> I hate to say it, but you are speaking platitudes that don't stem from
> original thought, but from more ancient platitudes. That has to be so
> when the typical reference of "proof" is, "it is so because HE said it's
> so." The Social Scientist is apparently well read, but lacking even one
> iota of the original thought that makes the Real Sciences so successful.
>
Actually, I don't give a danm Who said what.
I just look for sensible reasoning.
>
> The powerful did indeed enslave every able bodied person -- for what
> reason, to ensure that *they* would have enough to eat. Some food had
> to be allotted to the slaves, or they could not last long. Most people
> lived in hunger and consequent misery. Where was all that "enough" Food
> you cite. Food happened to be the preoccupation of all effort, because
> there was dire scarcity. Why else was it called the Agrarian era, that
> lasted since time began until a century ago?
>
Ever since the specialisation of labour people
produced more than they needed per head of the
society. Whether the slaves were fed or killed
depended on the wishes of those who owned them,
who also owned the land. The feudal era lasted
a short time in comparison with the hunter/gatherer/
nomad societies, only 5-10k years. Food was
only a scarsity if there was a catastrophy
such as draught, plague, or if war killed too many people
etc. If food was the main preoccupation, how come
there was time and resource for culture, art,
religion etc? Besides the pyramids.
The power was in the hand of those who owned the main mean of
production: land. If food would have been allocated evenly,
there would have been plenty for everyone.
Same as now; we have an enourmous overproduction of
food globally, yet the majority of humans are starving.
> As to the "unimaginable luxury" you spell out, did it include modern
> bathrooms, refrigerators to store excess food, the latest technology in
> anything? What did it "cost" to build the pyramids. Only whatever food
> it took to feed the slaves who built them. What else would you do with
> all that labor? If they were not fed, whether they built the pyramids
> or not, they would die.
>
What I know of it, the ruling elite had luxury far
ahead of the technology, which meant much larger
part of the socially produced goods being spent
on them. Surplus labour - as you term it - means
surplus food.
> Why invade other peoples? To take over their lands, the raw material
> for more Food production.
for more land and slaves.
> Even in modern times that was the excuse
> Hitler used for starting a war. Lebensraum. Why was there dire
> inflation in Hamburg? Because there was an insufficiency of Food, and
> just increasing the Money supply did nothing to increasing the Food
> supply.
>
Propaganda slogans usually do not represent reality.
Hitler fought the 2nd WW for exactly the same reason
the first one was fought for; a larger slice of the
developing global colony/market dominated by France
and the UK.
>
> > It doesn't make sense if all you want is re-creating
> > the same by resuscitating private property relations.
> > How can your well-defined democracy work if one group -
> > the owners of the means of production - have more power
> > than the others?
>
> My studies in Law indicated that there never was nor is any such thing
> as private property, though a great deal of lip service is paid to that
> notion.
I think it is economics that deals with this area of
social science...
> One owns only what he brings into the world and takes out with
> him, absolutely nothing, not even his corporeal body. The group of which
> he is a member is far more powerful than he is, by sheer numbers, and
> depending upon the Real Wealth that the group may possess, will allow
> custodianship to the individual in direct proportion to the wealth of
> the group. However, the group insists that when the individual finally
> leaves us, he will follow certain rigid rules on who will be the next
> custodian, or the group will decide.
>
Fascinating, but not impressive reasoning. Private property -
owning the means of production - was and still is the
source of an unjust, unbalanced society, where even in
the richest country there are very poor people.
The group is dominated by the members who own most of
the wealth. This is well demonstrated in our "democracies"
whichever party is "in power" it does the bidding
of the most powerful elites, at present mostly those
dominating the multinationals/financial capital.
> Wealthy groups, measured by how the essential. least critical "staff of
> life," food, is available to supply everyone, such as some of us today,
> can afford to allow full custodianship of everything to everyone.
Really? So how come I cannot buy land, cannot buy
factory or just stop working and retire to the country?
UK is still one of the richest countries...
> That
> wretched decision a century ago to replace the once scarce essence of
> life, Food (of the triumvirate including Air and Water), with what was
> designed to act as an imaginary surrogate for Food, MONEY, has turned us
> off on the wrong road leading to a precipice that will destroy us all.
>
I thought we had money around for a few thousand years,
what is this decision you're talking about?
We are producing a lot of waste for artificially
created needs, you are right there.
But 4% of the population is able to produce
all the food and more than the developed
countries's population needs at present,
so - what is your point?
I'll read the rest later
Eva
> It is apparent that all people, when thinking of Real Wealth, have Money
> on their minds, as we have all been brainwashed, and overlook that Money
> is NOT wealth, but only a ticket of access. Imagine some of our alleged
> Wealthy, such as Gates, or Trump, converting all their Money into Real
> Wealth -- Food primarily, and perhaps Food derived GDP. They'd be
> buried under a mountain of junk they could never consume, use, store or
>>Hyman
> > > >
> > >
>
