Can there be a “non class-based state”?

[robbo203]

Steve Just to clarify.  I am not a technological determinist and don't advance technological determinism as an explanation for the way things turn out, society wise. The reference to Wittfogels concept of the "hydraulic society" was not an endorsement of technological determinism and I don't actually hold that the  nature of the state in the so called Asiatic Mode of production was that of a "non class state* (which to me is an absurdity).  The land might have been subject to communal ownership at the village level but land is not the only means of production – so is labour – and in the AMP labour took an alienated form expressed in the compulsory labour contributions of ordinary people to monumental structures like temples and palaces that celebrated the power and wealth of the ruling class. Technology is never neutral,  it is always socially mediated and structured.  We should be very wary of any approach that promotes technological fixes as the solution to social problems.  Invariably such an approach vests power in the hands of the fixers and disempowers the rest of us

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Steve I don't actually hold that the  nature of the state in the so called Asiatic Mode of production was that of a "non class state* (which to me is an absurdity).  The land might have been subject to communal ownership at the village level but land is not the only means of production – so is labour – and in the AMP labour took an alienated form expressed in the compulsory labour contributions of ordinary people to monumental structures like temples and palaces that celebrated the power and wealth of the ruling class.

As promised I won't argue further for technological determinism in this thread. . . But as a curiosity, what is the evidence that the production of monumenetal structures and temples and palaces were celebrations of the power and wealth of the ruling class?  Kids who know knowthing of communism or socialism playing on the beach will often spontaneously work together to produce a monumental sand castle larger than any single kid alone could produce and they celebrate it and show it off. The kids don't seem to need a compusive ruling class ordering them to produce monuments to serve their parents.  It raises the question of in a classless state where their was no capitalist ruling class, then what would the communist do with their surplus?  there's a limit to how many cars you can want and toasters you can fit in your house and how many houses you could use before maintaining them became too tedious.  How long before an ideal communist state starts building space ships to mars or do they never do that? How long before they produce a taj mahal? is their some theory on this question? This idea gives rise to another thought: "can you determine if a state is classless by the nature of the goods and/or technology it produces"?  is there some "class signature" and a "non-class signature" archeologically discoverable way to discriminate something about class and communism based on artifacts?  And in present times,  According to Marx functioinal description of communism and capitalism are there secondary artifacts of communism and socialism? for capitalism we say things like it always leads to corruptioin perhaps and corruption is not an inherent part of capitalism's definitioin it is a secondary artificact or symptom of capitalism.  What are the secondary artifcacts of communism or a classless society?  To what degree did past communistic islands produce the expected secondary artifacts of communistism or exibit signature patterns of communism in their production artifacts?  Can islands be analyzed to undersand and classify the various forms of communism much like animals are identified by taxonomy? I would find such an analysis very interesting if you know of one.  Well that's a lot of brain storming and too many questions, so don't feel like you need to answer them all for me.  I'm mostly just thinking while writing and this is a brainstorming comment for me not a comment I feel any conviction about. P.s. the post you replied too was intended for Mcolom1 so I left the survey off for his preference.  Your response has been of value to me and worth my time reading and if you want I can add the survey to let your claim 10 minutes of my time, which is roughly the value I guess as fair exchange for your time responding to me. 

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 But as a curiosity, what is the evidence that the production of monumenetal structures and temples and palaces were celebrations of the power and wealth of the ruling class?  Kids who know knowthing of communism or socialism playing on the beach will often spontaneously work together to produce a monumental sand castle larger than any single kid alone could produce and they celebrate it and show it off. The kids don't seem to need a compusive ruling class ordering them to produce monuments to serve their parents.  It raises the question of in a classless state where their was no capitalist ruling class, then what would the communist do with their surplus?  there's a limit to how many cars you can want and toasters you can fit in your house and how many houses you could use before maintaining them became too tedious.  How long before an ideal communist state starts building space ships to mars or do they never do that? How long before they produce a taj mahal? is their some theory on this question? 

Well,  i think its pretty obvious that these monumental structures  were a celebration of the power, prestige  and wealth of the ruling class.  Lewis Mumford whose great work "The City in History" (1961) – I had a copy once but lost it – goes into all this in great detail. Palaces for example were built for the benefit of the elite who resided in them.  The labour that went into erecting them – unlike kids building sandcastles – was coerced alienated labour.  The very design of these structures was calculated to impress and intimidate and to convey the message of impregnable power.  Kids build "castles" too but I would suggest this is a reflex of the kind of sociuety we live in which encourages us to look upon history as a sucession of kings or queens and other such "great people".  I bet the children of hunter gatherers playing in the mud by a river bank dont build "castles" out of the mud To me the concept of a "surplus" make no sense in a communist society.  Means of production are no more surplus to means of consumption  in a communist society than means of consumption are surplus to means of production. They just fulfil different functions.  The very notion of a surplus presupposes in my view a class society and the extraction of an economic surplus from one class by another and makes no sense outside of that context Nor is there any state in a communist society. The state is an institution that pertains to a class society.  Its is the institutional tool by which one class rules over another class or classes. There is no leverage in a communist society by which anyone could exert power over others given voluntary labour and free access to goods and services. that are the hallmarks of a communist society  And without power there is quite simply no possibility of extracting an economic surplus either….

[Author]

Posts