Classless society and humans


Ok so lets start from the beginning. I am talking about caves. Stone age. Man is afraid of everything that moves, or makes noise. So the first shaman invents the spook of spirits. You dont want to make the spooky spirits angry, do you now? Listen, all you have to do to not make the spirits angry, is give the shamans stuff.
So now we have the first classes, shamans and non-shamans. Shamans are really smart people and they use a lot of cheap tricks to exploit the non-shamans.
Over time spirits become gods (Egypt, Greece, etc) but literally nothing changes. Various priests exploit the workers.
Now feudalism happens, new age in history happens, but really nothing changes. The more nobles a country have, the more poor people it has but this is just a coincidence, you wouldnt question divine rights of nobles and clergy would you now?
Let me fast forward a bit, capitalism. Literally nothing changes again. Capitalists are exploiting the workers. Again.

How can humans ever live in a classless society? I think that humans are genetically coded in a standard fashion, but small amounts of surface radiation make small mutations to the genome from which we develop. These small mutation creates differences. Some are taller, some faster, some can lift more, some are smarter, some prettier, funnier, etc etc. Doesnt matter.
What matters is that thanks to these differences, some can exploit others. Doesnt matter if they can please spirits better than you, or if they own more capital and private property than you, they will find a way to exploit, and it looks like the whole fucking universe operates in a way that exploitation is simply universally good and beneficial and useful and desirable and logical to whoever can pull it off.

Therefore, humans can not live in a classless society. All life forms simply.. evolve, there is eternal competition and those who exploit better survive another round, procreate, and among them this small mutation kicks in, creates an even better class of exploiters, they wipe out previous class, and get wiped out themselves by this even better new class of exploiters.

Tell me where did I go wrong here.

literally everywhere

Anywhere in specific? Also top non-post, 10/10.
If you dont want to discuss things, why even post?


Then why are you even posting? Like for real, for what purpose would you go in a thread and just say you are lazy to read? Why would anyone just randomly click on things and make zero discussion spam posts?

im different from

but any way. Most of this is pretty feels>reals so I can't debate it. If you believe it, way to go but its honestly to late in the evening where I live to bash my head in the wall (I'll wake the neighbors)

Yeah its 3 am here, anyway how is it feels>reals? Dont genetics work in a way I mentioned? Arent there scientific books with proofs in them that explain the process? Didnt Darwin explain this in great detail? Arent people exploiting each other all the time?

What arguments are there that say that everyone is just going to stop exploiting everyone else and we are all going to live in this happy socialist utopia together?

I would recommend reading "origins of the family" on this one, lad. a society divided against itself is a relatively new phenomenon resulting from a diversity of scarce goods and the breakup of the old gentre system. Exploitation arises from a certain productive capacity. Communism is the transcendence of the organization that necessarily follows from this level of production

I've seen these threads before. People with shitty self approved theories on how the world works will never be convinced otherwise on an image bored. I don't care to debate the whole

shit at this time of night. Just lurk more and I'll let some other lefty answer these questions.

It only says that if men stopped being concerned with property and inheritance, bourgeois marriage would collapse and women would be free and also class struggle would stop. But how does it explain the collapse of interest in property and inheritance?
Also could the fact that societies that practiced this kind of non-bourgeois marriage fell to bourgeois marriage societies imply that this would simply happen again? Also what about individuals who do not desire a family?

Wew lad. That's some shit tier historical understanding. You literally just equated antiquity to prehistory and then skipped ahead to the middle ages.

the point is that the current mode of production arises from certain conditions. He explains that classless society has existed before in the form of a sort of "primitive communism." Just curious have you read it or did you look up a summary? I'm not making accusations here. If you're a rightist trying to figure out what we believe that's fine. I recommended you read "origins of the family" because your history seems off.

also to your second question:
he was talking about how the mode of production determines the structure of the family that arises out of it. That was significant to him because the extended family was a kind of proto-state. He also uses it to discuss how the mode of production affects the status of women. The causality is important here. It's not "marriage causes capitalism" is "there is a specific kind of family unit suited to each mode of production." There is also a crucial difference between communism and primitive communism. They are at different points on a chronology of development of the productive forces if you like.

No I didnt read that book, and also I dont consider myself a rightist or a leftist (yet), I kinda just want to understand things for myself and after I have some sort of basic understanding of things, I can also figure out what to call myself, but for now figuring out how things work is more important to me than being x or y.

