Oligarchy is not caused by capitalism. These are different things. I’m not really sure if capitalism really caused it - it could just accelerated it. Bad people would so evil things in any system unless regulated
Communism requires state. Otherwise, it would be an anarchy - which never worked. About utopian communism:
2.1 USSR - failed on the way to the communism due to economic reasons. The system wasn’t able to handle it all, and USSR had huge deficits and poorness.
2.2 China - “a communistic” country. Which is not really anymore. It just masks itself as one to still have a single leader (in their case a single party)
2.3 about Cuba I have no idea, no experience
That is unfortunate. But this social guarantees are being removed by rich and power hungry people that are trying to aggregate more power. And power is money. Imagine money = capitalism = bad. But if we will remove money from the system - bad actors could still abuse their power in different ways (political weight, connections)
Im downoted to hell for a different opinion from lefties, righties and centrists. Cool. I love society. But it is not a reddit and no karma, so it doesnt matter :)
Your thinking of written history, almost all of which was written by slavers and lords to justify them doing nothing and getting all the stuff.
The vast majority of human existence, from when we first diverged from apes until the agricultural revolutions, was organized around anarchic tribes and clans where they shared there resources and the leader “ruled” at the discretion of the tribe.
These were not benign, cooperative social structures. They were tiny dictatorships. The leader controlled the “discretion of the tribe” by eliminating dissent. The controlling principle of their social structure was “might makes right”.
Other words for the broad concept you are describing are “harem” and “cult”.
That sort of tyranny won’t last long because there is no real method to monopolize violence before the agricultural revolution.
A tyrant could rule over a village by taking all the surplus, buying weapons and armor for him and his goons, and spending all their time training and specializing in violence to the point where there small group could easily threaten the remaining men in the village to work for them.
Before agriculture there was no surplus, no specialization and no advanced weapons and armor. So the difference between men matters far less and it becomes a numbers game. If one guy tries to monopolize the women and resources of the tribe then the rest of the men would rebel and easily take him and his goons.
Also pre agricultural society was nomadic, so if a tyranny ever came the oppressed could just leave.
If all the other men leave, or the tyrant kills the dissenters, then that leaves them vulnerable to attacks from other tribes. So naturally these tribes filled with strife and tyranny would die out while tribes that were able to keep consensus and coherence among the men would prevail.
Thus the leader in Hunter gatherer society ruled at the discretion of the tribe. If he deviated from the will of majority the threat of rebellion would loom over his head.
This is also why we saw a loosening of hierarchies after the invention of the gun and the loss of the importance of violence specialization and the increase in the importance of man power.
That sort of tyranny is the defining characteristic of these primitive, tribal social structures.
If one guy tries to monopolize the women and resources of the tribe then the rest of the men would rebel and easily take him and his goons.
Gorillas, elephant seals, wolves… If you look hard enough, you can find similar social structure even in invertebrates. If the tyrant is ever overthrown, he is always replaced by those overthrowing him, and the tyranny continues. This structure was successful because a tribe’s tyrant was a bigger threat to neighboring tribes than his own.
Also pre agricultural society was nomadic, so if a tyranny ever came the oppressed could just leave.
What really happened was that the departing group posed a competitive threat to those who remained, so they group collectively turned on the rebels. If a rebellion was ever actually successful, it quickly established the same structure with new players.
Before agriculture there was no surplus,
Tyranny thrives with surplus, scarcity, or anything in between.
So naturally these tribes filled with strife and tyranny would die out while tribes that were able to keep consensus and coherence among the men would prevail.
The lesson that arises from this is submission. Submit to the tyrant of your tribe, or the tyrants of other tribes will be coming for you. If any in your tribe would turn against your tyrant, you owe a duty to your tyrant to eliminate them, and come to your tyrant’s aid. Your tribe will die out, unless you keep consensus and coherence in support of your own tyrant. You become a supporting member of the tyranny long before you ever pick up a shovel or hoe. The pinnacle of anarchy is submission to the nearest tyrant.
That sort of tyranny is the defining characteristic of these primitive, tribal social structures.
This seems like you’re projecting your views on hierarchies and domination, being raised in a highly hierarchical, individualistic and competitive society under capitalism, into the past. The sort of tyranny you see in class based societies is not seen in Hunter gatherer society.
Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos,[26][27] although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America and the Calusa in Florida) are an exception to this rule.[28][29][30] For example, the San people or “Bushmen” of southern Africa have social customs that strongly discourage hoarding and displays of authority, and encourage economic equality via sharing of food and material goods.[31] Karl Marx defined this socio-economic system as primitive communism.[32]
The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never total but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity’s two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by paleoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[33][34][35][36]
Most anthropologists believe that hunter-gatherers do not have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed.[37][38][39]
Capitalism wants us to think domination is natural so that we’ll weigh the grand tyranny of the capitalist state to the petty tyranny of tribal rule and choose it. So they’ll downplay the tyranny of the state and wholly fabricate the tyranny of tribal societies to manufacture consent.
