Social and Biological Darwinism One?

[Crispy]

DF/Crispy - so in what ways is cap SO radically different from previous socioeconomic systems? HOW is the division of labour different? What respects does it differ in? What makes it fundamentally different from previous systems of oppression - not that it is more complete than other systems, or more complex because I've addressed these points - but what separates it from other top-down, oppressive/coercive/divisive systems of governing societies as unique? Or is it simply different in the detail and my contention - that it's an evolved, more complex and subtle variation on prior social models - isn't incorrect?

The main difference is that Capitalism enshrines the Right to Private Property as its cornerstone. Under Feudalism, the land you work and the things you own are actually owned by your Lord and can be taken at any time without negotiation. Yes it's still opression, but enforced in quite a different way. Maybe you're being loose with the definitions and I'm being more tight...

 

[gorski]

"Great minds..." and all that..

 

[nino_savatte]

Is that a posting or an Ian Dury song?

That'll be the Taxi Driver's Prayer? Bloody good tune that.

 

[nino_savatte]

The main difference is that Capitalism enshrines the Right to Private Property as its cornerstone. Under Feudalism, the land you work and the things you own are actually owned by your Lord and can be taken at any time without negotiation. Yes it's still opression, but enforced in quite a different way. Maybe you're being loose with the definitions and I'm being more tight...

Whereas with Late Western Capitalism, the boss (lord) owns your time and can make demands on what you do in your personal life (compulsory drug testing to give one example).

 

[Crispy]

Whereas with Late Western Capitalism, the boss (lord) owns your time and can make demands on what you do in your personal life (compulsory drug testing to give one example).

Agreed. It's still not as complete as the domination in Feudalism though is it? I own my computer, my boss isn't going to come and take it away. There are plenty of examples where people can take property from another "lawfully" but they are exceptions, not the rule.

 

[nino_savatte]

Agreed. It's still not as complete as the domination in Feudalism though is it? I own my computer, my boss isn't going to come and take it away. There are plenty of examples where people can take property from another "lawfully" but they are exceptions, not the rule.

Sure and the spaces that can be colonised by the bosses have shifted from physical ones to those spaces that are imagined (like free time).

 

[Crispy]

Sure and the spaces that can be colonised by the bosses have shifted from physical ones to those spaces that are imagined (like free time).

Absolutely. Public space, too - at least under feudalism there was a notion of 'commons'

 

[kyser_soze]

Soooo...when I said that Cap is an evolved variant of the Same Old Shit, I wasn't wrong was I? Nothing you or Nino has written here contradicts that - indeed, my comment about it being more subtle and more brutal could be applied to the sense that LWC allows you the fripperies of material possessions (TVs, home, car...which in a credit based society means that banks and financial instittions are also 'lords' since they CAN come and seize your assets and possessions and effectively 'own' them if you stop paying for them!!) but has also extended the claws of control into previously non-existance areas, such as 'free time' using the examples Nino has?

 

[phildwyer]

Whereas with Late Western Capitalism, the boss (lord) owns your time and can make demands on what you do in your personal life (compulsory drug testing to give one example).

The alienation of labour is indeed a common factor between civilizations, but the form it takes under capitalism is quite different from its manifestation in feudalism.

 

[kyser_soze]

The alienation of labour is indeed a common factor between civilizations, but the form it takes under capitalism is quite different from its manifestation in feudalism.

Yeah - in Feudalism at least you actually believed that it was God's will that your Lord and Master had absolute power over you so probably felt that you were contributing to your own salvation in some small way.

The revealed truth of Capitalism OTOH removes the luxury of such things.

Altho I'd be interested to see what you mean by this...my feeling on it would be that as a pesant you would have more input into the whole process of production - sow the seed, grow the seed, Lord eats the seed ( thank you Neil) - and probably know the miller where it would be ground down etc as opposed to the bit-part, one-cog-in-the-machine alienation of capitalism.

And that's just work. Looking at social relations outside of work, because you would most likely be relatively unaware of the rest of the world you wouldn't have that global perspective we have today which for many (not all) increases the sense of isolation from other humans; you'd most likely live in an extended family unit along with a ommunity where everyone has known each other for generations...

Would I be along the right lines?

 

[ViolentPanda]

No! Accusing someone of having a "vested interest" is worse than accusing someone of accusing someone of having a "vested interest." Obviously. So come on then: what's my "vested interest?"

Oh dear, what a fine parcel of nothing you've presented me with.

If you're unwilling to fulfil your side of a bargain then I don't feel bound to fulfil mine.

 

[gorski]

Soooo...when I said that Cap is an evolved variant of the Same Old Shit, I wasn't wrong was I? Nothing you or Nino has written here contradicts that - indeed, my comment about it being more subtle and more brutal could be applied to the sense that LWC allows you the fripperies of material possessions (TVs, home, car...which in a credit based society means that banks and financial instittions are also 'lords' since they CAN come and seize your assets and possessions and effectively 'own' them if you stop paying for them!!) but has also extended the claws of control into previously non-existance areas, such as 'free time' using the examples Nino has?