How would this primitive communism ever happen, if for example someone was simply born much more physically fit? What would prevent this individual from trying to become something of a local warlord? Even if you had egalitarian social relations and common ownership, this genetic variation I mentioned at start could challenge egalitarian status quo, more fit individuals would be more sexually desirable, competition would ensue, and so would classes again.

Precise names of the periods do not matter because the pattern repeats itself regardless of how we call a time period. Every one of them had a class of people that exploited others. Priests while society was all religious, and private property owners after.

For example say Bob can hunt better and catch more meat than Mark, why would Bob share? Why wouldnt he start capital accumulation instead?

well as engels suggests, the practice of slavery was not really common at that time as people didn't generally produce all that much more than they consumed until certain productive methods in cattle breeding were developed. Meaning he would benefit a lot more off of living off his own labor. That said, humans aren't, or at least they weren't solitary animals for the part of their history that Engels describes. He probably would have found a group to live with as that would make him safer. Since enslavement was more trouble than it was worth, he'd probably have to live with them on rather egalitarian terms. I'm speculating a bit, but the majority of this would be within engels.

If you want a bit more of a theoretical and more ahistorical approach (i.e. he it was directly in response to a hypothetical situation described by hobbes), Rousseau's "Discourse on Inequality" could also work. I'd still recommend Engels though, because it gives more historical perspective.

always good to have open minds here. Holla Forums b8 gets old real quick.

A society without classes is perfectly possible. The only problem is that technology must solve the scarcity problem first.

The best way to fight for socialism now is to contribute to the hard sciences in order to create replicators and atomic rearrengers.

Well I didnt exactly mean slavery, I meant that individual people would be born slightly different from one another.
If we assume that people are born not 100% identical but slightly different, these slight differences would simply accumulate over time. People who can fight better and hunt better and survive better, wouldnt develop a class, not yet anyway, but would generally want to breed with one another, and their offspring would want the same.
Now lets say they decide to move to a habitat with different diet and different climate, different germs, different resources, this would again over time accumulate. A class would develop.
Example: European imperialism.

So I dont see how a classless society could ever happen. I mean even geography on our planet has its own classes.

Drop the humanism

I was thinking about this as well, but I got to a different conclusion.
What if technology and hard science people develop a class consciousness of their own?

Those STEM types seem perfectly naturally inclined to think they are more deserving than everyone else. Why would they share a post scarcity environment?
Dont forget, they all view themselves as some sort of loner autocrats, all Elon Musks and Zuckerbergs and Bill Gates. All self made millionaires who should lord over the peasants with their army of robots.
At my uni over here where I study, for some reason there are chemistry and engineering buildings and laboratories put together, most of these students are apolitical but when it comes up, they see themselves much different from manual laborers and what they call soft sciences, they dont see others as important as themselves, and consider lawyers and politicians as bullshitters

what I'm saying is that they don't have an incentive to become an exploiter class yet. Classless society isn't about equality. It's much more about liberation from a predatory relationship. Leftists don't generally concern themselves with pure income inequality, rather where that income comes from and how the flow of money and other commodities in our society necessarily means our society is divided against itself and fundamentally unstable.

shitposting on leftypol can only do you so much good btw. the only reason this board can ever have good discussion (on the rare occasions when it does) is because some people on here read theory. If you really want to get the leftist position you're gonna have to read. once you do, you'll be ahead of the majority of anarkids and tankies on this board.

I think that's a self-defeating question. A post-scarcity environment wouldn't need to be shared in the first place. Altho I reckon we might have to wait the usual technology creep until the post-scarcity doodads reach the masses.

You know I've never ate octopus before. Guess it's impossible, eh?

Is there any theory out there that disproves that genetic differences create different people, who then create different classes?

I guess for now my beliefs make me a fascist simply because I believe that there are hierarchies, hierarchies caused by.. solar radiation, random luck, geography, climate etc. All these differences accumulate into different classes, and people who end up higher and benefit have no incentive to dismantle these differences, and people who do not benefit have no capacity to fight them.

Exactly like chess. Completely deterministic. There are finite number of moves, and who ever goes first can win 100% of the games. Which is why computers won matches with human grandmasters. Game is deterministic and computers simply memorized the best move set and won every game. Nothing could be done. Game was determined even before a single piece moved because of how the pieces stood at the start, and because of the unbreakable rules that govern all the pieces.

