| home |
CHAPTER 8THE EVOLUTIONARY BASIS OF CO-OPERATION AND HUMANISM
Individuals and groups who oppose the capitalist system of production and exchange usually do so from concerns about the plight of human beings, the environment, or other life forms which inhabit the planet. These opponents are numbered in millions. Whilst many of them may share a common understanding of what they are against, the perspective of what kind of post-capitalist society might replace capital has become somewhat confused and distorted. Yet the anti-capitalist struggle, implicitly, and often explicitly, touches upon the most fundamental considerations regarding the creation of a better form of social existence for the planet and its inhabitants. Since the term socialism has become something of a dirty word due to the distortions suffered at the hands of the Stalinists, Reformists and Sectarians, it seems that the practical ideas that bear upon a post-capitalist society, need further consideration. The primary practical meaning underlying the term co-operative or communal production is undoubtedly that expressed by the idea of economic and social co-operation. It is perhaps revealing that, with a few notable exceptions, this too has suffered almost the same fate as socialism. In the advanced countries, co-operation as an alternative form of social and economic organisation to capitalist production, seems to have been sidelined by all except a few remaining supporters of the tradition of co-operators originated by Robert Owen and the Rochdale Pioneers. In the less technically advanced countries, it is often promoted as a temporary expedient where the capitalist system has collapsed or failed to develop, rather than a superior method of socio-economic organisation. It is worth, therefore, considering co-operation as a form of beneficial association, in more detail and on a wider scale. I intend to do this within an evolutionary context, before again considering its relevance to post-capitalist forms of production.
Those readers who have become accustomed to accepting the dualistic separation of 'nature' and 'society' and view them as categories opposed to each other, will be uncomfortable with much of this chapter. They may feel there is nothing to learn from the study of nature that reflects upon the world of human society. I agree there is a need to be on guard against mechanistic parallels between phenomena observed in nature and those observed in human society. However, I shall be making the obvious case that human development, has for millions of years had 'natural' parameters, and that nature itself is replete with gregarious forms of existence. I shall argue that human social development need not automatically be against nature simply because it is human. Indeed, I go further. I suggest that ideas of dualistic opposition and separation between nature and human society, only fully develop under modern conditions because the system of capitalist production is in so many ways fundamentally destructive of nature. Capitalists see only exploitable resources, animal, mineral and human. Capitalist culture has set out not only to 'master' nature, but to process and pollute as much of it as possible. This perspective gives rise, in those who consider the domination of capital to be the only possible form of human society, to the idea of a direct opposition between human society and nature.
Beneficial Association. It is evident from even a casual study of nature that many animals could not live for very long without being part of a group. In fact without co-operation they would not even be born. This is the case simply because sexual reproduction could not take place without the close proximity and co-operation required for mating. So all individuals of a sexually reproducing species are already the result of a certain degree of co-operation or association, which humans would describe as beneficial. They simply would not exist without it. But the benefits of co-operative association extend beyond the limits of the sexual act and its biological consequences. The collective nouns of troop, herd, pride, flock etc., are commonplace expressions recognising the more or less permanent groupings of different species. However, it is perhaps less well known that forms of co-operation are evident in practically all forms of life whether the 'mutual advantageous association' of bacteria are considered or the mutual co-action of plants such as that of algae and fungi to form lichens. This much has been known for a considerable period of time. Thus we can read that;
The mutual advantage between associating bacteria may be only to the extent that the waste products of one bacteria form the essential chemicals for another. However, the fact that this material exists and is useful to another life form creates the basis for what can be classed as their beneficial association. Indeed, scientists now go further and suggest that bacteria, the most basic form of life, go far beyond this in co-operating and that their entire life cycle is imbued with social forms or types of behaviour. Living things working together to mutual advantage, as stated in the above quote, are the basis of what humans call co-operative behaviour and we can see it is evident in the simplest forms of life. True, this form of beneficial association is not the conscious, pre-planned working together which is assumed in human forms of co-operation, but it is nonetheless, an elementary form of co-operation or beneficial association. Importantly, it is one which, as we can see, arises on a real material foundation without any possibility of ideological or utopian motivation. It arises simply as a result of the actual material circumstances which life-forms find themselves relating to. Thus; "Bacterial colonies must often cope with unfavourable environmental conditions. To do so, they have developed sophisticated modes of co-operative behaviour." (Nature. Volume 368, March 1994. Page 46.) These modes of behaviour include collective movement to locate sources of nutrition, and some form of chemical communication between the bacteria, once this has been found. Even in life-forms so basic, something purposeful and interactive is occurring. It is also becoming increasingly apparent that the formation of many kinds of complex life depends upon the supportive interaction of microscopic homiotic genes. These genes regulate the formation and development of embryos and can even functionally associate and interact across different species.
The necessary co-operative interaction of flowers and pollinating insects may be well known in popular consciousness, the mutual (and sexual) link between bees, pollen and the production of honey, receiving a fairly regular and obvious mention. Yet it is less commonly understood that even apparently unrelated species of plants in their natural habitat are involved in interacting together to their mutual advantage. In reality, and when examined closely, they are enhancing and preserving the survival of each other. Thus F.E. Clements, who has made a study of plants and vegetation concludes that;
So even in the case of plant life there are effective beneficial associations taking place. Since the nourishment provided by plant life is also the basis of most other life, then at the very least, the evolution of the mutually beneficial association of plants provides the foundation for the further development of most living things. If we consider the world of insects we can likewise identify the development of an extensive network of co-operative or beneficial, associative behaviour. In the case of solitary insects, the development of gregarious practices is evident at times of sexual activity, unusual weather, protective behaviour, or as in the case of locusts, for the purposes of migration. Nothing unnatural 'forces', or creates this mutual and beneficial association of solitary insects, it is simply an evolutionary selected pattern of behaviour. Those individuals within the species which associate in this manner, survive better than those which don't. In the higher 'sub-social' species of insects, parental co-operation in the development of the offspring is essential to the survival of the young. Apart from a few asexual species of insects and plants, at the very minimum, co-operation, as has already been stated, is necessary for procreation and in most cases extends beyond this to a period of nurture. Although the fully social insects, (e.g. Termites, ants, bees and wasps) may only represent a small percentage of the insect world, it is among these that the most advanced forms of insect collaboration and co-operation take place. Such species are also generally accepted as being the most successful with their adaptability and longevity. A Professor Plath commences an article on insect societies by quoting the words of Thomas Belt, a naturalist of the generation roughly contemporary with Darwin who was of the opinion that in observing ants;
Leaving aside the Victorian tendency to ascribe human male characteristics and motives to non-human species (denoted by the term anthropomorphism), we have there a basic description of ant colony life that has need of little amendment. Professor Plath goes on to describe many other types of associative behaviour over a wide range of ants, wasps and bees. It would be foolish to make straight comparisons between bacterial, plant, insect, or animal societies and human societies and, as stated, this is not the purpose of this chapter, nor the intent of the author. Its purpose is simply to outline and underline the extent of beneficial association between individual life forms within species and between species. Also to establish that such association exists across a wide range of species and to indicate that these occur as natural phenomena. It is one thing to observe non-human species activity and to point out situations which are shared by other species, it is quite another to attribute human values, motives or behaviour to that activity. Yet this is more easily done than imagined. Televised nature programmes abound in such practices. It is possible to read ornithologists and zoologists who attribute human aesthetic judgements to birds and other animals. It is also not hard to find biologists who attribute 'selfish' motives to the behaviour of genes and conscious recognition of 'friendly' and 'foreign' bodies to the minute micro-organisms making up the human immune system. It is one thing to note cases in which 'association' is taking place and those in which it is not. It is quite another to label these activities with LANGUAGE EXPRESSING specific human cultural, social or economic forms.
The examination of beneficial mutual associations is also useful since many popular conceptions of plant, insect and animal life are filtered through an often distorted popularisation of Darwin's theory of evolution. This is frequently depicted as the whole of life being a continual war for survival among the individuals of each species and between species. The concept of the 'survival of the fittest' usually being interpreted as the survival of the strongest rather than those best fitted (i.e. having characteristics which are beneficial) to survival in their environment. Yet it is obvious that large strong animals do not always survive as individuals or as species, as the extinction of the many dinosaur species indicate. In jungle or dense forest as well as grassy plains, large size can actually be a disadvantage. Whilst it is frequently a difficult task for many animals to survive predation and secure enough food, for most living things survival is not always a life and death struggle on an hourly or daily basis. Beyond the period of birth or propagation, not all members of a species are devoured by other animals and not all fail to find nutrition for themselves. I feel the points developed here are important in redressing the often unbalanced presentation of the evolutionary development of life. Such imbalance has been used by the reactionary trend in human affairs, from the Fascist to the Conservative, to justify the existence of human societies based upon oppression, competition and exploitation. The very prolific reproduction of most living things which gives rise in Darwin, after reading Malthus, to the concept of a struggle for the limited resources of the planet, ensures that there are far more stocks in the chain of food supply than there are advanced organisms consuming them. This is particularly so where the food sources are grasses and other vegetation. In many regions of the world the growth and regeneration of this prairie plant life has been so prolific that it has sustained herds of many millions of herbivores over thousands of square miles and for hundreds of thousands of years. If, under certain conditions survival becomes more difficult the adaptive development of the species facing the problem of intensified predation or dwindling resources is also accelerated. This is true whether the life form is a source of food or the seeker of nutrition. In one sense, on a shorter or longer scale, all nature, organic and inorganic, is in a state of constant inter-active adaptation to the natural changes at work as a result of the ceaseless movement of the planet and the other orbiting bodies which influence its surface, its seas and atmosphere. Adaptation, diversification, migration and co-operation, are forms of evolutionary response to exceptional difficulties, competitive surroundings or depleted resources. Some or all of these responses take place before many individual organisms or species succumb to extinction. As we shall see, where co-operation is utilised, the task of survival as an individual or as a species actually becomes less difficult. The undeniable evidence from the natural world suggests that while there is predation and competition, particularly when resources are scarce, there is also undeniably abundant evidence of co-operation within species and between species. More than this, where sufficient rigours exist, co-operation itself becomes a 'beneficial characteristic' and one with positive evolutionary advantages across the whole range of life forms.
It is well known that amongst birds, forms of co-operative activity take place, not only in the sense of the mutual co-action of flocking or nesting together, but also in the co-operative flight formations for migration. But there are also more striking examples of co-operative behaviour. It is evident in nest making, for example, among the social weaver birds and in the group activity of those birds forming the crow family. Social Weaver birds not only build collective nests with compartments for each bird but frequently construct a separate compartment in order to accept a falcon in residence. The presence of the falcon helps to keep other predators away. Crows have been observed to collectively attack any animal that tries to seize one of their group. A further interesting feature of co-operative behaviour in birds occurs in collective hunting. One example of this is described by Herbert Friedman with regard to a remarkable feature of Pelicans;
By associating in this way, each individual pelican can obtain more fish than it could by its own separate efforts and this quantity of fish can be gained at less cost in energy to each bird. What are these behaviour patterns but well developed examples of beneficial association or non-human forms of co-operative behaviour? The collective behaviour of Emperor Penguins, for example, extends to protecting each others eggs and chicks as well as intervening between squabbling individuals within the flock. The adaptive behaviour of these particular flightless birds in the depths of an Arctic winter is a further example of beneficial association or non-human co-operation. As the temperature drops the penguins huddle close together in a large mass. They then begin a circular or spiral shuffle during which the whole group moves so that those on the outside eventually find themselves on the warmer inside of the mass of penguins and those on the inside find themselves taking their turn on the outside. Such patterns of behaviour provide further indication of associations which are undoubtedly beneficial.