In short, you do NOT differentiate between essential, bearer relations i.e. mode of production - ownership of land that owns the owners, so to speak, as opposed to a mode of production where one doesn't produce for the Lord's pleasure but mediated by the market satisfies one's own needs by producing for the satisfaction of other's needs [spiritual animal kingdom, as Hegel puts it].

So, what is the defining moment here? Where labour => surplus value => profit EVERYTHING is essentially different, including our alleged "nature"! Ephemeral, forced similarities do not make it the same!

We are talking about 2 different epochs for loadsa reasons... From the universality of law, to essential upward mobility based on one's efforts, openness of scientific, economic, societal and political discourse, universal suffrage, division of powers, mutual control, the public sphere and so on. From ownership power does not follow, at least not directly. The link is severed! And that is an improvement. Not foolproof but an essential change! We can talk of various ways to influence the law makers etc. but let us not forget the bigger picture here!

A fallen Feudal Lord is still a feudal Lord, different laws and customs valid for him/her, whereas a fallen capitalist is a proletarian! The abolishing of feudalism was based on some damn good reasons we need to revisit every so often, it seems... It cost many lives!!

The fact that the tricolour flag was quickly made into a single colour flag (after the French Revolution) is a different issue. Revolutionary bourgeoisie brings Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood forth as the password of Modernity that unifies the oppressed against the Ancien Régime and then, from its revolutionary role, quickly descends into a conservative force, trying to instate Liberty (of ownership) as the only value that is "worth preserving", i.e. “natural”.

Without proletariat they (bourgeoisie) couldn't have pulled it off but all of a sudden... And yes, we need to keep doing the same thing Marx did: he came back at the liberals and told them that he takes them seriously at their word, after they have quickly changed their mind and once a better, more just societal framework was put into place they washed their hands off the potential consequences of the reductionism that was taking place since the Bourgeois Revolution....

Nevertheless, the two epochs are essentially different, regardless of some elements that are on the margins of the epoch.

 

[phildwyer]

Yeah - in Feudalism at least you actually believed that it was God's will that your Lord and Master had absolute power over you so probably felt that you were contributing to your own salvation in some small way.

The revealed truth of Capitalism OTOH removes the luxury of such things.

Altho I'd be interested to see what you mean by this...my feeling on it would be that as a pesant you would have more input into the whole process of production - sow the seed, grow the seed, Lord eats the seed ( thank you Neil) - and probably know the miller where it would be ground down etc as opposed to the bit-part, one-cog-in-the-machine alienation of capitalism.

And that's just work. Looking at social relations outside of work, because you would most likely be relatively unaware of the rest of the world you wouldn't have that global perspective we have today which for many (not all) increases the sense of isolation from other humans; you'd most likely live in an extended family unit along with a ommunity where everyone has known each other for generations...

Would I be along the right lines?

Yes you would. I'd rather be a peasant than a proletarian any day. As long as you pay your tribute and your tithe, you're pretty much left alone. The state and the mass media don't intrude into your life. The lord has, and genuinely feels, a responsibility for your welfare, a duty to your protection and an interest in your subsistence. There's no work ethic demanding that you attain as many consumer goods as you possibly can. There's no call on you to fight the state's wars. Your labour is at least harmonious with nature, outdoors and generally healthy, certainly in comparison to mines and factories. You have a secure sense of community and a strong extended family. I regard the rise of industrial capitalism as the worst disaster ever to befall the human race.

 

[phildwyer]

Oh dear, what a fine parcel of nothing you've presented me with.

If you're unwilling to fulfil your side of a bargain then I don't feel bound to fulfil mine.

There was no "bargain." Why would I make a bargain with you? You accused me of having a "vested interest" in arguing for intelligent design, I asked you to explain your accusation, and you refused to do so. That makes you look like a liar. Are you a liar?

 

[Binkie]

Sharing leads to success

Successful societies have always shared and co-operated. The more they co-operated the more they prospered. This communism is a sign of civilization and progress.

 

[kyser_soze]

Gorski -

In short, you do NOT differentiate between essential, bearer relations

Who are you referring to here? Me personally or some unspecified 3rd person?

whereas a fallen capitalist is a proletarian!

This is only true to an extent. There are 000s of examples of company owners who have been made bankrupt and within 6 months are 'capitalists' again - I'd suggest reading 'In The City' in Private Eye for examples of 'fallen capitalists' who don't remain proles for very long, if any time at all!

 

[kyser_soze]

Successful societies have always shared and co-operated. The more they co-operated the more they prospered. This communism is a sign of civilization and progress.

