[americandream]

I am today opening a thread on the phenomenon of history. The aim of course, is to elevate consciousness and as I stated elsewhere, this site suits my purposes admirably in tailoring my approach to this project. In here will be posted excerpts from fine interpretations of that dialectic and people may take them as they find those posts. I will not be engaging in raging arguments as my understanding of history is to my full and rational satisfaction and this is less about prosletyising rather offering glimpses of that process to those with the capacity to engage in consciousness. Thus I will briefly engage with those who suggest further clarification, the thrust being that the process of conscientisation is underway and proceeding. The highly subjective will not be responded to. That said, anyone can reply even if to put that subjectivity on full display. This is a human centric project and not dedicated to saving the planet nor in any way inferring a partisan position as regards the worlds current state of bourgeoisie politics, left or right. I will periodically post in here so this is a somewhat long termish project for me to collect my thoughts and clarify them as dialeciticsm reaches an optimal point in the markets for me. Of course some of what I may post will cause us to reflect on the state of the world (the climate and peak oil being two obvious ones) and may cause us to take one or other position. That is not my intent but an unintended outcome. The objective here for me is to nuance my explanation of history which is, for the moment and at best, abysmally inadequate, a sort of geopolitical project on the flow of human consciousness. With that in mind, these posts will seek to capture the flow of history but may not necessarily be as ordered as they should be. I will italicise them to distinguish them from surrounding material. This op should be a point of reference ideally for the astute reader and one hopes that this thread will work so. Posts will be infrequent and as time permits, my life being a complex and busy one. Thankyou for your time:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

[GHung]

"....my life being a complex and busy one."

You have my sympathies. Interferes with objectivity.

[Plantagenet]

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

So when a group of poor, devout Muslims in Brussels blow up innocent wealthy people waiting in line for their boarding passes at the Brussels airport, who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed?

[Hawkcreek]

So when a group of poor, devout Muslims in Brussels blow up innocent wealthy people waiting in line for their boarding passes at the Brussels airport, who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed?

Interesting question, but the answer given will probably depend on who you ask the question of.

[GoghGoner]

I am not participating in a class struggle. Does my yesterday count as history? Apparently not, by the blanket statement above.

[americandream]

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

So when a group of poor, devout Muslims in Brussels blow up innocent wealthy people waiting in line for their boarding passes at the Brussels airport, who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed? :idea:

Very good question Plant. In that instance, we look at the underlying systems, where they are placed in the historic records, their nature and of course the elites and character of that elitism.

Islam predates capitalism, it is largely hereditary, feudal, conquistidorial and minimally based on reason (a sort of early incarnation of reason with rules mostly subjective and based on speculation, the speculations of a number of religious persons.)

In contrast, Capitalism arrived later (after the Reformation and Enlightenment, is bourgeoisie (who are of revolutionary effect on world culture) and meritorious (in as much as endless innovation is constantly replenishing the ranks of capitalists limiting their capacity to hold wealth in for any length of time (subject of course to the rules on consolidation which take on a systemic significance as capitalism approaches its limits to surplus).

Thus when one talks of conflict between these systems, one is talking about conflict between a hereditary elite as opposed to a merit based innovative elite. In the complex whole of history, Islam now stands surplus to requirements and an obstruction to the flow of capitalisms objective and globalising forces.

Within Islam thus lies the unresolved class conflict, NOT between the systems. That is a distraction that serves the Islamic elite. In addition, the class basis in Islam is of another order to that in capitalism and clearly not yet developed but increasingly moving in that direction as the newer generations observe the wealth creating capacity inherent in capitalism. In other words, Islam is on the brink of an internal meltdown hence the desperation of the elites (increasingly so with the advent of new oil extractionisms in the past 10 years) and the rise of ostensibly "revolutionary" groups such as ISIS.

As for capitalisms own historic encounter with dialecticism, that has yet to arrive given the huge surplus available in the as yet largely undeveloped planet.

Of course, climate is an issue I hear some cry out. Certainly. But there are no guarantees with history.

[americandream]

Oh...and to directly answer Plants question, history would be complied with, with the destruction of the Islamic elite and its forces and thus the passengers on the plane are victims of this despicable reaction which took their lives and must in every instance be resisted with maximum and unquestioning force. These are barbaric regressive forces intent on serving an utterly outdated elite, suited for an era in the past but of no consequence whatsoever in contemporary history. (Oh I hear accusations of Western involvement in the ME and that has more to do with the incompetent nature of establishment politics discussed below). Bourgeoise liberals who for sentimental reasons who fail to see this are better to stay silent or where vocal, be ignored and shooed out of the picture. Corrupt establishment figures are ideally defanged asap and hence my preference for either Sanders or Trump, both largely independent of the corruption that has bedevilled establishment management for decades (well, one hopes that this will be the case. With Clinton, we can expect more interference from the Arab elites.)

[careinke]

Islam predates capitalism, it is largely hereditary, feudal, conquistidorial and minimally based on reason (a sort of early incarnation of reason with rules mostly subjective and based on speculation, the speculations of a number of religious persons.)