The mammalian animal world in general has countless examples of co-operative association among species as widely separated as the predatory cat family, Lions, Tigers etc., and the wandering herbivores such as Buffalo and Elephant. The collective grooming procedures of Apes and Gorillas are frequently paraded in magazines and television documentaries. Yet, the co-operative behaviour patterns in some animals extend the base line of mutual support for each other well beyond this tactile interaction. For example an elephant will support and help another sick or wounded elephant from its group. If the sick or wounded one falls, the other elephants will rally round and attempt, using tusks and trunks, to get the elephant on its feet. If the condition of the elephant is severe and cannot be raised in this way, one or more elephants will stay with it for as long as they can - even beyond the point of death in the case of a seriously injured animal. Large sea mammals such as the whales and dolphins have also retained or developed this kind of collective or co-operative behaviour even though they have become fully dependent upon the sea. Groups of horses and pigs can and do successfully drive off a wolf that an individual horse or pig would be unable to deal with. The cases of co-operation are therefore, numerous even though animal behaviour is often popularly filtered through the dominant ideological assumptions of survival by aggression and competition. In this way the undoubted instances of aggression and domination are frequently highlighted whilst those of positive mutual association (forms of elementary co-operation) are often overlooked, underplayed or perhaps on occasion even resolutely ignored. Yet it is obvious that many factors enter into the question of survival not simply those of strength and ferocity or those previously mentioned. Working against the survival of an individual within a species, for example, is just arbitrary accident - simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This factor is independent of genetic or other physical characteristics. Curiosity or inquisitiveness can also lead an individual to injury or a premature end, as can be the case with fearlessness or over-confidence. Aggression can bring about injury, stress and isolation just as easily as it can lead to becoming a dominant figure. Rivalry and competitive actions between individuals within a species can, and does, take attention away from a predator who can often successfully utilise such distractions. Incidentally, aggressive combative behaviour, by males, in pursuit of access to females (another well popularised male animal activity) can meanwhile leave mating wide open to an animal which isn't battling it out. In contrast, timidity, alertness and sociability, the so-called 'wimpy' characteristics can all be excellent survival techniques. Other obvious factors helping survival are also camouflage, sensory development, nimbleness and speed. It is perhaps not surprising, with a culture dominated by the modern capitalist system, which justifies aggressive competition and individual wealth accumulation, that what is noticed more in animal life are those characteristics which seem to parallel this particular form of human society. However, this is far from the complete picture as can be seen when we are prepared to look beyond such selectivity and prejudiced perception.
It is with the higher primates that the benefits of co-operative activity reach new stages of development. Reproduction, nurture and protection are undoubtedly the material requirements which lead to group formation and its maintenance even where obtaining food is still an individual task for a particular species of animal. But interestingly, further progress on the basis of co-operative hunting, gathering, nurture and defence, of non-primate species has undoubtedly required the basic repertoire of vocal calls and body posture in primates, to be extended. These forms of communication have thus developed into recognised facial expressions and a greater range of sounds particularly in the higher primates. And; "In the later primates the facial muscles have become highly differentiated and play an important part in the interpersonal communication system which is so characteristic of primates. (An introduction to the Study of Man. J.Z.Young. Pub. Clarendon Press 1971. page 419.) We should ask ourselves how could such patterns of muscle control develop and have any meaning to individual apes and monkeys if these primates were not in constant mutually beneficial interaction with each other? The very development of the facial muscles in the higher primates, and humans, (such as the frontalis, orbicularis oculi superior, levetor labii) testifies to the long and complex development of intra-species communication. I suggest that this follows from continued mutually beneficial association and not from continual aggression and fighting, for which roars, screams and arm waving would be sufficient. The muscles which allow humans to smile, frown, glare, raise and narrow eyebrows are all there in the apes and monkeys and have almost certainly evolved over millions of years in conjunction with their beneficial mutual association (or co-operation) in their bands or groups.
Among the primates, Gibbons live in family groups and so do Macaques. Both these species has been observed learning co-operatively from each other. Gorillas live in extended family groups of a dozen or so and communicate by gesture and grunts and have been observed to be very sensitive to eye contact. It is reported by those who study them that to stare at a Gorilla is to invite a quite negative response. Gorillas obviously don't share our concept of rudeness, but a stare among Gorillas is perceived by them as threatening - or the Gorilla equivalent of threatening. Yet despite the size and strength of the gorilla; "...meetings between groups are quite peaceful and gorillas have no regular territory. Their moves may vary from 1 - 5 kilometre's in a day. Inter-tribal encounters do not seem to cause any very definite reactions: either the members of the two groups forage side by side without mixing, or else there is a transfer of partners, mutual or otherwise." ('Animal Societies'. Remy Chavin. Pub. Sphere Books. page 259.) Chimpanzees, probably our nearest surviving relative, live in groups of up to 50 individuals who can all recognise each other. The groups are based around female family members and the mother/child relationship is very strong. Baby chimps, male and female, learn most of their skills from their mother. It is well known that they often form chains of individuals for the purpose of collective grooming. Grooming is not only a pleasurable activity requiring extended co-operation but a survival technique. It keeps down lice and other parasitic pests which might otherwise cause illness and premature death among individuals within the troop. On many occasions Chimpanzees also allow other chimps into their troop to share the benefits of association. Providing the newcomers are sufficiently good at fitting in there is no problem. A newcomer will greet and be greeted by touches of the back of the hand and sniffing as well as eye contact and facial expressions. Again there is undoubtedly aggression, bickering and even fighting amongst chimps and other primates, but it is the exception rather than the rule and rarely lasts long before the basic pattern of co-operative association is restored. The definitive evidence of the successive ancestral stages of the human species are as yet incomplete. However, when they are, it will be surprising indeed if all the intermediate categories do not bear the marks of numerous small and distinct facial muscles which are evident in the higher primates and also humans. These muscles of communication, have undoubtedly been formed over long periods of time, during continuous co-operative activities of the close, face to face type, which both required, and allowed, the development and refinement of numerous and varied facial expressions.
Symbiosis. Beneficial association is such a powerful evolutionary support mechanism that many members of species, even after maturity, cannot exist for long as individuals without it. Even such a powerful predator as the African lion, in all stages of its life, has great difficulty in surviving if it is not attached to a group of other lions for hunting and food sharing. It is perhaps not surprising that so many species have forms of co-operation within their ranks as a survival strategy, but what may be surprising to some readers is the extent of beneficial association between different species. Often termed symbiosis, this type of association between often widely different species helps to make the existence of individuals and groups of both species more viable than on their own. Indeed, it is a growing view among some ecological scientists and biologists, that all the many types of life forms on earth are, in one way or another, mutually dependant. The seeming competitive, chaotic profusion of forms and elements of nature are in a form of dynamic 'balance' with symbiotic contributions from all the subdivisions. Thus from the fragments leached from the various rocks, come the essential minerals which enliven the soils and are necessary for plant nutrition, animal well-being and even human health. The same mineral-full sediments also enrich the seas to the benefit of sea life. Further, it is increasingly recognised that the more active microscopic life forms actually beneficially associate and function in such a way as to regulate the global temperature and atmospheric composition upon which we all depend. According to this 'holistic' view the whole of natural life is dependant upon the symbiotic interaction and beneficial interlocking association of every material aspect of the planet. Nor is symbiotic association a recent evolutionary development, it started in the remote evolutionary past. On the role of symbiosis in the early expansion of life we can also read that; "Endosymbiants enlarged and expanded the possibilities of planetary manipulation by the biota and were a main feature of the history of the earth during the proterzoic. The formation of collectives gives power to the assembly greater than that possessed by its individual components.." ('The ages of Gaia.' J. Lovelock. Pub. Oxford University Press. page 114/115.) This is not the only benefit which life forms acquire through symbiosis, for as another biologist explains;. "Symbiosis can be considered to have evolutionary potential in that it enables an organism to 'acquire' novel characteristics in the form of properties of its partner." (D.R. Smith & A.E. Douglas. 'The Biology of Symbiosis.' Pub. Edward Arnold, page 236 Lynn Margulis, a colleague of the previous author (James Lovelock), makes the case for symbiosis even stronger. She reasons that symbiotic associations are not just one influence in evolution but that they are the most fundamental and important of evolutionary influences. She argues that the logic of the genetic make up of complex cells suggests that they have evolved through a series of endo-symbiotic (one symbiont inside another living cell or being) associations between simpler organisms. She also adds; "Yes, we humans have indeed evolved, but not just from apes or even from other mammals. We evolved from a long line of progenitors, ultimately from the first bacteria. Most evolution occurred in those beings we dismiss as 'microbes'. All life, we now know, evolved from the smallest life-forms of all, bacteria.....We are symbionts on a symbiotic planet, and if we care to, we can find symbiosis everywhere." (L. Margulis. 'The Symbiotic Planet' Pub. Phoenix. Page 5/7.) At the bottom of the deep oceans, where life on earth may have actually started, there are hydrothermal vents which pour out hot particles of matter from within the earth's crust. Around these thermal vents communities of invertebrates congregate which have particular endosymbiont bacteria within them. These endosymbionts allow the creatures to utilise the abundant sulphur and hydrogen sulphide, in that otherwise hostile environment, for their carbon and energy requirements. They simply could not survive without them. Nor could we, or any other life form exist, or survive, without our own particular endosymbionts.
