whether the people are willing to accept perfection. Eg. When I say communism, I only mean eliminating those scarcities that are man-made. Absolute post-scarcity is impossible because of limitations in natural resources.

The question is whether people are willing to implement radical, but nevertheless incremental, improvements to something as fundamental as the form of production. Namely, things like the capitalist business model or slavery. Most people don't even realize that these things are historically relative. They think whatever system is currently in place is an aspect of natural law.

(Unless I'm mistaken, the Orthodox Marxist answer is that the undeveloped tribes and 21st century capitalism don't have enough capital to make the transition to the next form of production. I don't think there is a concrete answer to the question, "How much capital is enough?" That's why this theory is unfalsifiable.

Also, if undeveloped tribes were destabilized solely by colonial powers, that would not be the kind of indictment of colonialism you might think. I suspect the Orthodox Marxist answer is that either the tribes would accumulate enough capital to compete with colonial powers or be dominated by them until colonialism collapses by itself. There is no judgment anywhere in the system. It's purely descriptive.)

hwhatting wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:24 am Tribalism and people caring more about their immediate in-groups than about people far away and newcomers are as old as humanity. If anything, capitalism tends to break these things down, as it breaks down all loyalties except loyalty towards money. Racism and nationalism are rather reactions against the corrosive effects of capitalism, as people are trying to shield their in-groups and build coalitions against the corrosion. This gets complicated by that capitalists and certain instantations of capitalism can have an interest in using and manipulating ideas like racism and nationalism.

I disagree that most societies behave like family groups. Every society larger than a few hundred individuals is more concerned about internal political splits than conflicts with outsiders. Conflicts with outsiders do matter, but they are one factor that fuels internal power struggles. Whether you look at the Roman Republic or Aryan India, each society fights itself and the others. Some of them emerge victorious regardless.

What is notable about the 21st century is that it's easy to divide workers by saying things like: "The Chinese are taking your jobs." The classes have been dressed up to look like races/civilizations/pumpkins/whatever the latest fad calls them. When capitalism originated, the classes fighting for power in the system were internal to each nation, not distributed across the globe.

On the other hand, the 21st century is not entirely novel. When capitalism originated, the bitterness of struggles among the various castes within national groups was comparable to what international rivalries are like now. Of course, bigots don't care about historical facts like that.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:24 am I'm quite sure that we'll overcome peak oil (that's a problem already being solved), and we'll find a way to limiting climate change, even if not as well as we could, and with some fuck-ups and disasters on the way, like always.

My impression is that we don't have safe alternative energy sources that can replace fossil fuel. Proposed replacements don't generate energy at the same scale, create pollution in other ways, etc.

Oh hey, you guys talking about energy economics? Don't mind if I do!

The transition to renewable energy is no longer a technical problem, but exclusively one of funding. Replacing existing energy infrastructure with a mix of wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear would costs enormous amounts of money. But you know what solves that problem? Enormous amounts of money! At present the USA can scrape together a trillion dollars for the blowing up of individual countries in the Middle East, and that's just one economy representing less than a fifth of the world's GDP. Clearly it is possible to mobilize funds if there is someone powerful who will benefit from it. The current economic landscape of energy being what it is, there aren't enough billionaires who see their fortunes improving by spending trillions on solar panels. But that could change. If, at any point, it becomes profitable for the people in charge to switch to renewables, it will happen. That's all it takes.

Usually at this point there is some hand-waving about how "billionaires would already benefit from switching to renewables! Do they not plan to breathe the same air as the rest of us? Do they think their employees in coastal cities will just swim to work?" But this is naive. Jeff Bezos would benefit from Seattle staying above the water line, but his quarterly earnings benefit more from him pretending he's a Pharaoh. We don't know how exactly the mechanisms motivating plutocrats will change over time. But we do know that fortunes can change on a dime if those mechanisms change.

If alternative energy sources didn't generate enough power to keep society running, then switching from capitalism to socialism wouldn't change anything.

Jeff Bezos remains wealthy only as long as he makes business decisions that keep him wealthy. The concern is that if alternative energy is more costly and has a lower output, then Jeff Bezos might only remain wealthy by employing a smaller number of people.

How would the society depicted in Always Coming Home which is loosely organized, rejects formal governance above the “respected elder” level and a laboring caste etc. be classified economically?

Nachtswalbe wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:25 am How would the society depicted in Always Coming Home which is loosely organized, rejects formal governance above the “respected elder” level and a laboring caste etc. be classified economically?

The Marxist answer is that society is shaped by how goods are produced; not the other way around. (Personally, I feel like that's a bit of an overstatement.)

If they have a high population, they would require industrial labor to support it. To have industrial labor, they would require a state to coordinate the system. Since all the specialized knowledge required to run a complex society can no longer come just from elderly individuals, they would probably no longer be respected in the same way.

If they choose not to develop industry to preserve respect for their elders, they would die of starvation. No judgment either way, but many of them would probably eat their elders before going that far.

If they choose to develop industry without having a state, they would have no means enforce laws that everyone relies on. Libertarianism would lead to unrestrained exploitation; not to mention other tragedies of the commons like overfishing.

If they choose to have industry and a state, but then enforce respect for elders, that's a situation where you are forced to pretend that you respect someone you don't. People will keep slipping up forever and being subjected to tyrannical punishments to keep the rest of the population in line until there's a revolution (if ever).

You could imagine an alien species with such a large memory that their elders can retain an encyclopedic knowledge of how to run an industrial society. In that situation, I see no immediate reason why industry would be incompatible with respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Always_Coming_Home

Wikipedia wrote:The Kesh use technological inventions of civilization such as writing, steel, guns, electricity, trains, and a computer network (see below). However, unlike one of their neighboring societies – the Dayao or Condor People – they do nothing on an industrial scale, reject governance, have no non-laboring caste, do not expand their population or territory, consider disbelief in what we consider “supernatural” absurd, and deplore human domination of the natural environment. Their culture blends millennia of human economic culture by combining aspects of hunter-gatherer, agricultural, and industrial societies, but rejects cities (literal “civilization”). In fact, what they call “towns” would count as villages for the reader – a dozen or a few-dozen multi-family or large family homes. What they call “war” is a minor skirmish over hunting territories, and is considered a ridiculous pastime for youngsters, since an adult person should not throw his life away.

Pandora observes that a key difference between the Kesh and the readers' [her?] society is the size of their population: "There are not too many of them.".[2] Their low population density means that they can feed themselves from their land. The Kesh maintain this low population without coercion, which would be antithetical to their loosely organized society.

Basically they do not have industrial scale economies but also have modern technologies like guns, trains etc. ,live in dispersed villages of a dozen longhouse-like things, and generally have few children due their own social norms.