They don’t want us to think anarchy/communism is possible, much less the natural state of man before agriculture.
The sort of tyranny you see in class based societies is not seen in Hunter gatherer society.
We can see this sort of tyranny evolved not just in humans, but in a wide variety of species. What makes humanity special in this regard? Why do you think our evolutionary ancestors were immune to these sorts of behaviors?
have social customs that strongly discourage hoarding and displays of authority, and encourage economic equality via sharing of food and material goods
The sharing of food and material goods does not imply a lack of tyrannical behavior. A focus on the “carrots” does not justify ignoring the “sticks”.
Early communalism existed for far longer. I don’t agree with people associating anarchism with it, as anarchism today implies current levels of productive forces and thus a new organization of humanity fundamentally different from early communalism, but they are correct that the bulk of human existence has been without a state and without classes.
You have no idea what communism means. It is not anarchy, but mainly due to the difference in the way and not the goal. Saying communism requires a state is like saying water atoms require more than one proton and electron. It is literally the definition of what communism isn’t is.
2.1 The USSR had economic problems, especially near the end, but it also had achieved great economic progress. If you consider the full existence of USSR it’s economy grew equally to that of the West. The USSR however had a way worse start as it inherited a feudal society that had just lost a war and was attacked immediately by capitalist nations such as the USA. Other countries that had similar starting conditions grew significantly less than the West or USSR in the same time period. The USSR saw a significant increase in life expectancy: . It’s economy later declined due to mismanaged and a expenditure for the military that wasn’t feasable, but all in all I don’t think it’s fair to call the USSR a economic failure.
USSR has a different stages. One of stages where was burst growth in almost all the aspects - medicine, science, military and economics - was when Stalin was rule. Lenin was a dumb ruler that stealing food from poor people and he is make people poor starting inner war. After Stalins death USSR have some inertia, not so dumb ruler like Khrushchev and vibe of scientists country that have a flight into the space and so on that now sometimes shows in games or other media when it wants to show strong country. But then USSR with dumbest Brezhnev was finally tasted crude oil selling and thats was needed for its elites to live rich. With the outer long wars like Afganistan its become a break point from where the USSR doesn’t solve his problems but silenced and accumulated them before the end. (in 80th USSR start money printing to prolong its death, but there was too late)
The Soviet economy was slowing down a bit, but it did not collapse. The USSR was dissolved from the top-down in a political coup. As for China, it’s a socialist market economy, the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy.
You’re downvoted for being confidently wrong about leftist theory and history in a leftist community.
Oligarchy is not caused by capitalism. These are different things. I’m not really sure if capitalism really caused it - it could just accelerated it. Bad people would so evil things in any system unless regulated
Communism requires state. Otherwise, it would be an anarchy - which never worked. About utopian communism: 2.1 USSR - failed on the way to the communism due to economic reasons. The system wasn’t able to handle it all, and USSR had huge deficits and poorness. 2.2 China - “a communistic” country. Which is not really anymore. It just masks itself as one to still have a single leader (in their case a single party) 2.3 about Cuba I have no idea, no experience
That is unfortunate. But this social guarantees are being removed by rich and power hungry people that are trying to aggregate more power. And power is money. Imagine money = capitalism = bad. But if we will remove money from the system - bad actors could still abuse their power in different ways (political weight, connections)
Im downoted to hell for a different opinion from lefties, righties and centrists. Cool. I love society. But it is not a reddit and no karma, so it doesnt matter :)
Anarchy never worked except for the vast majority of human existence.
The vast majority of human existence: slavery and feudalism
That shit happened after agriculture.
agrarianism isn’t universal, and humans who eschewed it are just as capable as people who embraced it. it’s not before or after.
Your thinking of written history, almost all of which was written by slavers and lords to justify them doing nothing and getting all the stuff.
The vast majority of human existence, from when we first diverged from apes until the agricultural revolutions, was organized around anarchic tribes and clans where they shared there resources and the leader “ruled” at the discretion of the tribe.
These were not benign, cooperative social structures. They were tiny dictatorships. The leader controlled the “discretion of the tribe” by eliminating dissent. The controlling principle of their social structure was “might makes right”.
Other words for the broad concept you are describing are “harem” and “cult”.
Show me your proof, liberal. And no… reruns of The Walking Dead doesn’t count.
That sort of tyranny won’t last long because there is no real method to monopolize violence before the agricultural revolution.
A tyrant could rule over a village by taking all the surplus, buying weapons and armor for him and his goons, and spending all their time training and specializing in violence to the point where there small group could easily threaten the remaining men in the village to work for them.