This section cannot hope to give justice to the whole extent of symbiotic relationships, but it is useful to add a brief if incomplete summary of some of the unlikely creatures that co-operate with each other to enable each other to survive better. Thus; "Termites depend on protozoa in their gut, and the protozoa on the termites. Farmer-ants rely on species of fungus not known to exist independently. Some worms and fish make themselves luminous by incorporating light-emiting bacteria in special organs. Ratels (African honey-badgers) count on honey guides to lead them to hives; honey guides count on ratels (and humans) to open the hives." (R. Wesson. 'Beyond Natural Selection.' 1991. Pub Pan. page 160) Species of crabs, shrimps and fish all regularly 'clean' the parasites and skin debris off larger fish and are not harmed by them. One species of crab does the same for marine iguanas. Some fish do dental hygiene for the hippopotamus while it opens its mouth wide. Birds do the same cleaning service for lizards, others for crocodiles and yet others for whales. In each case the animal which does the cleaning gets a free meal and the animal which is cleaned gets rid of parasites and decaying food. Both obtain something by this co-operative association which neither could get for themselves. Antelopes and baboons regularly keep fairly close together because Antelopes are more sensitive to danger, but once alerted the baboons will gang up on a potential predator and drive them away. Ostriches and zebras graze close together, the one has good eyes the other a good sense of smell. Each can and does alert the other to possible danger. Both of these are examples of symbiotic behaviour or beneficial association between distinct species. With regard to symbiosis it has been demonstrated that the symbiotic association of fungi and trees has also been a key determinant in the oxygen richness of the planet. The fungi which attach themselves to the roots of trees obtain an extra supply of nutrients which are then passed to the roots and allow trees to grow closer together than would otherwise be possible. It is this largely unseen symbiotic association which has led to the great forest regions of the world now providing considerable amounts of the oxygen for the planet. Indeed, it is estimated that 95% of all plant species are in a symbiotic association with various forms of fungi. So even in this rather restricted sense it can be argued that much of what we know as multi-cellular life, and its evolutionary development, has been and is, reliant upon this fundamental co-operative effort taking place under the soil. For it is this particular symbiotic relationship, between plants and root fungi, which provides the basis of breathing, eating and shelter for much of animal and insect life.
Beneficial Association amongst humans. When we turn to the human species, we immediately move the concept of beneficial association on into the realms of more complex, conscious planned behaviour for which we use the term co-operation in its fullest sense. Nevertheless it is behaviour which still has at its base the material forms of beneficial association elsewhere in nature. In one very direct sense the very existence of humans is also evidence of the previously noted phenomena of symbiosis and endo-symbiosis. For example, it is estimated by the human gene project, that 223 human genes appear to have been acquired directly from bacteria and that we only have five times as many genes as these basic life forms. The human body itself, looked at microscopically is in fact a vast complex of millions of living cells and bacteria which co-operate and beneficially associate in a continuous process to ensure the co-ordinated functioning of its various parts. The same, of course, goes for all the other multi-cellular life forms in the plant, insect and animal realms. We, and all the other more complex life forms, are therefore a living testament to the fact that forms of beneficial association and co-operation, at the levels of symbiosis and endo-symbiosis, are fundamental to nature and fundamental to the existence of human beings.
Considering humans at the social level, it is impossible to imagine the survival of early human beings in a world containing even a few large predators without the co-operation of individuals organised not only into families for reproductive purposes, but into permanent groups for food gathering and defence purposes. Going further than that, as I have already indicated, it is impossible to imagine the development of truly vocal languages without thousands of years of repeated voluntary co-operative activities within and between early human groups of individuals. Language is needed for no other reason than extensive and intensive peaceful co-operation, for also as noted with regard to primate evolution, screams, roars and gestures would have sufficed for aggression and warfare if this had been the predominant form of human interaction. One or two fingers, or a raised fist, together with a weapon in the other hand would have easily sufficed for perpetual conflict among Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens, as any contemporary drunken brawl still amply demonstrates. Humans have created languages as a result of what must have been a continuous beneficial association for many thousands, if not millions, of years. From this, and the observations presented on the previous few pages, it can be deduced that mutually beneficial association has been, and continues to be, a fundamental condition of evolution stretching across all forms of life and throughout all periods of geological time, since complex organisms began to exist. The evidence of the early European ethnologists as they toured the world studying the differing types of human societies supports this conclusion with regard to human groups. Their comments, on a wide range of native societies, indicate the extent of co-operation among earlier forms of human social and economic life. As cautioned earlier, we need to remember that these explorers were mostly men and drawn from particular classes in Europe and so were in the main subject to the dominant prejudices of the class and gender to which they belonged. Nevertheless, following in the wake of the expansion and conquest of the world, they were able to gather sufficient evidence to enable us to obtain a glimpse of the extent and nature of mutual and beneficial association in the development of ancient human groups. Also at the outset we need to recognise that because the European expansion was undertaken for the seizure of profit and wealth by European traders, the welfare of the native inhabitants was rarely if ever considered. These indigenous peoples were viewed as sources of profit, obtained from trading in slaves, for supplying raw materials, or as curiosities for study and so-called conversion from heathen religions. The results have been that few of these peoples now survive because they were quickly obliterated by arms, where they physically resisted, or more slowly by European diseases, where they did not. This rapid extinction of human groups represents a shameful and despicable episode in the development of humanity and one to which we shall return in later chapters. Meanwhile it is possible to scrutinise the information the early ethnologists gathered.
Even a brief study of ethnology indicates that of those human groups which had survived and populated the world before the development of societies based predominantly upon agriculture, the vast majority were peaceful and co-operative within their own groups and predominantly peaceful and co-operative with other groups. With some exceptions, warlike skirmishes within and between distinct hunter-gatherer groups were either non-existent or infrequent. Where tensions existed they were often the result of some individual act, rather than deliberate and habitual group animosity. When this occurred the harm inflicted was usually balanced to match that incurred by the original offence. Only when the disparate groups could not agree on the level of punishment or compensation was there any inclination for lengthy and debilitating feuds. An exception to this pattern in hunter-gatherer communities was perhaps the Bora and other warlike tribes of the Western Amazon and some New Guinea regions. These particular groups developed and retained a practice of revenge killings, head-hunting and sometimes cannibalism. But those few cases appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Those who would have us believe that the periods termed by some ethnologists as 'savagery' and 'barbarism' were continually characterised by universal guerilla-type warfare or acts of viciousness and/or perverseness, need to explain how communication, culture, technology and reciprocity were able to flourish and spread if most of humanity was engaged in continuous warfare and had the siege mentality consequent upon such activities. In contrast to such prejudiced and pejorative terms as savagery and barbarism, whether intended or not, a survey of the literature on thirty six different groups or tribes from all parts of the world engaged in differing food production methods from hunter-gatherers, to pastoralists and cultivators, presents a consistent picture of group and inter-group co-operation. Whether the basic unit was an extended family as was the case with the Semang and Sakai groups of people based in Malaysia, or the association of many families as with the Nootka people of Canada (formerly known as British Columbia), the basic social and economic units were co-operative in securing the basic necessities of life and egalitarian, based upon equal rights, in sharing them out. Thus, with regard to hunting we can read of the Blackfoot Buffalo hunters of the North American Plains;
As we see from this example, the benefit to the group was recognised as vitally important to the benefit of the individual. And with other things being equal, as in the case of the pelicans, the amount of game available to each individual, by co-operative hunting, was greater than could be achieved by individual hunting. At the same time the effort to obtain it was considerably less. The co-operative pattern of living and working was often reflected in the construction of communal housing. Thus we find that in the Nootka and Salish peoples;
Only a sustained co-operative effort by many human beings could erect such large buildings using their only available tools of wood, bone and stone and only a settled communal way of living would have originated and promoted such jointly tenanted buildings. The Nootka tribe in particular were reported as having a considerable cultural development on the basis of their co-operative way of life and the fact that 100 individuals could, over long periods of time, continue to exist amicably under one roof, perhaps indicates as well as anything, the full extent of their social integration. The Tungus Reindeer herders of Siberia were essentially a nomadic tribe combining hunting and fishing with reindeer herding. The herds and the tents, which were the movable homes of these pastoral nomads, were regarded as under the control of the women of the household, but in actual fact there was strictly speaking no individual property, and in addition;
An almost identical pattern of this form of social behaviour was at work among the Inuit Eskimos of Northern Alaska and the Agta of the Philippine Islands. Hospitality was considered a great virtue and food was generally obtained in communal initiatives. In times of plenty as well as scarcity, individual hunters expected to divide the product of their labour every bit as much as the gatherers would. As with almost all the groups and tribes considered, a pattern emerges of sharing work and the products of work when times were good and utilising such good fortune and the consequent surplus, by having festivals and feasts. Yet times of scarcity were not greeted with a mad scrabble for who could get the biggest share of the dwindling produce, but were approached by again pooling resources and, if necessary, splitting into smaller groups to search for better food resources. That this aspect of early human behaviour is not merely the habits of the more northerly climate is demonstrated by the next group to be considered. Away from the bitter cold northern arctic climes a further group of hunter-gatherers, lived in the southern hemisphere and yet adopted similar mutually supportive patterns of behaviour. The Arunta tribal people of Australia were usually described as Stone Age groups of primitive hunter-gatherers who eat seeds, bulb roots, edible fungus, eggs of birds and reptiles and the perhaps infamous witchetty grub, as well as co-operatively hunting Kangaroos. Commenting on Arunta social life, E. R. Service indicates that;
And so the pattern goes on. Whether it is the Hopi Indians of the American desert or the Trobriand Islanders of Melanesia, who are considered, co-operative living, working, consuming and collective enjoyment were the norm; the forms of human co-operation, or beneficial association, being consciously changed and developed by human groups to suite their changing circumstances, surroundings and their methods of production. In doing so, human groups have changed themselves and their own view of themselves in various ways, but their productive activity has had co-operation at its core just as much as their reproductive activity was based upon it. Even in modern capitalist society where co-operation is an under-utilised word, forms of co-operation are a fundamental requirement of economic and social existence. Large-scale production necessarily requires co-operation at the industrial level and urban living requires it at the social level. Whilst we must leave the discussion of modern capitalist society and consider it in later chapters, suffice it to say at this stage that prior to the advent of 'civilisation' voluntary co-operation between individual organisms human and otherwise has been a successful evolutionary strategy. It has not only persisted for tens of millions of years, but has also allowed non-human species to survive and develop beyond their primitive origins and accompanied that development into higher and more complex forms. Tool making, language and the skills associated with using tools are the most highly developed in human groups and require considerable learning. These skills also have been passed down from generation to generation and across from individual to individual and group to group within generations. New techniques, products and developments were passed across whole continents even before civilisations required systematic and effective transport and communications. As noted previously none of this technological and cultural transmission could have been achieved without peaceful co-operation being the norm and war like hostility the exception.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that the evidence presented here from ethnology is not being used to try to create a false 'golden age' of naive humanity in which all was perfect. It was not. It is merely provided to counter an almost universal historical distortion of hunter-gatherers, pastoralists and cultivators as warlike and warring 'savages'. This evidence has been gathered and presented in order to re-establish the fact that human societies have not always been based upon selfishness and competition: that the human form of beneficial association, as with pre-human forms of co-operation, has provided a long-term evolutionary advantage. It has been an advantage which - as with non-human life - has served not only to help individuals survive the immediate struggle, but also as a basis for the consolidation of social groups. This in turn has also created the opportunity for social life to evolve into more complex forms of economic and cultural activity. Therefore, advocating human forms of voluntary, egalitarian co-operation to create a better and more advanced society is not the utopian dream of a few misguided sentimentalists - but is a strategy based upon a long term evolutionary reality. Even the most extreme capitalists, when it suits them (in the event of war, catastrophe, etc.), want us all to co-operate and pull together. Of course when the particular need has past they then want us to compete with each other and tell us that is human nature! For revolutionary-humanists, social forms of beneficial association and symbiosis are not only humanely desirable but have proved, and will prove, to be both practical and beneficial to the future organisation of human life and the survival of other life forms on the planet.
