[lbo-talk] Progress and Cariucature (Was Re: Catholicism. . . )

Ted Winslow egwinslow at rogers.com
Mon Dec 15 13:11:36 PST 2008


Charles Brown wrote:


> Note bene: these "passions" arise with class exploitative and
> oppressive society,

This isn't quite accurate.

Since they create "class exploitative and oppressive society", they must arise from within "the old gentile society" whose "power" they "break".

According to Engels and Marx, this "breaking" is progressive (it's this that, here as in other historical transitions, constitutes "the lowest interests", "the vilest means", as "passions" in Hegel's sense), i.e. it’s "a step towards freedom" since "the first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves".

"we must not forget that this organization [‘the old gentile society’] was doomed. It did not go beyond the tribe. The confederacy of tribes already marks the beginning of its collapse, as will soon be apparent, and was already apparent in the attempts at subjugation by the Iroquois. Outside the tribe was outside the law. Wherever there was not an explicit treaty of peace, tribe was at war with tribe, and wars were waged with the cruelty which distinguishes man from other animals, and which was only mitigated later by self-interest. The gentile constitution in its best days, as we saw it in America, presupposed an extremely undeveloped state of production and therefore an extremely sparse population over a wide area. Man's attitude to nature was therefore one of almost complete subjection to a strange incomprehensible power, as is reflected in his childish religious conceptions. Man was bounded by his tribe, both in relation to strangers from outside the tribe and to himself; the tribe, the gens, and their institutions were sacred and inviolable, a higher power established by nature, to which the individual subjected himself unconditionally in feeling, thought, and action. However impressive the people of this epoch appear to us, they are completely undifferentiated from one another; as Marx says, they are still attached to the navel string of the primitive community. [5] The power of this primitive community had to be broken, and it was broken. But it was broken by influences which from the very start appear as a degradation, a fall from the simple moral greatness of the old gentile society. The lowest interests—base greed, brutal appetites, sordid avarice, selfish robbery of the common wealth—inaugurate the new, civilized, class society. It is by the vilest means—theft, violence, fraud, treason—that the old classless gentile society is undermined and overthrown. And the new society itself, during all the two and a half thousand years of its existence, has never been anything else but the development of the small minority at the expense of the great exploited and oppressed majority; today it is so more than ever before.”

“[5] ‘Those ancient social organisms of production are, as compared with bourgeois society, extremely simple and transparent. But they are founded either on the immature development of man individually, who has not yet severed the umbilical cord that unified him with his fellow men in a primitive tribal community, or upon direct relations of domination and subjection.’ -- (Karl Marx, Capital Vol. I, p. 51, New York.) Ed.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch03.htm

"Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development. The first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in the field of culture was a step towards freedom." http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm

Engels's claim above re inter-tribal warfare

“Outside the tribe was outside the law. Wherever there was not an explicit treaty of peace, tribe was at war with tribe, and wars were waged with the cruelty which distinguishes man from other animals, and which was only mitigated later by self-interest.”

Is also made by Marx.

“Linguet is improbably right, when in his “Théorie des Lois Civiles,” he declares hunting to be the first form of co-operation, and man- hunting (war) one of the earliest forms of hunting.” <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm#20a>

Pierre Clastres makes “satisfying their passionate liking for warfare” one of the main leisure-time tribal “occupations experienced not as pain but as pleasure”.

“The Indians devoted relatively little time to what is called work. And even so, they did not die of hunger. The chronicles of the period are unanimous in describing the fine appearance of the adults, the good health of the many children, the abundance and variety of things to eat. Consequently, the subsistence economy in effect among the Indian tribes did not by any means imply an anxious, full-time search for food. It follows that a subsistence economy is compatible with a substantial limitation of the time given to productive activities. Take the case of the South American tribes who practiced agriculture, the Tupi-Guarani, for example, whose idleness was such a source of irritation to the French and the Portuguese. The economic life of those Indians was primarily based on agriculture, secondarily on hunting, fishing, and gathering. The same garden plot was used for from four to six consecutive years, after which it was abandoned, owing either to the depletion of the soil, or, more likely, to an invasion of the cultivated space by a parasitic vegetation that was difficult to eliminate. The biggest part of the work, performed hy the men, consisted of clearing the necessary area by the slash and burn technique, using stone axes. This job, accomplished at the end of the rainy season, would keep the men busy for a month or two. Nearly all the rest of the agricultural process--planting, weeding, harvesting-- was the responsibility of the women, in keeping with the sexual division of labor. This happy conclusion follows: the men (i.e., one- half the population ) worked about two months every four years! As for the rest of the time, they reserved it for occupations experienced not as pain but as pleasure: hunting and fishing; entertainments and drinking sessions; and finally for satisfying their passionate liking for warfare.” <http://www.primitivism.com/society-state.htm>

Ted



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list