The invaders command that the locals, the Tulat/"We," must carry gifts to them continually during the spring. This means that the Tulat have less time to hunt and gather for themselves.
This demonstrates a point about the origins of slavery. When the productivity of human labour was so low that the work of a single individual was sufficient to maintain only that single individual, then no one was able to enslave anyone else. If A ate what B produced, then B would starve so that A would be unable to enslave B. Oppressed though they are by their new masters, the Tulat must already be able to produce more than they need for themselves. Otherwise, this new exploitative system would not work.
But was there an earlier time when productivity was so low that exploitation was impossible? I have thought so but I realize that my understanding has been based on particular books that I have read. The Time Patrol is able to go and find out.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteOf course there has been oppression from the earliest times, since humans became human. It's what human beings are like, since the Fall.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteThere could only have been exploitation - the appropriation of the products of someone else's labour - if productivity was high enough for that to happen which is the question that I'm asking.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDelete"Oppression" is still the better word.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBut my question still remains.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteWhat occurs to me, setting aside the implausibility of the Tulat being as primitive as Anderson described them, they were poor pickings for the Cloud People to oppress. And that soon sank in, as we can see when these Paleo-Indians began teaching them more advancing neolithic tech. Because that would make for more efficient oppressing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWas there an early stage when the productivity of labour was so low that everyone was obliged to work equally so that it was impossible for anyone to live from the labour of anyone else?
If anyone is discriminated against or denied equal treatment, then he is oppressed. If anyone by his own labour produces a surplus of food or other wealth which is then appropriated by someone else, then he is not only oppressed but also more specifically exploited. "Exploitation," not just "oppression," is the accurate term for what the Tulat suffer at the hands of the Cloud People.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul
ReplyDeleteOf course not, because there has always been differences of strength, ability, brain wattage, circumstances of life, sheer luck, etc., among all humans thru out history. And that "productivity of labor" is obsolete, labor is only as valuable for however much it's worth paying for whatever goods and services are offered. Which was not the case with the Tulat, who were being coerced by the Cloud People.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBy productivity, I mean simply the ability of labour to produce, whether enough for survival or more than enough: surplus. When there is a surplus, there can be exploitation.
Paul.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBut, in the very earliest stages, those individual differences would not have been sufficient to enable one social group systematically to appropriate what was being produced by members of another group.
Paul.
Human hunter-gatherers didn't have to work hard -- usually about 4 hours a day, leaving 12 hours to do as they pleased.
ReplyDeleteThere work was hard and dangerous -- hunting large animals -- but episodic.
Early farmers worked much, much harder than their hunter-gatherer contemporaries.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI still don't buy that "productivity of labor." Anyone's labor is only worth what others are willing to pay for, with "pay" taking many different forms. Iow, the marginal utility theory of value.
And higher status people have always "systematically appropriated" more goods than those of lower status. Members of the Communist Party/nomenklatura had more access to quality goods than non-Party Russians in the USSR.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBut I am not talking about pay, only about the fact that labour produces, is productive.
Sure, the Russian Communist Party did not practice "communism."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul
ReplyDeleteBut whatever is produced by labor is worth only what others are willing to pay/exchange for it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteThat was not the point at issue here.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteBut it was for me, responding to what you said re "productivity of labour."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBut All I said was that labour produces what we need + more than we need = a surplus.
Paul.
all
ReplyDeleteKaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteIf anything is produced in quantities more than we need or at least think we need then it becomes worthless.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWe are still not communicating about this, I don't think.
The Tulat managed to feed themselves, thus produced what they themselves needed. They were also able to produce more than this. That "more" the Cloud People were able to extract as tribute. The "more"/tribute is a surplus in the most basic sense of the word.
We now produce much more than we need for immediate survival yet do not regard that more as worthless.
Paul.
Of course, there are two senses of "need":
ReplyDeletewhat we need for mere survival;
what we need for our fullest human development.
Here, I have been using this word only in the first sense although the second sense must also be taken into account.
In a democracy, we need to be able to hear or read the policies of electoral candidates and therefore need access to literacy and the media. This sense of "need" is not finite but open-ended.