In contrast, Capitalism arrived later (after the Reformation and Enlightenment, is bourgeoisie (who are of revolutionary effect on world culture) and meritorious (in as much as endless innovation is constantly replenishing the ranks of capitalists limiting their capacity to hold wealth in for any length of time (subject of course to the rules on consolidation which take on a systemic significance as capitalism approaches its limits to surplus).

AD, I would be interested in the basis for your claim "Islam predates Capitalism."

The Prophet Mohamed's first wife, Khadija, ran one of the largest caravan enterprises in the ME. Mohamed was one of her workers. He relied on her wealth during their 25 years of monogamous marriage. Maybe we have different definitions, but she sounds like a capitalist to me. During this time there was lots of trading and commerce going on across the Arabian Peninsula. Some were making lots of money based on enterprise.

What about the merchants Jesus was so upset with? Would you consider them capitalists, how about Sodom?

So, IMHO capitalism existed well before Islam. Perhaps our disagreement is based on different views of what capitalism is.

[americandream]

careinke

Keep an eye on this thread and those historic questions will be answered. They flow from an introduction of the forces that define historic forms thus determining the resultant social relationships from bartering tribesmen on the African veld trading stores, in early-historica, to a trader in the pits in an exchange in contemporary times.

[radon1]

AD, I would be interested in the basis for your claim "Islam predates Capitalism."

The Prophet Mohamed's first wife, Khadija, ran one of the largest caravan enterprises in the ME. Mohamed was one of her workers. He relied on her wealth during their 25 years of monogamous marriage. Maybe we have different definitions, but she sounds like a capitalist to me. During this time there was lots of trading and commerce going on across the Arabian Peninsula. Some were making lots of money based on enterprise.

What about the merchants Jesus was so upset with? Would you consider them capitalists, how about Sodom?

So, IMHO capitalism existed well before Islam. Perhaps our disagreement is based on different views of what capitalism is.

They were the "financial sector" rather than "capitalists". Capitalism involves technological division of labor on a mass scale, to address the waves of demand.

[ROCKMAN]

- "They were the "financial sector" rather than "capitalists". Capitalism involves technological division of labor on a mass scale, to address the waves of demand.

Not that this topics holds much interest for me but I always question inferences that bother me. So the Big Mo and his wife weren't capitalists that thrived on the "division of labor: those camel drives (using that then modern tech mode of transport) were getting the same income as the happy couple? I don’t it. I see no difference between those camel jocks and the hands that drive the trucks that pick oil from those ExxonMobil wells: folks working for business owners and getting paid for their labor seems to be at the heart of capitalism

[americandream]

Capitalism is characterised by, as radon correctly states, specialisation and the urbanisation of a previously agrarian populace into labour....for the systematic extraction of surplus value or energy, conscientised energy for the commodification of raw material or primary inputs.

In addition capital, unlike previous forms of wealth which were essentially real, consists of a more dynamic mix of intangible and real value. Value that is systematically worked and amplified through mechanisms two, three, four and many folds plus which is where the cyclical ruptures that characterise the boom and bust nature of the system has its basis.

This distraction with the banking sector tends to distract away from these cyclical tendencies which will mark the systems progress around the globe...driving that expansion in the endless quest for new sources of surplus.

[radon1]

I see no difference between those camel jocks and the hands that drive the trucks that pick oil from those ExxonMobil wells:

Vast difference actually. Camel journey's involved no technology, while driving a truck involves a great number of technologies operated on vast scales. Those technologies are needed to produce the trucks, pumps etc. Production of trucks involves lots of "abstract" labor (Marx's discovery btw), i.e. people having no clue in the final results of their efforts, just being told "take that and put it there and do it all the day". Their labor is thus being "technologically" organised and divided between them by someone else. These people constitute what is called "labor force" and are a key feature of capitalism.

[GregT]

I see no difference between those camel jocks and the hands that drive the trucks that pick oil from those ExxonMobil wells:

Vast difference actually. Camel journey's involved no technology, while driving a truck involves a great number of technologies operated on vast scales.

I guess that would depend on how one defines technology.

tech·nol·ogy
The definition of technology is science or knowledge put into practical use to solve problems or invent useful tools.

History of Technology

Stone Age - The development of simple tools from wood or shards of rock and the discovery of fire, which provided a way to cook food and create heat and light, were technological developments which allowed people to accomplish tasks more easily and quickly.

Bronze Age - The evolving ability of man to work with metal gave the ability to form stronger tools, and the introduction of the wheel allowed people greater ability to travel and communicate.

Iron Age - The ability to work with harder metals than copper and tin, to smelt iron, and to be able to remove iron from ore allowed for rapid increases in weapons making, brought the development of tools that benefit civilization and gave greater ability to perform tasks, such as manufacturing and transportation.