To be human has, over long evolutionary periods of existence, meant being part of a beneficial association of other humans, an integral part of a social symbiotic community. To be really human, therefore, is to beneficially associate fully. This is why even in modern times, those moments in which individuals or communities really unite in co-operative solidarity are experienced and remembered as exceptionally positive even when the source of that solidarity has been a defensive war, a disaster or a tragedy. Conversely, the absence of consistent beneficial association in modern society, is experienced by individuals as loneliness, emotional deprivation, severe depression and even the most extreme self-negating human tendency - suicide! If human-like creatures evolved from some ancestral ape 3 - 4 million years ago, as archaeologists now suggest, then beneficial association and voluntary co-operation has been the predominant human way of life for effectively the whole of that time. It is, therefore, only in relatively recent times in human evolution, measured in thousands of years, that mutually beneficial association has been distorted within European and New World cultures into the forced co-operation of the so-called 'civilised' societies. Only since the development of fixed agricultural settlements which allowed a greater surplus product to be created, distributed and later appropriated, has humanity progressively lost its essential link with its natural and creative evolutionary past. Instead it was diverted into a period of self-destructive social conflict in which Empires flourished on the basis of forced slave-labour and conquest, only to decline or eventually collapse from their own internal contradictions.
Surplus Production/Surplus Labour. The concept of surplus product and surplus labour is central to the economic analysis of Capital by Karl Marx. It is also central to the development of civilisations. This is because surplus labour, and what it produces, is the source from which all ruling elites and classes ultimately obtain their wealth. It is this accumulated wealth which provides the foundations for the distinguishing features of civilisations. Under the capitalist system, the surplus products gained by owning and controlling the means of production are transformed by the Capitalists into money by selling them. In this way they obtain the surplus 'value' contained within them. The concept of surplus value was so important that Marx devoted three volumes of notes on the subject as a potential, but unpublished, Volume 4 of Das Capital. The concept also runs through all three published volumes of Capital. Not only that but a substantial part of the notebooks produced by Marx and known collectively as 'The Grundrisse' are devoted to discussing and analysing the concept of surplus value. Yet despite this profound analysis by their most famous critic, there is utter silence from capitalists and their supporters on the topic of surplus production and surplus value. This is perhaps not surprising for the analysis of this concept exposes exactly how exploitation functions at the very centre of the capitalist system of production. We shall be considering the concept of surplus value in more detail in the next chapter. It is introduced at this point only to the extent that it is needed to be useful in considering pre-capitalist economic systems. Surplus value, (i.e. a value which is surplus to the immediate requirements or costs of production), can also only arise when regular surplus 'production' has become possible. That is to say production which regularly creates objects and activities which are not only useful but are also surplus to the immediate survival or ,'norm' requirements, of the group. If an individual, or group of individuals within a species, can only obtain or marshal enough resources for their immediate needs, there can be no surplus production. Many animals, and even insects, create surplus products in the form of stocks of food which are above and beyond their own immediate needs. Such surplus production may be used to feed the young of their species and/or as stores to last when foodstuffs are scarce. The well known squirrel of childhood stories which creates a store of nuts for the winter is just one of countless examples of animals and insects which individually or collectively create surplus production for purposes beyond their immediate consumptive needs. However, it is the human animal since its earliest periods of development which has, through co-operation, and the acquisition of skills and knowledge, been able to increasingly raise its social and technological level of production. This has had the effect of reducing the collective time spent on satisfying immediate survival needs such as food, clothing, shelter and leaving time available for the production of surpluses. Contrast, for example, the situation of the higher primates, such as gorillas and other apes who with no tools, or very crude sticks and stones, spend a large part of the day looking for and consuming food, with that of human groups. Even with limited tools such as shaped digging sticks and stone axes, hunter-gatherer peoples can reduce the time needed to feed themselves and their families, to a few hours per day. This reduction of the time necessary for the immediate survival needs is of crucial importance to the further development of cultural and social forms. In this sense human labour can be considered as having two different characteristics to it. First, the time spent in necessary labour and second; the time available for surplus labour. With the progressive application of tools and knowledge the human species has, from the earliest times, been able to reduce the necessary labour time and thus increase the time available for surplus labour. This latter is time in which to create not only a surplus of food and necessaries but also additional cultural artefacts and those activities which fall into the category of leisure. Even the most primitive hunter-gatherer social groups in those surveyed (the Semang) were able to feed, cloth and house themselves and have time left over for social activities and the collective as well as individual production of articles of interest and use to them. It is this surplus production which in human groups also led to the possibility of occasionally leaving gifts for other groups and for exchanging their surplus production of food, cultural articles or tools. This was a distinctive form of human co-operation. Again the observations of early ethnologists provides us with ample evidence for this conclusion. The previously mentioned Semang and Sakai tribes of the Malaysian jungle, whose surplus product was far from lavish, regularly exchanged gifts of wild fruits and bush pigs with the coastal tribes in exchange for gifts of marine life such as fish and turtles. Even shy and wary tribes such as the Punan of the interior of Borneo developed a form of 'silent trading' with more settled groups. Thus it is reported that;
Although in a sense the particular 'silent' activity described here was already a form of premeditated trading, it is clear in these cases there was no calculating, haggling, bargaining or cheating which is a much later development of organised mercantile trade. Elsewhere exchanges of collective surplus produce would be accompanied by huge festivals and feasts. Much later with further rises in surplus production these exchanges of surplus products became regulated in the form of bartered exchange and eventually regular trade. An example of the development of this sporadic form of the exchange of surplus product is provided by the former inhabitants of the island of Little Mala. Trading voyages were made to other islands by canoe but the trading was always in the form of the exchange of gifts. Elsewhere in Melanesia a ceremonial interchange of gifts called a kula was a regular feature of island life and it has been described in the following way;
We should note that the well organised barter of the kula traders still had vestiges of the earlier period of reciprocal gift exchange. True barter was a more regulated and formalised exchange of gifts in which emphasis was increasingly placed upon the amount or value of what is being exchanged. The kula was almost certainly an intermediate stage before the development of this kind of regularised mercantile trade. In this way the exchange of the collective surplus production between human groups was able to develop from occasional sporadic events, to regular organised outings and meetings between different peoples. From the ethnological evidence considered, the development of reciprocal forms of exchange were probably seen by human groups in two ways, as something primarily to emphasise the social integration and belonging of individuals to the group sharing the gifts - the last vestiges of which perhaps now occur at Xmas, thanksgiving, birthdays, weddings etc. - and secondly for the usefulness of the actual items exchanged. Such positive reciprocal exchanges were thus very desirable, emotionally rewarding and socially bonding activities - just as the collective creation of the necessary and surplus production had been within each group. Marx also identified this very point. Regularised contact and reciprocal exchange between human communities brought with it new products and new foodstuffs and they also ensured that the parties to the exchange were regarded as friends rather than enemies. With co-operative production and co-operatively created surplus products the decision of how to use the surplus product was by collective agreement. Even in groups that had chosen a leader, where he or she was then delegated to make a wise choice in all matters, the leaders decision required the assent of the whole adult group. In other words as with other aspects of life, the actual producers retained control over their surplus product and how it was used in exchange. The reason for such an assertion is simple. Hunter-gatherers as individuals or groups, with no fixed abodes, simply moved on if attempts were made to forcibly control them or their surplus production. Moving away from an overly oppressive or consistently uncomfortable situation was, and remains, a fundamental reaction of most human beings, where they are not physically prevented from doing so. It is almost certain that it was only later with the development of fixed forms of productive property that popular election was replaced by hereditary or forced control over the means of production and thus control over the surplus products. This point may seem scarcely worth noting in the current discussion but I shall maintain later that loss of control over production and surplus production became a crucial factor in the transformation of human social groups from predominantly egalitarian to predominantly hierarchical, non-egalitarian forms. Meanwhile we shall consider further the role in social groups of what I shall call positive reciprocal exchanges.
Positive Reciprocal Exchange. Reciprocity (giving and taking) is an acknowledged feature in the lives of the higher primates and in particular that of humans. It is still taken for granted that among equals and in particular on special occasions, presents are exchanged. Weddings and birthdays do not occur all at the same time, but a gift received by one person, or couple, from another, usually ensures a reciprocal gift when the same or a similar occasion arises. Doing a favour for a friend or family member usually ensures a return favour even if at a much later date. These are the modern survivors of a more extensive system of positive reciprocal exchanges which, as we have seen, originated in early human groups. That this was a fact of long standing is vividly recalled by a member of the village of Hoi in the island group of Tonga. Returning to Hoi after many years, Penissimani Tupouniua, wrote a document of village life in 1974 and noted in it that; "The principle of reciprocity had always been at work. The ties of kinship, the fahu relationship and the 'conspicuous consumption' all played their part to ensure that the system worked; it was characterised by dispersion rather than by possession; of beneficence rather than accumulation..," (A Polynesian Village. A paper by Penissimani Tupouniua 1974) The extended and complex kinship relations of fahu, of course do not concern us here. Suffice it to say, however, that by the time of Penissimani Tupouniua's investigation in 1974, reciprocity, dispersion (giving away) of surplus and co-operative ways of working were still playing a predominant part in Tongan society. This was despite the fact that the islands of Tonga had for a very long time been brought economically into the modern capitalist world.
The extensive reciprocity in pre-agricultural societies has often been noted, yet until recently such reciprocity has received little more than passing attention. However, a historical background to the pattern of reciprocal giving is provided by the author Matt Ridley in his book, 'The origins of virtue'. In this book he looks for the origin of virtuous acts in the material history of the human species. This is a considerable and worthy contribution to the debate on the evolutionary nature of human societies, but I feel it is impaired to a large extent by the abstract and ahistorical use of the concept 'virtue'. The term 'virtue' carries within it the pejorative concept of moral excellence and righteousness and therefore seems unsuitable to describe his concept of mutual aid. Also the book suffers from failing to understand capitalism and how it has made a 'virtue' out of exploitation and competition. He also fails to understand what Marx was actually saying. It is necessary to distinguish between what the revolutionary-humanism of Marx really stood for, and the popular misinterpretations which so-called 'Marxists' published. This failure leads him to sterile conclusions. In rejecting any revolutionary social and economic transformation, he is never able to go beyond suggesting idealist abstractions and reformist solutions to modern social problems. His historical description of reciprocity, whilst useful, remains too general and omits to distinguish between the past voluntary exchanges and the more recent forced or involuntary exchanges with regard to the human species. In view of the known facts it seems sensible, therefore, to draw a distinction between positive forms of reciprocal exchange and negative forms of reciprocal exchange.
