Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 17:46:50 -0600
Subject:  Engels, foragers and "surplus"


I'd like to review OFPPS and summarize Engels' story about the origin
of the oppression of women, because I don't remember it quite exactly
like either Adam's or Rahul's brief posts.  I once did a bunch of
stuff on M1 on OFPPS and foragers' surplus, which I can dig out, or
Adam you might want to check the archives for Dec 95 and Jan 96.  

[I agree that the sexual division of labor, along with division by
age-group, was among the first division of labor.  But I don't buy
all the other stuff that often seems attached to that phrase.]

Many foraging people have been documented as working well under 40
hrs per week for subsistence.  If some of the time spent singing,
gambling, gossiping, napping, etc. were spent on digging, picking and
tracking, more food could be brought in.  

I think that people don't go out and find and eat some more because
it's not worth it to them, compared to other things they can be
doing, yes, even in terms of individual fitness / RS.  Not because it
is just impossible, or because it would have long-term consequences
for the environment.  Any other possibilities why they don't that you
prefer?

>>> Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>  5/7/96, 02:19am >>>
>  > How do you know that hunter-gatherers had no surplus?
But I could use the slightly circular argument that hunter-gatherer
societies have no classes, therefore there is no surplus.
---

_Slightly circular_ ?  I guess you're attaching the existence of
classes to surplus, because an upper class by definition does no
production itself, so it must be eating the produce of others.  Sure.

But my point is that just because surplus is possible, why would
people produce it?  and why not?  Maybe people only work harder if
they have something to gain by doing so, or something to lose if they
don't.  So, it is either a matter of incentive or coercion, i.e. the
costs and benefits to an individual for engaging in surplus labor or
not, given circumstances beyond hir control in the short run.

If rulers control the means of production so that people are coerced
into "surplus" production as rent or taxes, then my question is how
does this come about?  I'm still working on it.  This is still a new
topic for me, so I don't have all the background on various theories
about it and such.

Lisa

[The film series I've been following on the local education channel
has been fascinating.  It is based on the extensive work done
throughout the Copan valley, on the Mayan society that grew and
developed and fell there.  There was an enormous water reservoir, so
control of means of production meant the wealthy using the best land
in the valley bottom, the peasants stuck up on the hillsides and
control of water for irrigation.  They can trace the growth of the
cities and palaces, the conquests in the stone carvings, a remarkably
detailed history.]



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---