Define succesful society.

I and many others would argue that given the dominant position of societies based on the capitalist model that they are the most successful (in terms of life expectancy, mortality rate etc).

 

[Binkie]

Dominant is not successful.

 

[Binkie]

A successful society is one that best serves human needs.

 

[Binkie]

Capitalism is failing in that respect.

 

[kyser_soze]

Examples of what you'd define as a sucessful society? And what are 'human needs'? If you're referring to shelter, food and a secure reproductive environment, the West wins hands down.

Surely the key mark of success in a society is it's ability to grow, spread and propogate it's population, and give that population the highest possible survivability rate?

 

[Binkie]

We need to improve on capitalism. It has had its day. It produces war, terrorism, inefficient duplication of effort, drug dependancy, poverty, exploitation of man by man, superstition, infantile consumerism, and a depraved culture.

 

[kyser_soze]

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions...

 

[Jo/Joe]

Modern day capitalism is clearly insufficient for many reasons. A multitude of gadgets to choose from only goes so far in satisfying human need, especially those harder to define ones.

phil, I'm curious, would you rather be a feudal peasant than a modern day 'prole'? How on earth can you know what is was to be tied to lord and land in the middle ages?

 

[Binkie]

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions...

It's true though.

 

[kyser_soze]

Um yes, but you still haven't clearly defined what makes for a successful society, nor have you supplied any examples thereof.

 

[Binkie]

A successful society will be built on the remnants of this one.

 

[Binkie]

It will survive and then be ipso facto the fittest. Just like capitalism was in its day.

 

[gorski]

Holly cow... You're talkin' through yer arse, m8!

Yes you would. I'd rather be a peasant than a proletarian any day. As long as you pay your tribute and your tithe, you're pretty much left alone.

No, you're not! Ever heard of the first marital night right that the feudal Lord has to? You're sent walking round the house while he's having a go at your bride... if he's interested, of course... Not to mention all the crazy Lordy mothersuckers having a big bad go at anything that moves more or less... just for the hell of it - and I don't mean sexually...

The state and the mass media don't intrude into your life. The lord has, and genuinely feels, a responsibility for your welfare, a duty to your protection and an interest in your subsistence.

Subsistence, eh? Ever heard of the famines and serious illnesses that plagued those times, where a great part of the population went underground... literally? How were they genuinely concerned?

There's no work ethic demanding that you attain as many consumer goods as you possibly can. There's no call on you to fight the state's wars.

The work ethics has nowt to do with consumer society, which comes later... Wars, eh? Any idea what happens to a peasant when an army passes your way? My word, you have mud instead of brains...

Your labour is at least harmonious with nature, outdoors and generally healthy, certainly in comparison to mines and factories.

Are you for real? We created more damage to the forests back then and earlier... Of course, these days that goes for EU and similar places - we still need to protect the Amazon and African jungle etc. But we are managing all that better these days... Earlier, at the beginning of Capitalism, when we thought that nature is an infinite resource that was the case, you are right but we CAN and we ARE learning! It’s not as fast as it should and could be, I agree with that but – the very possibility of Humanity learning/changing/improving can not be dismissed in a cynical, blasé manner!!

In addition, that couldn't have happened in the closed society that has no public sphere - feudalism - it could only have happened in Modernity, i.e. an open society! Have a look at New Zealand and similar stuff that happened to flora and fauna as Mankind got there, for instance.

Modernity rests squarely on intellectually and ethically competent subject! Ergo, nowt of all of this is guaranteed, certainly true, so we have to keep being interested, of course, keep the pressure, keep fighting all those good fights!

Nevertheless, there is no such possibility in feudalism, with peasants who can't even fathom what they are doing to the world, can't even have a global view of any seriousness... All that comes these days. You are putting stuff into feudalism that has nothing to do with it - it's today's issues shoved into past!

 

[gorski]

Gorski -

Who are you referring to here? Me personally or some unspecified 3rd person?

This is only true to an extent. There are 000s of examples of company owners who have been made bankrupt and within 6 months are 'capitalists' again - I'd suggest reading 'In The City' in Private Eye for examples of 'fallen capitalists' who don't remain proles for very long, if any time at all!

OK, I'm trying to talk about the issues, never mind the names - if we could possibly avoid it, please... would be cool...

I know some of those personally - they get 5 years ban on holding exec positions after "mismanaging" gazzillions of pounds, indeed. I know very well what you are talking about. The arguments behind it are seriously idiotic: they are defending these guys with "there aren't many people who can manage companies" etc. White collar crime is a serious issue we should all take notice of, agreed!

But it's not universal. And many a time they do end up poor and with no friends... of the sort they are after... The media do take the opposite cases, however, to their front pages - and rightly so! We should know about it and make the necessary changes so it isn't possible to keep happening... However, the principle should be considered in relation to Feudalism.