I am not saying it is impossible because it never happened before, I am saying it is impossible because of the fundamental, mechanistic worldview that I have, which if correct, would fundamentally not allow a society where everyone is 100% equal.

What I am saying is, people are not born like identical clones, some are simply put 'better', some 'worse', and the better category exploits the worse category.

told you guys about reactionary trite
anyway remember SAGE goes in the email

But how does sage in the email field stop the world from being mechanistic and deterministic? How does it prevent formation of classes and hierarchies, which make classless society impossible?

it just doesn't matter in principle. that's the point. I'm sure if you looked into genetics more closely you'd find some shit proving how the fascist understanding of genetics doesn't make sense, but what we're talking about is more general. I'm not saying that people will all be equal. I'm saying that we as a society will no longer have an incentive to act against each other. The way genetics express themselves in a person will always be dependent on the environment in which the person finds themselves. Genetics may play a role in how an individual weighs their incentives (though upbringing and education will also have very important effects on how this manifests itself), but incentives are still very much contingent on environment. Fascists tend to not be very methodical in looking at incentives here. Many of them may actually be well-read in their eugenics and "9/11 was a jewish conspiracy" trash, but they lack a consistent lens through which to understand all this stuff they read. The argument "people are genetically different therefore subjugation is natural" does not make sense. I'd say Rousseau is still pretty good for this sort of stuff. If you wanna start with the very small and then move to more general theory, maybe read the "German Ideology." At least that's what you'd do if you want to be a marxist (I'm not a marxist, but I don't know what I am yet. If you're atheist, marxism will be good).

fuck off. he's just curious. maybe he'll learn. I'm saging anyways so this doesn't clog up discussion, but I don't think he means badly.

oddly enough, many people accuse marx of being mechanistic and deterministic. I'm actually a determinist myself. Marx believes communism is inevitable.
you're going to have to read. this is a trash argument.

Google Bookchin

is bookchin actually good or is he more of a meme? I have trouble liking any system that runs on democracy. non-hierarchy tends to be the rallying cry of sewer-socialists.

Wouldnt hierarchy inevitably be followed by a class system?

I'll look into Rousseau. Yeah I agree that Holla Forums is just blindly sprinting into nowhere. They are perfectly happy to post frogs, alien stories involving nazis, and only harmful thing they do is hating the jews but since I am not one I couldnt give a shit what those crazies are doing. Since I am not a jew nor an immigrant, I see no reason to concern myself with Holla Forums.

I just dont get why did Marx advocate this worker revolution because even if the workers get rid of the bosses, among the workers this social Darwinism will still be in effect, and this new workers would emerge and try to secure more resources for themselves creating a struggle with the old workers.

Think of modern day technology people replacing.. machinists and blacksmiths. Doesnt matter if none of them have bosses and work solely for themselves. These new computer+industrial machinery workers are Darwin-ing these older hand-held tools workers.

depends what you mean by hierarchy. this equating of "classlessness" and "equality" is the first thing all newcomers and fake socialists have to get over in order to understand communism.

Kinda like Homo Sapiens #btfo'd Neanderthals, or how red squirrel genocided blue squirrel. Never heard of blue squirrel? Well that's because red squirrel (today a common squirrel) simply Darwined the blue squirrel out.
Animals do this shit all the time. And none of them have bosses. Nature simply is like this.

So what I am asking is, what would be the point of communism, when struggle wouldnt end?

I'd say you gotta read marx before you come to these sorts of conclusions. I'd try and explain through the flaw here (I tried here and there in my posts), but I gotta go to sleep.
That's just the thing: he didn't he thought it was inevitable. He liked communism, but the point wasn't that he liked it, it was that capitalism is doomed to fall apart.
Before I go here's some homework if you're interested in understanding our position better:
Rousseau "discourse on inequality"
Engels "origins of the family"
Marx "the german ideology"
and maybe "wage labor and capital" while you're at it.
There's more of course, but that's a decent start I'd say.

maybe even some bourgeois economics if you can find some. understanding actions in terms of incentives will be very helpful, just don't get all stupid about it.

Both hierarchy and classes imply a power pyramid. Wouldn't the ones at the top of a hierarchy try to entrench their power, thus reestablishing classes?