Before agriculture there was no surplus, no specialization and no advanced weapons and armor. So the difference between men matters far less and it becomes a numbers game. If one guy tries to monopolize the women and resources of the tribe then the rest of the men would rebel and easily take him and his goons.
Also pre agricultural society was nomadic, so if a tyranny ever came the oppressed could just leave.
If all the other men leave, or the tyrant kills the dissenters, then that leaves them vulnerable to attacks from other tribes. So naturally these tribes filled with strife and tyranny would die out while tribes that were able to keep consensus and coherence among the men would prevail.
Thus the leader in Hunter gatherer society ruled at the discretion of the tribe. If he deviated from the will of majority the threat of rebellion would loom over his head.
This is also why we saw a loosening of hierarchies after the invention of the gun and the loss of the importance of violence specialization and the increase in the importance of man power.
That sort of tyranny is the defining characteristic of these primitive, tribal social structures.
Gorillas, elephant seals, wolves… If you look hard enough, you can find similar social structure even in invertebrates. If the tyrant is ever overthrown, he is always replaced by those overthrowing him, and the tyranny continues. This structure was successful because a tribe’s tyrant was a bigger threat to neighboring tribes than his own.
What really happened was that the departing group posed a competitive threat to those who remained, so they group collectively turned on the rebels. If a rebellion was ever actually successful, it quickly established the same structure with new players.
Tyranny thrives with surplus, scarcity, or anything in between.
The lesson that arises from this is submission. Submit to the tyrant of your tribe, or the tyrants of other tribes will be coming for you. If any in your tribe would turn against your tyrant, you owe a duty to your tyrant to eliminate them, and come to your tyrant’s aid. Your tribe will die out, unless you keep consensus and coherence in support of your own tyrant. You become a supporting member of the tyranny long before you ever pick up a shovel or hoe. The pinnacle of anarchy is submission to the nearest tyrant.
This seems like you’re projecting your views on hierarchies and domination, being raised in a highly hierarchical, individualistic and competitive society under capitalism, into the past. The sort of tyranny you see in class based societies is not seen in Hunter gatherer society.
I’m just going to copy paste the society section from the Wikipedia page on hunter gatherers as it refutes a lot of what you’re saying:
Capitalism wants us to think domination is natural so that we’ll weigh the grand tyranny of the capitalist state to the petty tyranny of tribal rule and choose it. So they’ll downplay the tyranny of the state and wholly fabricate the tyranny of tribal societies to manufacture consent.
They don’t want us to think anarchy/communism is possible, much less the natural state of man before agriculture.
We can see this sort of tyranny evolved not just in humans, but in a wide variety of species. What makes humanity special in this regard? Why do you think our evolutionary ancestors were immune to these sorts of behaviors?
The sharing of food and material goods does not imply a lack of tyrannical behavior. A focus on the “carrots” does not justify ignoring the “sticks”.
Early communalism existed for far longer. I don’t agree with people associating anarchism with it, as anarchism today implies current levels of productive forces and thus a new organization of humanity fundamentally different from early communalism, but they are correct that the bulk of human existence has been without a state and without classes.
You young earth creationists get wilder all the time. Now the Earth is younger than bronze?
2.1 The USSR had economic problems, especially near the end, but it also had achieved great economic progress. If you consider the full existence of USSR it’s economy grew equally to that of the West. The USSR however had a way worse start as it inherited a feudal society that had just lost a war and was attacked immediately by capitalist nations such as the USA. Other countries that had similar starting conditions grew significantly less than the West or USSR in the same time period. The USSR saw a significant increase in life expectancy:
. It’s economy later declined due to mismanaged and a expenditure for the military that wasn’t feasable, but all in all I don’t think it’s fair to call the USSR a economic failure.
USSR has a different stages. One of stages where was burst growth in almost all the aspects - medicine, science, military and economics - was when Stalin was rule. Lenin was a dumb ruler that stealing food from poor people and he is make people poor starting inner war. After Stalins death USSR have some inertia, not so dumb ruler like Khrushchev and vibe of scientists country that have a flight into the space and so on that now sometimes shows in games or other media when it wants to show strong country. But then USSR with dumbest Brezhnev was finally tasted crude oil selling and thats was needed for its elites to live rich. With the outer long wars like Afganistan its become a break point from where the USSR doesn’t solve his problems but silenced and accumulated them before the end. (in 80th USSR start money printing to prolong its death, but there was too late)
So is anarcho-communism an oxymoron for you then?
The Soviet economy was slowing down a bit, but it did not collapse. The USSR was dissolved from the top-down in a political coup. As for China, it’s a socialist market economy, the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy.
You’re downvoted for being confidently wrong about leftist theory and history in a leftist community.