Gerry:
>Class rebounds and reappears; always has and always will.
John: Not necessarily so. Australian Aboriginal cultures are
classless. So
were the Ituri Pigmies and the !Kung Bushmen. And the New Guinean
Highlanders. Class stratification seems to occur wherever human groups
exceed the carrying capacity of the natureal environment and it becomes
advantageous to one group to confiscate the work of a more powerless
group. This becomes institutionalised, and social stratifications get
born.
Gerry: What you have said makes sense. If the natural resources are
ample, then why would it be necessary for class to exist? Everyone has
the same access to the same goods. Did everyone possess the same
projectile points (perhaps so)? But what about family size? Surely
some families were larger than others. Or what about leaders in the
hunt (a Bigman)or for finding natural resources? Even among the
!Kungbushmen, some of the folks were better at dancing, or drumming, or
hunting -- actually there was some form of stratification but perhaps
this didn't cause social problems because everyone had access to a wide
assortment of things. But what if someone by chance found a special
"shell" or "rock". Wouldn't he/she gain the groups envy? Hmmm. Nope. I
really can't buy the fact that some groups were classless. Even in a
family clan, there are folks who are chiefs and those who are indians.
I'm reminded of Lord of the Flies by Golding or Orwell's Animal Farm
where some kids (pigs too) are more equal than the others. There's
heirarchy in all animal groups from birds, to ants, to bees etc. No. I
think hierarchy is what's natural and equality is a social structure.
But I'm open to pursuasion, so pursuade away.
Gerry
--
Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com