I'll look into it, I am kinda looking into all kinds of things at the same time, but nothing in great detail.

So far what I came up with, is that life and society and everything is simply like gladiator arena: living organisms simply compete for everything, it is a fundamental part of all of us since our first cell, which has instructions to replicate into more cells, which execute instructions to replicate into different tissues after x replications (bone, nerve, blood, all kinds of tissues), which form organs, which form organisms…….
And all this for the purpose of competing with other organisms later on.

So the point of everything is to do everything you can to advantage yourself. Which is inherently anti-communistic. Cant go around sharing with others for too long, they will become a competition sooner or later.
One must eternally make himself more competitive, that's how I understand things so far.

Yeah this is what I was thinking too. People are fundamentally born different, due to random luck and radiation if nothing else. These differences accumulate into classes.

You skipped like 100,000 years of history until the emergence of slavery. I'm not sure what you mean by shamans and non-shamans, the priests and chiefs you talk about held some authority in hunter-gatherer societies but it wasn't derived from their economic position.


But wolves are hierarchical as fuck. Sure they help each other bring down huge animals, but alpha gets to eat first…

your trying to bee a good person, I get that and I feel it is noble
but look at this guy

just let him loose and sage lock the thread, some people are just gulag bait

An alpha is a headman. That is dictated by his ability to spook his underlings. Stalin was no different, man.
A class implies a segment of the population, as in families upon families. The upper might be so small as to be a dozen or so families, but still. Not one guy.
Now, you could argue he's a dictator, but really, his pack can kill him or run him off any time they want, and this happens all the time.
Gorillas and Chimps do it too.
If you really want to be TOTALLY nonhierarchical, then you'd go with something like Birds. Birds and other hive animals self-organize in a very literal sense, they don't dominate each other, they are really just one big animal made of tiny animals, the extension of how your body and it's organs and the cells that make those up works.

The thing is OP, that you confuse struggle,authority and power with class. Those things will forever exist, but classes do change over time in the evolutionary manner that you describe.

The point is however that classes, when they do not harden into castes, do change, when they start to not work or become unproductive.

A classless society is merely the hypothesis that at one point the very structure of division of production into classes will become unproductive and fail. (What Marx hypothesised).

However you need to distance yourself from some of the humanist utopianism found sometimes in Marx. The question with regards to classless society is not the question is not merel the elimination of labor and if earthly paradise is possible on earth. But that the question of labor and how it relates to human activity will no longer be able to be answered by Capitalism or maybe an other class based system. Capitalism after all is the most meritocratic class system there is so far, and directly tied to the question of technical management. For this reason the Capitalist class cannot be replaced by other more specialised interests in the form of a new class, maybe it can happen if nuclear armageddon happens, and we revert to feudalism, but work and production has lost all of its meaning as it currently is.

When people can no longer work for the accumulation of capital, the question arises is who will even manage wealth at that point? Even a caste of technocrats cannot fulfil that role, since there will be no interest from the Capitalist in the accumulation of wealth. So the whole thing inevitably ends at an impasse.

A classless society however is not an inevitable of evolution, but merel a hypothesis among others.

You have 7 billion people living right now. And this is increasing. Amount of arable land is decreasing because agriculture fucks up the soil. Our most productive oil wells are becoming dry as well.

How the hell can socialism happen?
Unless drastic population reduction happens (which would make me right, the whole gladiator/competition/survival thing I mentioned), socialism is impossible.

You're acting like there isn't enough food to feed people or something.
Cry me a fucking river.

Hives have castes, workers, soldiers, queens etc. Queen for example absolutely dominates everyone else.
Not an expert on birds, but they tend to prey on one another, even eat each other's eggs so they are in constant competition.

But oil is extremely important. People who have it can exploit the living shit out of people who dont. Without oil and other such fuels, you can not achieve almost any political goals, or economic goals, or diplomatic goals, guy that have oil can force guy that doesnt into slavery.
Example: American military and their oil powered machines dictating politics of half of the countries in the world.

That's just total bullshit. The queen is the slave of the hive, she shits out babies and that's it. Period.
The other castes are division of labor. Division of Labor CAN have a classist/elitist element, but doesn't have to.
Besides, we are people, we are complex enough to recognize that we can alternate positions and so on.