Positive reciprocal exchange is a term I shall use to describe an interaction between consenting individuals in which both parties exchange - without compulsion - surpluses of energy or products. In other words the individual, or group, freely give something useful and of value to another individual, or group, and receives in return from that other individual, or group, also something useful and of value. As we have already seen in human species this had occurred in the form of gifts, within social groups and later gifts of surplus production between groups which developed into barter and eventually trade. Any voluntary reciprocal exchange in which both parties benefit, whether the reciprocal benefit is immediate or delayed, is a positive reciprocal exchange. In one sense the term simply demonstrates another form of human co-operation but this term focuses more specifically on the distribution of surplus production. In general it is only possible to make a gift or exchange of surpluses and not necessities, although even here there are undoubtedly exceptions. By convention such exchanges may not always be equal in value but they must be useful and reciprocal. As we have noted such is the power of the human memory that the reciprocity in humans does not need to be immediate, but it needs to exist to keep the interaction positive. One cannot imagine at any pre-slavery stage in human evolution a state of being in which individuals or groups which interact freely do so on the basis that one party always gives and the other party always takes. So when Matt Ridley asserts in his book that;
"A world without obligations to reciprocate, deal fairly and trust other people would be simply inconceivable." (M. Ridley. 'Origins of Virtue'. Pub. Viking. page 143)
He is only partly right. It is the pre-civilised human societies and the few contemporary remnants of reciprocity, that he must have in his mind. For the obvious point is that we do now inhabit a world in which dealing fairly cannot always be guaranteed even if it is desired. It is also a world where we cannot always trust other people, where reciprocal obligations have retreated into the family and even there are frequently absent. In fact the situation cannot be otherwise in the present system whose economic base and social superstructure is founded upon exploitation. Capitalistic economic and social relations were established upon the inherited basis of the very opposite of positive reciprocal exchange! The alienating effects of this all-embracing capitalist economic and cultural system extend to every aspect of human experience. Rape, violence, indifference and neglect in the home, physical abuse and murder on the street. Theft and aggravated burglary, whilst not quite universal (except perhaps in times of war) are regular daily facts in every city and practically every town in the advanced capitalist countries. Capitalist firms regularly and routinely deal unfairly with their employees, even to the extent, as we saw with Robert Maxwell, of illegally using their workers' pension funds. Hugely profitable Industrial concerns cannot be automatically trusted to dispose of their harmful waste products safely. Highly paid civil servants fiddle their already bloated expense accounts - until found out; politicians take cash for questions; police forces fabricate evidence, choose to ignore embarrassing lines of enquiry, engage in criminal activity and cover up false convictions. The list could go on and on. Lies, deceit and unfair dealing everywhere. The inconceivable has happened. Almost the entire history of life on earth and the pre-history of human beings has been based predominantly upon beneficial associations or co-operation. Among humans economic and social life has also been based upon positive reciprocal exchange of surplus production. Beneficial association has ensured the survival and evolutionary development of the majority of species of life and positive reciprocal exchange of surplus production among humans has consolidated this co-operation and ensured its continued existence - until relatively recent times! And now the benefits of co-operation and association do not extend to all. For example; positive reciprocal exchange did not exist between slave and slave owner, serf and feudal lord and it does not between employer and employed. It is now often missing between husband and wife. Something fundamental has changed in the relationships between humans, even if every example of positive reciprocity is not yet entirely dead. In fact the much reduced incidence of positive reciprocal exchange still remains the basis of all affirming human interaction. It is an integral part of the human essence of which Marx spoke. Surplus production and the exchange of it was so socially useful and powerful that it became reciprocal. It was essentially a process, along with language, by which humanity really came to distinguish itself from the rest of nature. It was a process which self-consciously developed the potential already provided by nature in the evolutionary development of 'beneficial associations'. The human species is the only part of nature which has consciously and systematically developed numerous forms of positive reciprocal exchange. We know from our own experience that, even under the present system of exploitation and oppression, it still lives on in some aspects of life. It is so fundamental that reciprocity is the basis of unforced sexual activity between two individuals and even reciprocity of orgasm between partners is now considered a desirable attainment within human sexuality. Reciprocity is also the basis of unforced economic activity within human groups. This is true whether this occurs within and between families, tribes, communities or nations. Positive reciprocal exchange is still a practical yardstick by which most people assess fairness and justice. If, during the largest part of human evolutionary development, the 'essence' of humanity has been to beneficially associate and engage in predominantly positive reciprocal exchange, what has happened to it? How and why has it broken down in so many areas of the life of modern humans? The answer I suggest lies in the loss of control of production and surplus production, for the majority of people.
Surplus production aND Civilisation. Any group of people, such as a band or tribe, who can only just create enough production for their immediate needs, a surplus for hard-times and a small surplus for exchange with other groups, cannot afford to feed and clothe a non-productive section of its community. At best they can support a part-time chief or holy person. Nor can such a society afford to have a permanent group of specialists for other activities. It requires a considerable increase in productivity to allow this. Providing for a permanent privileged caste of rulers and a permanent caste of soldiers, requires a much higher level of production and a correspondingly greater surplus production. The development of agriculture and settled communities provided the dynamic factor which allowed such embryonic specialisation to take place. Agricultural production using relatively sophisticated methods of planting, manuring and tilling produced more surplus than hunter-gathering, cultivating or pastoralism and surplus agricultural produce can be stored longer and feed more people than other forms of food production. It both allows and requires people to become settled. At the same time, whenever a large and regular surplus is produced by a settled community, it allows the release of some of its members from food production to concentrate on other things. These are usually those things which they are good at and which the community values or needs. In this way a division of labour and specialisation can and does start to take place. This process had begun to happen among fishing communities such as the previously mentioned Nootka and the Melanesians. With regular abundant catches, some members of the tribe were able to specialise in boat building, for example. In some early agricultural communities such as the North American plains Indians (the Hopi), specialisation took place in the construction of more elaborate houses or clothing. Further advances in agricultural production, particularly with the introduction of the draw spade and then the primitive plough, led to greater developments along the same lines. A division of labour occurred in which there were specialist workers of all kinds and certain individuals taking a more permanent position or role such as chief priest or leader. These developments could only occur on the basis of a regular and assured surplus of the products necessary to life. Such agricultural village communities became widespread around the region of the Fertile Crescent, the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, Egypt and China. To develop these societies further, and create a greater surplus production, a further technological breakthrough in the production of food was required. That breakthrough came in the old world, with the bringing together of domesticated pack animals and the further development of the plough. CD Forde makes the point clearly and precisely;
The creation of a large number of specialists in non-agricultural crafts and others who are non-productive - in the direct sense - is exactly the basis for the rise of civilisation. In advanced agricultural societies such as the Sumerians, Egyptians and Greeks in the Old World, the Mayan, Incas and Aztecs in the New World, it is likely that specialisation took at least two distinct forms. One being the increasing specialisation of skills such as building, pottery, textiles, trading and later metalworking. Another being the orchestration and organisation of economic and social life by a privileged caste of officials and religious rulers. It was this caste of proto-rulers who not only lived off the surplus production but increasingly appropriated it for their own ends and who also eventually employed bodies of armed specialists - also fed from the surplus product - to enforce and protect their privileged position. From freely giving up their surplus product in exchange for other people's surpluses, the population engaged in agriculture became transformed, over a greater or shorter period of time, into the forced labourers of a ruling elite. From every able-bodied person having to work just a few hours per day, in hunting, gathering, tending garden produce or herding animals, a new tyrannical social and economic order was being constructed. Their voluntary change to the settled farming of agricultural produce led, by successive stages, to their eventual surrender to a new mode of production. From having a say in the way their surplus production was utilised, the direct producers in such societies, would from then on be told what to produce, how much to produce and when to produce it. From owning their own labour and the instruments of labour, these village workers became separated from both. Of course, such processes did not occur overnight or in all places. It went through successive stages and interacted with earlier economic forms - many of which continued in parallel. In various places the transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural economies was undoubtedly gradual and stayed at the point of small agricultural villages where property relations and social relations also changed extremely slowly. Yet in well favoured fertile situations the size of these settlements gradually increased as did the amount of surplus production. The Sumerian - Babylonian - Assyrian and early Egyptian civilisations were probably the first to mark the full transition from a tradition of elected shamans and popular heads of village settlements, to a permanent and powerful priesthood and/or a hereditary Monarchy or Aristocracy within a well developed city or region. With the consolidation of agricultural dynasties, such as those noted above, hard direct productive labour was intensified for a subordinate class of workers, whilst leisure was extended for a new ruling class or caste. In between these two sections of society there developed a relatively privileged cast of artisans, over-lookers and managers. After millions of years of positive reciprocal exchange between adult equals in human society, a dialectical transformation had taken place. Positive reciprocity and communal production was destroyed and a system of negative reciprocal exchange and hierarchical production was established within certain agricultural societies. These negative exchanges in which one party enforces an exchange on another I call negative reciprocal exchanges. Once established these conditions were then later imposed upon other surrounding agricultural village communities by armed force and conquest.