Computers and the Internet - The ability to perform basic thinking processes much faster enables business, science and commerce to proceed much more efficiently.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/technology

[evilgenius]

Capitalism is simply the understanding, by the use of rules both written and unwritten, that capital(investment as an ownership or quasi-ownership input) is a tradeable commodity. It is an acknowledgment of the complexity of entrepreneurial or business endeavor in the industrial age. It takes so much investment to either launch or expand endeavors once they get over a certain size that they can't be done without commoditizing investment into units of ownership which can be traded, either technically or literally. It came with the realization that without the ability to trade ownership nothing of any substantial size, in terms of corporate activity, could ever be hoped for. The corporation allowed for the splitting up of both power and benefits as well, by allowing for corporate charters to arrange such things as the original investors understood they should be according to what their positions demanded.

Accordingly, the issue that capital faces right now in history is that of return. Specifically, ought investors to enjoy return on investment in the near-term as opposed to return over time via the expansion or growth of the enterprise? Should profit be given back or reinvested? If you give it back, what is the best way to do that? There has been an awful lot of societal manipulation that has taken place because of this very question.

The current understanding is to return value to shareholders on a more near-term basis. There have been exceptions to this, usually in high growth industries in which it has been understood that returning value to shareholders on a more immediate basis would hamstring a company that is attempting to fulfill some idea of ideal size within the new or suddenly changing industry. But even there in the modern era there is a huge amount of speculation involved in investing. There aren't any more sure things such as railroads or steel making were that anybody could see would be a successful thing, and that famously were owned by one or a small number of persons. Venture capital may attempt to occupy that position, but it almost always does so anachronistically, and, therefore, only over the short-term at the beginning of a corporation's life-cycle.

The problem with the focus upon return is that it disenfranchises those who might actually chose to own a stake in a company, own stock in a company, based upon what that company does rather than how much the stock price might go up. It tends to negate the interests of those who wish to make a return merely from the successful operations of an established corporation which is unlikely to change within a more static industry or business model. The emphasis upon returning value to shareholders has caused all kinds of changes within the structure of corporations, from the rise of management into a superior position of power over that of those we might have called traditional capitalists to the continued decrease of the value of labor to the corporation within a now hyper-commoditized financially driven corporate model that favors the near-term. It, instead, introduces varying levels of competition between those who own stock which can most easily be resolved via the percentage of ownership that an individual with a certain attitude might hold.

It makes traditional capitalists play by the new rules, whether they want to or not. They can still game the system. In fact, they have to game the system, and they have to do it more quickly. So only those who can will. Those who can't are, in a sense, economically disenfranchised. Even if you own stock you may, therefore, not participate in the flow of money toward the top.

So I think the challenge that history has placed before us is to, first of all, figure out if we want the flow to the top to be so predominant. There are a lot of remonstrations going on within society that suggest we don't. Nobody can really be certain, however, that those are truly indicative of the precise mindset of the people vis a vis the flow of money. The success of those who agitate for whole groups to vote against their inherent best interests is a case in point. Donald Trump is doing that right now. He is essentially appealing to that inner-man who always thought he could be CEO if circumstance would just point him out. In like manner we may actually want the flow to the top to continue, no matter the inequality it will eventually produce, because we deep down believe in opportunity or some other concept over that of economic suffrage.

Secondarily, should we decide in favor of economic suffrage, we have to decide how we should do it. Like a lot of things there will probably prove to be several ways to go about accomplishing it. Those ways will probably come with differing philosophical outlooks. Playing fair, in other words, will have different meanings to different people, but there may be a fair way that can encompass the whole endeavor.

[americandream]

Wow. Prescient item from the Economist. That said, this is cyclical consolidation as the presence of as yet unharvested labour surplus worldwide presents capital with ample room for innovative competition and the destruction of existing forms of consolidatiion (no capitalist is safe for the moment, from competition (subject of course to energy limits which is something of a gray area due to our Arab feudal friends sitting atop global energy reserves...all pray to the shale god with a wary eye on climate in the meantime):

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... centration

[ralfy]

Capitalism also involves control of property through physical force:

http://monthlyreview.org/1998/07/01/the ... apitalism/

and the use of credit, which makes the belief that such a system can exist without banks and the financial sector questionable.

As for the recent attacks, one may consider:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/ ... -isis.html

[GregT]

Capitalism also involves control of property through physical force

Capitalism also requires the exploitation of natural resources, (many of which are finite) and other people's labour.

Eventually capitalism will reach natural limits, (of which climate change is one) and those who have been exploited will revolt. Yet again.

Wash, rinse, repeat, until the natural limit is finally met for our entire species survivability. At that point, capitalism will have finally run it's course. Insatiable human greed will have won.

[Hawkcreek]

Capitalism also involves control of property through physical force

Capitalism also requires the exploitation of natural resources, (many of which are finite) and other people's labour.

Eventually capitalism will reach natural limits, (of which climate change is one) and those who have been exploited will revolt. Yet again.

Wash, rinse, repeat, until the natural limit is finally met for our entire species survivability. At that point, capitalism will have finally run it's course. Insatiable human greed will have won.

Good post. All the above makes sense to me.
Of course, if we could get off the planet, we could extend greed throughout the universe!

[GregT]

Thanks Hawkcreek,

Subjectively, capitalism has been very good for me. Objectively, capitalism is a dead end for not only humanity, but most, if not all life on this planet.