If you think the queen dominates the hive, you're a real retarded person and you should be on a mental-age appropriate site right now.

second point, how did Rome rise? Oil?
How did Sumer?
It's not oil, its cooperation. Anyone not in the cooperative is fucked.
Start cooperating.

And what stops one coop from enslaving another coop?

You can't. Every "communist" revolution had a massive state controlling the populace with pqrty elites enjoying luxuries. In the end they ended up collapsing or transitioning back to capitalism and becoming better off like China and Vietnam.

no property rights

Boy, where to start with this.

To start, religion in its most primitive form (base animism and such) was not likely a construct for class control, but rather as a manifestation of normal human anxiety in regards to mortality and serving as a basic framework for understanding/explaining the metaphysical. In this capacity, most religious men like shamans were not explicitly figures of any great political authority, but rather acted as spiritual mediators/advisors. It wasn't until the first primitive states started to form that religious authorities took on the form of a proper class (and I use the term loosely in this case) when they entered into what was effectively a mutualistic relationship with early kings: the priests grant religious legitimacy / divine characteristics to the king, and in return the king ensures that a portion of the value extracted from the subject classes goes to those priests and their religious institutions/temples/whatever. It wasn't a "from the beginning" sort of case, but rather as one of many parts of an emerging historical system of hierarchical class exploitation that took centuries to actually take a shape that we would recognize today. A basic reading of Marx can fill you in on this process more specifically .

Quite a bit changed actually when it came to material relations. It was still marked by class domination, but the specifics of the feudal system would have been only vaguely recognizable to someone who had lived in the height of a slave society.

Yes, we are more similar than different, though I hardly think that's relevant

That's not how genetics works you mong. Radiation can induce mutations, but it is not the driving force of genetic diversity. Almost all mutations barring cases of extreme radiation exposure are caused by failures in DNA replication that fail to be fixed by in-build repair mechanisms, and most of them at that are deleterious in such a way that they severely impede the function of or kill the cell in question. One cell doing this isn't too big of an issue (minus when multiple mutations occur to produce cancer), but if it happens to many cells or happens early in development, that will usually either kill the organism outright or put them at enough of a competitive disadvantage that they would not end up passing their genes.

My being 2 inches taller than my neighbor does not facilitate my ability to make him into my slave, serf, or wage worker. Genetic traits play very little role in what is ultimately a structural issue in our economic and social relations. You don't have to be particularly smart or strong to end up a member of the ruling class, and being both of those two traits plays very little role in your avoidance of being born into the subject class.

This statement has no means of being backed up other than arguments along the lines of "X thing was made under Y exploitative system, therefore said system must be good." On the other hand, I can give you reasons why the exploitation permitted under said system only benefits the ruling class, of who 95% of us are not part of and have no material interests in serving other than we are currently forced to.

Yes, because the Habsburgs were just competitive machines when it came to breeding bigger and better exploiters. Retardation, rare blood disorders, and crippling weakness (among MANY other problems) were relatively common among the historical ruling class (and to some extent those of today), but it ultimately didn't matter because it was the role they were born and/or lifted into that mattered fundamentally; a process nuanced enough that the genetics cease to matter. For genetics to play a big enough role to actually matter in such a large social system, it would essentially have to be the case where the ruling class was full-blown ubermensch while the subject class was such a genetic disaster that they'd be barely functioning enough to survive or breed short of the ruling class grabbing them by the dick and forcing insemination. Unless you're a complete incel that barely interacts with other human beings, it should be clear that this is not the case, and that genetic determinism simply lacks the nuance to explain the phenomena of class.

Only if you allow people to hold private property (not the same thing as personal property) and pass it down to their children.

Because sharing (historically in the form of explicit gift giving more often than everything being held in common) shows off how much of a big strong hunter he is making it easier to woo the lady he has his eye on, means that if he breaks his leg hunting in the future people are more likely to share with him themselves, and generally earns prestige which is way more useful than "capital accumulation" in a society where capital is fucking useless.

Also, people get old and frail. Would be a shame if you got old and frail with nobody who liked you.

Practically everything about the alpha system is bullshit that only occurs in captivity. In the wild something sort of like it occurs but the wolf pack is actively a family unit and the "alpha" couple is the mother and father.
It's like making sweeping generalizations about human behavior entirely through observation of refugee camps.