Negative Reciprocal Exchange. Large surpluses of production were certainly a potentially positive development but they had also provided the means and opportunity for a section of society to appropriate or control it. They were then able to use this control to enforce a negative reciprocal exchange upon the working population as a whole. Once a dynasty had been created, on the basis of this advance in agricultural production and had consolidated itself with a caste of warriors, the die was cast. It then became possible for such dynasties to direct the further development of certain crafts and skills and to look further afield to export its 'civilisation' to new areas and appropriate other people's surplus product. Such ruling elites were able to organise raids on other territories to obtain their surplus production, the producers themselves, or to control the means of production. Thus the armed forces of Babylonia conquered the cities of the Sumerians. Later the Babylonian peoples were in turn conquered by the rulers of Assyria. In a similar fashion, the armed ruling elites of the Greek city states and later Rome, engaged in raids for plunder and wars to enslave thousands of captives in order to extract surplus production from them. In this way more and more sections of humanity were dragged into a period where negative reciprocal relationships became the norm. Association in production was still there, but it was association forced at the point of a sword and maintained by an occupying army or the threat of one. It was no longer beneficial for all but for the few; it was the shackled association of the slave or chain-gang. People, previously accustomed to produce in and alongside their village communities, were forced to co-operate in their conquerors' preferred process of agricultural or mineral production. Their surplus product was taken from them directly or by tribute, tithe or tax. In this way their labour became 'estranged', the products of their hands and brains alienated from them. Further wars and conquests followed along with the ostentatious accumulation of wealth by ruling elites and the rapid impoverishment of communities of working people who became no more than slaves, bondsmen or serfs. For the first time in the evolution of the human species a general increase in the productivity of economic activity was not shared across the community which produced it, but appropriated by a few. In these circumstances exchanges between groups were transformed from mainly positive activities to predominantly negative ones. Enforced exchanges, such as slavery, can only be initiated and maintained by armed bodies of men. Thus the Civilisations in the form of Empires (Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc.), gained by armed seizure and the consequent subjection of whole peoples, were accomplished by using the surplus product of ordinary human labour to create a power against those who produced it. In this way civilisations and slavery went hand in hand. Thus it is possible to read;
The oppression and exploitation necessary to build huge palaces and public monuments, whilst the labouring populace in general existed in squalor, was a situation which could only be maintained by force of arms. The hidden history of the seven wonders of the world, the pyramids of Egypt, the temples of Greece, the Arenas of Rome, the Inca and Aztec shrines and other assorted monuments is undoubtedly the hidden history of the forced labour and misery of millions of oppressed people. Over the period of many thousands of years they had been compelled to build them in conjunction with the agricultural slaves who were forced to labour to feed them. Thus the parallel story of the technical advance of 'civilisation' and its western expansion through Europe is also ultimately the economic story of armed conquest and the forced extraction of surplus production from working people. Whenever we are invited to marvel at the end products such as the wonderful architecture and/or achievements of the ancient world, or for that matter even the modern world, we are at the same time often having our attention drawn away from the hidden story of quite savage treatment of millions of working people. We should keep in mind that this new era in the history of humanity was quite definitely established by economic oppression and exploitation. It was this, which in one form or another, made possible the production of such monuments and other public works. When ruling elites seized control of the surplus production from those who produced it, by enforcing a negative reciprocal exchange upon them, then oppression and exploitation became the dominant characteristics of those societies. It was such a period of severe oppression and exploitation which, perhaps not unsurprisingly, also saw the flourishing of various liberation theologies, a notable one being Christianity. Shorn of any real hope of emancipation on earth, these now routinely and systematically oppressed peoples, perhaps understandably took pessimistic refuge in the ideas of a better and more equal society after the interval of a thousand years (the millennium). After this period had elapsed they hoped that the supreme being would return to earth and put an end to exploitation, injustice and oppression. With the eventual failure of this perspective, the hope for a better society was postponed until after death. The forlorn hope was then for a 'heaven' of good people in which the poor sat alongside each other and the 'creator' in social equality, co-operation and amid plenty. It would be a place where the rich and oppressors would have great difficulty (more difficulty we are told than a camel, or rope - depending upon which version of the bible is being considered - passing through the eye of a needle) in gaining admission. It is interesting to note that in nearly all essentials this religious 'vision' was, and is, often nothing more than 'a post-oppressive or now post-capitalist paradise of the imagination' rather than of reality. Heaven in this almost universal 'Abrahamic' vision is an imaginary beneficial association in the after-life, a mystical projected image of a hoped for reciprocal and beneficial community. It is a place where positive reciprocal exchange is ensured for eternity by the omnipotent presence of a benign and powerful supernatural being, rather than the real evolutionary development of collective human beings. Paradoxically it is often offensive to the religious hierarchies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, (the Abrahamic religions) who subscribe to this mystical vision, to want or strive to achieve, such a community in the real world. The high priests of religion are almost universally to be found on the side of the established oppressors. For hundreds of years, organised religion has offered a weekly dream of heavenly peace to replace the daily living nightmare of oppression and exploitation. Religion became in Marx's words 'the sigh of the oppressed creature'; the 'opium of the people'. The natural and social yearnings of humanity are guided into channels of mystical passivity rather than revolutionary activity, into scriptural contemplation rather than radical demonstration. Also, for some people, such religious views also represented a mode of indirect criticism of the powers that ruthlessly crushed and oppressed the enslaved peoples of ancient Rome. Nevertheless, once the oppressors embraced and adopted Christianity it became definitely a religion for the oppressed rather than simply of the oppressed. Indeed, the New Testament in particular in many places (e.g. Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 - 7; Titus, chapter 3, verse 1; 1 Timothy, chapter 2, verse 2 and Chapter 6, verse 1; 1 Peter, chapter 2 verses 13 and 14, etc.) gives specific instructions for believers to submit to all forms of authority and oppression. 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's', was an instruction to Christians to willingly supply surplus labour and surplus value to the oppressors. There can be little doubt that such a sentiment was much appreciated by the ruling elites of the time and has been ever since. Organised religion was henceforth promoted by successive ruling elites as a means to pacify any secular discontent, to nullify any implicit moral sanction and postpone any desire for human equality until after death. This situation continues down to this day. The capitalist class and their supporters in the various parts of the world, subscribe financially, intellectually and promote actively the Abrahamic doctrine of an egalitarian paradise in heaven, all the more eagerly, precisely because it leaves intact their capitalist inequality, based upon negative reciprocal exchange, on earth.
Yet the whole structure of modern economic life has been developed on the basis of forced imposition of negative reciprocal exchange. This condition infects, corrupts and distorts all social relationships to a greater or lesser degree. The period of serfdom and peasant agriculture bridged the historic gap between the slavery of the ancient world and wage-slavery of the modern world and in all three modes of production, an armed ruling elite has extracted the surplus production from an unarmed working population. The economic and social conditions under these three great modes of production could only be continued by force and they provoked continued and varied forms of resistance. Each social formation required the existence of state laws and armed bodies of men to enforce them. Under modern capitalism, the existence of negative reciprocal exchange at all levels, continues to be a major source of discontent and opposition to the system and, as we shall see, special armed bodies of men are still a priority support mechanism for the modern ruling strata, in order to enforce these exchanges upon their own populations. It is obvious that in general, enforced exchanges are also unfair or unequal exchanges, otherwise they would not need to be forced. This is even the case between the modern working classes and the capitalist classes although the initial enforcement is not by weapons. Lacking means of production, the working classes are enforced by their circumstances to exchange their labour power for an amount of money whose value is always considerably less than the total value of the products they create, or the services they provide. Their lack of means of production forces them to enter into this unfair exchange with the modern owners of the means of production - the capitalists, or starve. As we have already noted, the surplus value created by those workers is then appropriated by the capitalist class and distributed among them in the form of profits, rents or interest. This extraction of surplus labour is also the secret of the transfer of wealth between the Imperialist powers and their colonies. As soon as native populations were subdued an unequal exchange was forced upon these peoples also.
We have seen in this chapter, that the existing capitalist society is not the only kind of human society possible. Nor should we imagine that just because it is one of the latest historical forms to develop, that this automatically means that it will be the last. The majority of people in each form of previous society probably thought theirs was permanent and could not be changed. However, it wasn't and was. The fact that modern capitalism seems so powerful and 'advanced' to some people, does not mean that it won't and can't be superseded. Indeed, chapter 10 will argue in some detail, why in terms of a sustainable future for human beings, it can and must. We will see that capitalist forms of production are oppressive, exploitative, destructive, dehumanising and dangerous in numerous ways. And it was a reaction to these symptoms which gave rise to the idea of economic co-operation among working people in industry, agriculture and commerce.
Co-oPERATION aND Social production. So far the term co-operation has been used in a more general and universal sense of beneficial association. We now need to conclude with looking at the term co-operation in its more specific human sense without losing sight of its real material genesis in the natural life of the planet. Co-operation in its more recent context - as an alternative method of economic organisation to capitalist production - has meant abolishing the private profit motive and the intention to eradicate the condition of wage slavery. Co-operation was envisaged as a form of beneficial association of producers, and consumers, who would be freed of the parasitic capitalist class. Working people under such a system would be able to decide how much surplus to produce and to what use it would be put. However, many co-operative societies and organisations, particularly in Britain, were constructed so that the surplus value, once transformed into profit, was distributed only amongst its shareholders. The workers in such co-operatives, although often better paid, remained wage-slaves. In other words such co-operatives merely mimicked capitalist forms of organisation such as joint-stock companies and shareholding companies. This was true of the Rochdale pioneer Co-operatives and those set up by Robert Owen here in Britain. The Owenite model, for example, even allowed for the continued existence of a rigid class system, comprising of upper, middle and working classes. Owen's vision of improving society was the creation of a subordinate tier of co-operative production within the system of capitalist production and to convince capitalists by example of the superiority of this co-operative model. His co-operative system was designed to put an end to what he saw as the double curse of unemployment. Firstly, the curse of the rates burden for unemployment support had become an uninvited charge on the middle-class ratepayers. Secondly, unemployment became associated with drunkenness and anarchy among the workers. Co-operation at Lanark and elsewhere, under Owenite principles, was designed to set the unemployed to work feeding themselves and at the same time train and educate them into a life of sobriety and Godliness. Whilst doing this it would simply leave the class system intact. However, since unemployment is a direct symptom of the capitalist system, Owenite co-operation was attempting to 'ease' the symptom not overcome the cause. Having said this, Owen's basic model of communal life, if stripped of its class bias, purged of its mysticism and removed from self-imposed isolation, would have had considerable merit.
The Rochdale models were originally designed to allow the members to purchase goods at cost, to get a percentage return on their shares in the co-operative and a further dividend, as a share of the half year or yearly surplus profits. Of course these profits would be extracted from the surplus labour of the workers but the value they represented would be realised from the purchasing customers. These customers in the main would be working class. In other words this form of co-operation was a beneficial association for some workers - but not all. Marx, whilst supportive of the co-operative idea if it was generalised, was scathing in his attack upon these bourgeois forms of co-operation. In an article on co-operation, he reminded readers of the general humanitarian principle that apart from children, the sick and the old, "no person has a right to take more from society, than the value of that which he or she confers upon it", Those non-working shareholders taking 'interest' and 'dividend' out of the co-operative profits, were taking more out of the co-operative society than they had put in. The interest and profit (dividend) going to the share-holders was coming from the efforts of the workers in the co-operative (i.e. from wages set below the value they produce) and from the labour of the purchasers who obtained their wages elsewhere. He went on to suggest a more beneficial form of association for a co-operative movement;
"A co-operative association is formed; after payment of its working charges (including labour in production or distribution), it finds itself at the end of the year with a surplus in hand; instead of dividing this surplus among the members, it employs it to purchase land or machinery, which it lets out to other bodies of working men, on the associative principle. The rent paid for the land or the machinery and the surplus of each concern beyond the working charges, is again to be applied to the further purchase of machinery and land, on the same terms and under the same conditions and so on, continually extending the power, strength and resources of the association. This is co-operation. It is co-operation, because it establishes a community of interest - the success of each 'branch' furthers the success of every other and of the whole collectively." (Marx Engels 'Collected. Works' Pub. Lawrence and Wishart. Vol. 11 page 587)
Really useful forms of co-operation would require a national development on the lines of establishing a real community of interest as Marx outlined above. The Rochdale model, on the other hand, tended to create a privileged strata among the working class and brought competition among the separate co-operatives, thus dividing working people rather than uniting them. To the co-operators of that particular model of co-operation Marx said; "..you are digging the grave of co-operation, while you think you are fashioning its cradle." A remark which could have been applied with similar accuracy some sixty plus years later to the Bolsheviks under Lenin, Trotsky and then Stalin. Sad to say that few, if any, of the original co-operators heeded the suggestions of Marx and, at least in the case of Britain, most followed the Rochdale model. The resulting model of large-scale Co-operative Societies in the advanced countries, therefore not only mimicked the capitalist model of organisation but more often than not went on to directly mirror the capitalist model of surplus labour extraction. This extended even to their management structure. Local co-operative societies had managers, under-managers, supervisors and then came the lowly workers who were the real source and engine of production and distribution. Regional Societies had their regional managers or directors etc., and so on. The hierarchical method of controlling the pace and rate of exploitation, which is fundamental to capitalist concerns, was replicated in all respects precisely because the purpose had become the same. That purpose was to produce commodities for exchange, to extract surplus labour from the work-force and realise that surplus labour in the form of surplus value in money. It matters very little on the larger social scale of things that a small amount of that surplus was (and still is in some cases) annually allocated to 'worthwhile' local community projects by various co-operative societies - indeed many capitalistic firms do exactly the same! This practice represents but a feeble and distorted echo of 'co-operation's' original purpose.
The concept of social production or 'socialism', as with the concept of communal production and 'communism', originally arose as a non-religeous expression of a future society motivated by the desire to create a better and more humane life. It was envisaged as egalitarian and non-exploitative. The creation of such an idea was for many people and remains so for some, simply an immediate reaction against the harsh oppression and exploitation experienced under the rule of capital. As such the concept has more often than not been insufficiently understood or thought through and has been a woefully ill-defined goal of many anti-capitalists. This lack of definition was (and is) of little consequence as long as the capitalist system itself was properly understood. However, the terms were unfortunately loose enough to allow for many interpretations of what socialised working and communal living should look like. In that context we have seen the Bolshevik model described by Lenin and Trotsky in a previous chapter. When working people eventually won the right to vote, large numbers many wanted to vote for a socialist party because by that time the idea of a post-capitalist form of society, known as socialism, had become popular. The result was that a number of tiny socialist groups amalgamated and turned themselves into political parties. Some people, who were not really socialists but wanted to reform some of the worst aspects of capitalist production, joined these socialist parties and became influential in them. This led to a gradual redefining of what being a socialist was. The term socialist began to mean being against some of the negative aspects of capital but not necessarily wanting to overthrow it. A closely allied strand of socialist thought argued that the capitalist system could be reformed bit by bit until an alternative system of social production had replaced it. Party names were changed or new parties formed. Democratic Socialist, Social Democratic and Labour type names were chosen to make clear the tentative and reformist nature of their criticism of capital. It was for this reason that some workers and intellectuals chose to identify themselves as communists rather than socialists. In its turn the term communism has come to mean the despotic rule of the brutal sectarian elite. Nonetheless, the concepts, although suffering from being too general, were initiated by motives which were essentially humanitarian. The blame for how certain other people subsequently acted in relationship to their implementation cannot be laid at the door of the originators. In the same way we cannot blame the early Christians for the barbarity of the Spanish Inquisition or the creation of a papal concordat with Hitler.
In this 'political' context the actual and effective collective control of production and surplus production is the most important consideration and it is this which will be the real future liberating mechanism for working people and the oppressed. Prior agreement on what such a society should be properly called should be a separate and subordinate question. Yet the concepts of social production and communal production are not only emotional or reasoned reflexes against the mercenary system of capital. As we have seen, they are also very much in line with the whole pattern arising from nature and the evolutionary development of humanity. The original idea of post-capitalist or communist production was based upon the fundamental principle of egalitarian co-operation in various forms. It implied a system which was guided by positive reciprocal exchange within the sphere of production and social relations. These are fundamental aspects which were deliberately ignored or insufficiently understood by sectarian anti-capitalists and reformist socialists alike. Nevertheless, the fact that misguided political zealots have periodically brought universal condemnation on the terms, socialism and communism, does not mean the concepts underpinning them no longer have any historical or contemporary validity. Anti-capitalists need to recognise and accept that the terms socialism and communism have, along with many other terms, become adulterated by their over use, in certain circumstances, and by their fraudulent use in others, however, we need not be defensive about what they originally implied. A frequent criticism levelled at adherents of post-capitalist and co-operative forms of living and producing, is that although they may be good ideas in principle, in practice they can never work. A further, and closely allied argument, is often advanced that these practices are simply against human nature. We have seen from the evidence of Bacteriology, Entomology, Ornithology, Zoology and Primatology that beneficial association or co-operation is certainly not against non-human nature. Indeed quite the opposite, it is very much in evidence if we are open to recognising it and our terminology or methods of classification are not allowed to obstruct our view. The Botanist Ronald Good raises a fundamental point, in regard to our human-provided hierarchical classifications of the natural world., when he reminds us that; "In truth feral living nature provides the prototype of a community totally classless in this kind of sense." ('The Philosophy of Evolution' R. Good. Pub. Dovecote Press 1981. page 29) Indeed, I would venture to further strengthen that comment and stress the point that; 'nature presents us with a complex but totally classless community'. Nature itself contains no superior or inferior forms of life, no better or worse conditions, simply variety, diversity, adaptation and ecological appropriateness. It is only our self-obsessed, arrogant and prejudiced perceptions which cause us to attribute to nature a hierarchy of superior and inferior forms and to extend that to our fellow human beings. However, it is a fact that our prejudiced perceptions are constantly changing and being challenged to change. This is true in science as well as social life. As Lynn Margulis, prompts us to consider; "No matter how much our own species preoccupies us, life is a far wider system. Life is an incredibly complex interdependence of matter and energy among millions of species beyond (and within) our own skin. These earth aliens are our relatives, our ancestors, and part of us. They cycle our matter and bring us water and food. Without 'the other' we do not survive." (Lynn Margulis. 'The Symbiotic Planet. Pub. Phoenix. page 140.) This symbiotic interdependence within the natural world, of which we humans are only a biological and ecological part, is evidence that nature, and the evolution of nature, predominantly comprises of classless, beneficial associations. Nor are co-operation and positive reciprocal exchange in opposition to the nature of the human species as the review of Archaeology, Anthropology and Ethnology suggests. Evidence from these disciplines indicates that these positive characteristics have been maintained in one form or another throughout millions of years of human existence and development. I therefore suggest that a society based upon co-operation and positive reciprocal exchange is definitely not against human nature. Compared with the three million or so years in which positive reciprocal exchange and social co-operation were the norm, the present competitive and exploitative epoch can be seen as just an abhorrent blip on the graph of human development. The fact that social and economic forms such as the hunter/gatherer, pastoralist etc., existed well into the 19th and 20th centuries, and were only destroyed from without, also demonstrates that it was not the passage of time which undermined the viability of these forms of economic and social activity. Nor was it simply the passage of time which created technological development in the east and then later in Europe. Rather it was other factors such as fortuitous circumstances or necessity followed by greed and the allied desire for conquest. Human beings in such previous economic and social units were not 'backward' or unintelligent, as modern racist stereotyping often assumes. They had after all developed language, complex social forms, tools and cultural artefacts; many even had a detailed knowledge of astronomy as well as their respective eco-systems If they did not proceed further in many regions of the planet it was not that they necessarily needed the stimulus of long tracts of time, or a European intervention, for further development. A socio-economic system which is more than adequate, which has no need or desire for vastly disproportionate individual accumulation, which is in balance with nature, is at peace with itself and others around it, has no need of frenetic technological development. On the contrary such a society would have the all-round social development and contentment of its members as its main concern. We should perhaps consider with a degree of envy their lack of a rigid division of labour which allowed everyone to take part in dancing, music, singing, art, sports and other cultural pursuits. In modern 'civilised' times most of us are rendered passive observers of the professionals who now increasingly engage in such activities for no other reason than to gather more than their fair share of surplus value.
There is another frequent objection to the possibility of co-operative, socialistic or communal forms of economic activity. This is in regard to the prejudiced objections that workers are lazy unless supervised by capitalists or their managers. This objection has been answered eloquently by none other than an early liberal supporter of capitalism, James Mill. His response is worth considering in some detail. "The objection ordinarily made to a system of community property and equal distribution of the produce, that each person would be incessantly occupied in evading his fair share of the work, points, undoubtedly, to a real difficulty. But those who urge this objection forget to how great an extent the same difficulty exists under the system on which nine tenths of the business of society is now conducted. The objection supposes that honest and efficient labour is only to be had from those who are themselves individually to reap the benefit of their exertions. But how small a part of all the labour performed in England, from the lowest paid to the highest, is done by persons working for their own benefit. From the Irish reaper or hodman to the chief justice or the minister of state, nearly all the work of society is remunerated by day wages or fixed salaries....In the extreme case of obstinate perseverance in not performing the due share of work, the community would have the same resources which society now has for compelling conformity to the necessary conditions of the association." (J. Mill quoted in Nordhoff 'The Communist Societies of the United States' Pub. Dover. page 19.) We need to recognise that under capitalist forms of exploitation it makes rational sense for working people to take it easy whenever opportunity allows it - it merely lessens their rate of exploitation. However, under positive reciprocal forms of production the exertions of work for working people would certainly be less than those in a capitalist sweat shop. There would clearly be many other reasons not to shirk - it is actually often enjoyable to work in a group when it is voluntarily undertaken. Even so, any post-capitalist shirkers would have to avoid the process of scrutiny which any future collective of workers and consumers care to humanely devise.
We have seen that competition, exploitation, oppression and negative reciprocal exchanges haven't always dominated human societies and I suggest if we take a longer view, they needn't always do so. Humans, within certain limits, have a choice. True, at the moment the choice is greatly restricted by the domination of those powerful political and military forces which presently control the production and surplus production of society and extract the surplus value. However, as we shall see, there are deep contradictions at work within their capitalist system. Such contradictions will at some time in the future present the opportunity of transforming the present negative forces once again back into positive forces for the future healthy development of human society and all forms of life on the planet. From the standpoint of most anti-capitalists, the capitalist system of production is in urgent need of a revolutionary transformation. In the lead up to that transformation the only real questions which remain for anti-capitalists, therefore, fall into two categories. First; is a future society based more completely upon co-operation and positive reciprocal exchange a desirable goal? Secondly: will a future society based upon co-operation and positive reciprocal exchange be workable under modern conditions? The answer to the first question for those who consider themselves revolutionary humanists is positive for at least two reasons. It is desirable because the present system is unnatural, unjust and inhumane in the way it creates such vast inequalities of wealth, oppressive social conditions and exploitative economic relations. This injustice has become particularly glaring and contradictory. Technological development has raised productive capacity to such a level that everyone on the planet could have a reasonable standard of living if the results of this productivity were distributed differently. The clear barrier to this happening under the rule of capital is that the ownership of the means of production and distribution is in the hands of a relatively small minority who have become accustomed to use the technology to become rich. They initiate, increase, decrease or cease production altogether, dependant upon their ability to accumulate even more wealth. Secondly, a society based upon global co-operation and positive reciprocal exchange is also desirable because eliminating production for profit and private wealth creation would allow economic decisions to be made with regard to their effect upon other people, other life forms and the general ecology of the planet. The rule of capital, as we shall see in more detail in the following chapters, cannot do this because its prime motive sanctions only the type and level of production which creates profitable commodities and which 'artfully' stimulates the need to consume them. Such 'market' decisions have no regard for the effects of this production and consumption upon other people or the welfare of the planet. The answer to the second question, with regard to a society based upon co-operation and positive reciprocal exchange being able to work under modern conditions, is also positive. It is possible to say this because modern capitalist society cannot function without a high degree of co-operation. Co-operation in the production and distribution of goods and services is so widespread that we currently take it for granted. That is until this co-operation is removed by natural disaster or by certain workers removing that co-operation by industrial action. The whole division of labour within industry and commerce in advanced Capitalist countries, as well as others, relies absolutely on co-operation between the various workers and economic sectors. The whole international division of labour which sends raw materials, goods and services between countries, depends absolutely upon the international co-operation of many hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, in their production and their distribution. The ownership of the means of production, concentrated in the hands of a relatively few rich companies and individuals, does not do away with co-operation. On the contrary it cannot do without it. Capital is actually parasitic upon human co-operation. The capitalist class requires a certain level of social and economic development and co-operation before they can begin and continue to exploit the advantageous conditions, created by that co-operation. Capitalist wage-slavery merely replaced the earlier form of forced co-operation, (serfdom etc.), exercised by the feudal aristocracy. In doing so it merely transformed one form of negative reciprocal exchange into a new form dedicated to the capitalist form of wealth creation. Without doubt, the capitalist system is already based upon a high degree of co-operation, it lacks, among other things, the important humanist element of positive reciprocal exchange and communal ownership of the means of production. The task of a post-capitalist society is to unfetter this co-operation from the stranglehold of capital. At the same time, as we noted earlier, positive reciprocal exchange continues to be a small but important part of everyday life despite the distortions of capitalist exploitation and oppression. Between strangers, as well as friends, agreement to trade or exchange usually implies an exchange freely entered into and equivalents exchanged to the satisfaction of both parties. The fact that it often doesn't happen that way and that people find themselves frequently 'ripped off' doesn't invalidate the fact that positive reciprocal exchanges are still the socially preferred option of the vast majority of humans. Indeed, people can only feel 'ripped off', 'cheated', 'exploited', victimised, or 'swindled' if there still is an underlying expectation and assumption that exchanges and relationships should be reciprocal and positive. The main, and massive, barrier to positive reciprocal exchange existing between all people in the modern economic system is the continuance of the capitalist system and the domination of people who wish to perpetuate negative reciprocal exchange because they have become accustomed to getting more out of the economic system than they put in. Their hierarchical control of modern day life, in all its aspects, economic, social, intellectual and political, ensures negative reciprocal exchange is continued, by the practice of wage labour, by the private ownership of the means of production protected by force of law, and by the process of creating a hierarchy of greedy people who dominate economic, political and social interactions.
Finally. In this chapter we have seen the breadth and depth of beneficial associations occurring throughout a wide range of natural life. In the human form of co-operation, it has been demonstrated to be a conscious, socially enhancing, form of relating and organising throughout long tracts of human experience. The reason why 20th century attempts to create egalitarian social formations have gone so badly wrong (as in the case of Soviet Russia, for example) has been that the leadership figures, and those who put them at the head of these anti-capitalist struggles, did not understand the difference between the humanist and evolutionary essence of the problem facing humanity and the revolutionary political form required to overthrow Capital. In Russia, instead of discarding politics once the civil and intervention wars were over, the leaders fetishised it; instead of liberating the soul of social revolution and communal production from politics, they suffocated it under the uniform of politics and the politics of uniformity. Riding the wave of the working class and peasant struggles and taking advantage of the rift in the feudal ruling elite, the Bolsheviks, were able to shoulder the weakly developed Russian Capitalist class to one side. These two factors enabled them to play a leading part among the anti-capitalist forces in the revolutionary crisis in Russia. However, they utterly failed to help, or encourage working people to introduce a system based upon self-activity, co-operation and positive reciprocal exchange. Indeed, unlike Marx, they did not even see such a perspective as desirable. Instead, they forced workers and peasants into negative reciprocal exchanges, and used the political power base created by workers and peasants, (the Soviets) to take control of the surplus product. Like all previous ruling elites they then utilised this surplus production to fund armed bodies of men and secret police forces, all of which were then used against the workers and peasants. Essentially the same pattern, with some minor differences, was replicated by Chairman Mao, his supporters, in and around the Communist Party of China.
So far we have followed the bizarre antics of many of the anti-capitalist sectarians and we have scrutinised the disastrous oligarchic efforts of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. However, their combined failures do not mean that the evolutionary advantage which accrues to species who co-operate voluntarily on the basis of positive reciprocal exchange, should be discarded as unattainable. They were disastrous, inadequate and misguided attempts but so too are the results of many human endeavours, particularly when the endeavours are difficult ones. Such failures do not mean we should simply give up. We do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Provided we learn from the mistakes and correct the distortions we - collective humanity - can eventually succeed. Indeed, we need to, for the struggle to re-create beneficial associations of humans, whether this is termed socialism, communism, revolutionary-humanism or something else, is more relevant to the 21st century than it has ever been before. The current world practice of exploitation and pollution for the benefit of an obscenely wealthy few, is not only using up most of the earth's resources, but poisoning the remainder and leaving the majority of human beings in various forms of dependant poverty and exploitation. These latter are symptoms which are unavoidable under capitalist conditions for they are a built-in, structural part of the system of capital. They exist on a scale which was unknown until recent times. In the twenty-first century these symptoms have become devastatingly global. It is time to scrutinise more closely the capitalist process of production, and then its results, which shape and disfigure our modern world. |
(Below not included in chapter)
Between two individuals the continued negative reciprocal exchange by one or other of the individuals will eventually lead to the dissolution of the pairing. Further the continued oppression and exploitation of women by men in relationships is at root nothing more than a form of negative reciprocal exchange between male and female that is enforced by social pressure, tradition, legal and economic sanction. In modern society in which the vast majority of women bear the brunt of child-rearing and domestic activities (from which there is little respite) men invariably engage in set hourly economic activities from which (however arduous the economic activity) there is a definite finishing time and a definite period of respite.
The fact that in general, female activities are viewed as low value activities in comparison to male activities, adds a further level to the unequal exchange of labour time between men and women and is a further element in the negative reciprocal exchange between the genders. However, this is not so much to do with the gender as with the activities themselves. Men when engaged in childrearing and nurture do not receive any more reward than women. The reason for this is that although these activities are necessary (even vital) they are purely productive activities and yield no surplus production. All systems of exploitation are primarily interested in those activities which yield a surplus or directly help to yield a surplus. This is why child-rearing, nurture of infant humans and domestic chores have been in general low income and low status (with the exception of rearing high-born children) throughout the history of the successive civilisations from the ancient slave states, through the feudal period and on to capitalist relations of production. It just happens that women are closer biologically to some of those activities and get lumbered with the rest.
Even down to the most intimate level of sexual activity between two people the lack of consistent positive reciprocal exchange leads to frustration, anger and misery. The male achievement of orgasm with little or no regard for his female partners emotional feelings, possible pregnancy or her own orgasm is of course a matter of common knowledge. The lack of positive reciprocal exchange in sexual relations is a constant source of dissatisfaction to the neglected partner and a frequent cause of break up among couples. The extreme level of negative reciprocal exchange in sexual matters is of course rape and is consequently condemned by all societies with perhaps the exception of slave societies and Fascist societies but even there it is condemned by those who are on the receiving end, if not those in power. The lack of positive reciprocal exchange between partners and families in sexual, social and economic affairs is a prime cause of so many problems both physical and psychological within the modern world.
In fact even in animal groups those individuals which display such negativity i.e. taking a valuable share of something and giving little or nothing valuable in exchange are eventually driven out of the group whether the activity concerns grooming behaviour, defence or food gathering.
Negative reciprocal exchange, therefore, is the basis of all destructive tendencies within human interaction. It is also the destructive tendency within other species and lies at the basis of inter-group squabbles and tensions, leading in human species to the development of oppression, exploitation, slavery and warfare. Between human individuals and families, negative reciprocal exchange creates oppression, unhappiness tension, psychosis and leads to physical violence and/or the dissolution of the family or pairing unit. The one exception is the negative reciprocal exchange between infant and adult. From pregnancy to infancy there is a negative reciprocal exchange between child and parent. In the womb the infant feeds off the mother and offers nothing of direct benefit to the mother. Even the feeling of well-being that pregnant women sometimes report is merely their own hormone and energy production kicked into a higher gear by the needs of the neonate rather than the direct needs of the mother. The existence of all the medical support provided to pregnant women in all societies is testament that the exchange of life creation for the child gives little in the way of return for the mother and in many societies with little medical expertise female mortality in child-birth can be considerable. The infant likewise requires the continuation of a negative exchange. A relationship of dependency pre-supposes a negative reciprocal exchange Child-rearing is almost exclusively a one way exchange. Not that child-rearing is without its pleasures, but it is almost universally considered a difficult and often thankless task at least in the short term. But even here, in infant nurture, where a negative reciprocal exchange is universally accepted (as within the animal kingdom also) nevertheless a time comes when the offspring is required to enter into a positive reciprocal exchange with members of the family and/or group. The offspring of animals must begin sooner or later to play its part in obtaining its own food and shelter or be excluded by the group. The child of a human group must begin helping with chores and later take a fuller and developing part in the economic activity of the family and group. The child accustomed by this time to a negative reciprocal exchange (in the form of dependency) often resists the transition to a positive reciprocal exchange and therefore each society has its sanctions, inducements and problems in securing this transition.
Learning to accept negative reciprocal exchange over a long period of time can create in some people a craving for the security of dependency. Dependency and the negative reciprocal exchange it involves is perhaps the most starkly expressed under slavery, where the slave is forced into exchanging his labour power for just the bare minimum (and sometimes less than this minimum) of the means to exist. A slave thus becomes dependant upon the slave master for everything, from permission to speak, to permission to sleep, to permission to continue to live. The modern counterpart to such forms of institutionalised dependency lies in the long-term imprisoning of those convicted of criminal actions. Many long-term institutionalised persons have spent so much time in a system of negative reciprocity where they are allowed to give very little in exchange for support in the basic necessities of life that they cannot adjust to living outside. Conditions of dependency or acceptance of negative reciprocal exchange where they become habitual mean that these conditions have become the norm for those who are accustomed to them and so they attempt to perpetuate them. A dependant child (if the transition is not fully completed) to a norm of positive reciprocal exchange will try to become a dependant or partly dependant adult. In other words a young person habituated to accept a negative reciprocal exchange who does not unlearn this and embrace positive reciprocal exchanges will seek to recreate such negative reciprocal exchanges in adulthood. Therefore, some men will want to be exploitatively dependant upon a woman for the free manual labour provided by his mother and some women will want to be dependant upon their men for the technical labour their father provided. On the surface this may seem natural and for some traditionalists, even desirable, but beneath the surface the cancerous tentacles of negative reciprocal exchange will eat away at most such relationships. This is so because even if a child-like dependency is not admitted its effects will be recognised by all as being negative reciprocity rather than positive reciprocity. A relationship in which only one partner strives for a negative reciprocal exchange will encounter difficulties but a relationship in which both partners seek to gain from creating negative reciprocal relationships will undoubtedly explode in acrimony and violence. Continually trying to maintain or create negative reciprocal exchanges in a world in which evolution has favoured and continues to favour positive reciprocal exchanges is dysfunctional and leads to psychosis and other maladjustment's in individuals and breeds unrest and revolution within societies and war between nations.