Historical Periodisation (the events that lead to the next stage)

The aim of this blog is to present the Marxist theory on history up until the present day. I will not go beyond Capitalism because the next epoch is yet to happen and history is not about predicition. It is about facts and how we analyse and speculate these facts.

The current identified epochs of history within the Marxist framework are:

Primitive Communism: Humanity organised itself into tribes. At roughly 10 000 BC mankind experiences the agricultural revolution. Somewhere between 10 000 BC and 5500 BC private property and urban societies begin to emerge. From here the first Human civilisation begins to emerge. We know it as Mesopotamia. Thus begins the period of the slave society.

Slave Society: This period begins with the emergence of Mesopotamia. From here other civilisations emerge. Most notably Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. (Others include the ancient civilisations of South America and Asia.) Between 320 ad and 340 ad Rome coverts to Christianity. Thus begins the period of Feudalism.

Feudalism: With the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire, Smaller Kingdoms begin to fill the power vacuum. Landowners or the Aristocracy own the means of production, which in Federalism are farms, which is known as an agrarian economy. With the discovery of the Americas and the emergence of the 'Merchant Classes' the economy began to change into a consumer society and eventually led to the Industrial Revolution and this began Capitalism.




Capitalism: With the emergence of the merchant class, so consumerism began to emerge in society. With increase in demand, new methods of production were required. (there was an increase in demand because of the Black Death which killed half of the British population. As a result of this the Aristocracy no longer had a hold over the peasants. This was because with so few labourers peasants began to charge a lot of money for their services. As a result of this the market for consumer goods grew exponentially). The Capitalist classes begin to emerge. The Aristocracy begin to lose power and therefore fight for it. This leads to the English Civil War. Capitalist's back the Parliamentarians and the Aristocracy back the Royalists. Parliament wins and so does Capitalism over Feudalism. The Industrial Revolution begins and the Aristocracy is slowly wiped out and the Working class begins to emerge.


Who knows whats next? There are many theories and this one is the Marxist one. However as this blog is not about Marxism in general I will no go into predictions as I only wish to present the current social epochs of history.

Alternative business models for the media industry?

With the rise of p2p networking, pirate bay, bit torrent, the media industry fears a loss of profits. The old business model of making films, music and ideas scarce is coming to a CLOSE.

So what next?

I don't pretend to be an entrapeneur or any good at "business", but i have a few ideas. Although some stand alone, or are incompatable with eachother, some go together. (such as sponsorship/advertising with all of them)

I like the idea of using public viewing arenas, open areas with a viewing screen to attract people. Such an event would be ample to gain recognition for creativity, sell merchanidise, advertise and perhaps have pay per...something. The reason this would be useful, hopefully, is the quality of service. For instance where a good film exists, it is usually made better by good audio/visual equipment: best found at the venue.

An advertising model has already been discussed. It may also include (rather than just advertising) the use of codes for consumers to get discount, which also gains the venue (where the consumer recieved the code) income from the advertiser.

Generating an emphsis on public sponsorship of the events and advertisers is also important.

I think an awesome idea, you might disagree, is actors doing re dramatizations of films, either in a lower budget or through a play. Essentially inverting the original format for something different.

For muscicians i believe the best model, and i think it's used. Is to link the conciouness of social networking with live gigs. In short, play where you are wanted. The same could work for film. This has a greater chance of being a good investment due to the receptivness and personal input of the consumer/audience, you are more likley to have people buy merchandise and sponsor.

With the gaming industry, which is growing ridiculously fast, open sourcing their codes is the best way to get the most out of games. Indeed, i actually believe that open sourcing gaming will make the medium far more powerful and innovative. (hah, and cheaper)

When it comes down to it, media is social so we should tune into that.

Anarchist Communism (an attempted theory to unify the Far Left in a response to Capitalism)

This is a response to KC's blog on how there can not be a 'viable alternative to global capitalism'. I say there can! The problem is everyone wants there alternative to be perfect. This is indeed impossible, there has to be a compromise. If the Far Left unify then Capitalism can at last have a viable alternative. (I use the term far left because the left I.e. Social Democracy, Social Liberalism, Centrism etc, seeks to exist alongside capitalism. This isn't an answer to Capitalism! The only acceptable alternative can be the complete abolition of Capitalism.)

The aim of this blog is to not offer a a unified response from the Far Left with out any faults, indeed this would be impossible. The aim is to provide a foundation which can be built upon in order to establish an effective response and replacement to Capitalism. As a Marxist this seems like a good place to start.

Anarchist Communism is the theory that argues for the abolition of the state, private property and Capitalism. It is in favour of; common ownership of the means of production, a horizontal network of voluntary associations and 'workers councils'. It also argues for direct democracy.

It therefore envisions a society that is; democratic, has no state, common ownership of the means of production, and that there is no hierarchy as everyone is equal and at the same level of society. It is a stateless, classes, and equal society, with decisions made directly by the people who either operate independently or belong to voluntary associations such as small communities.

The way it is envisaged for this society to come about is via violent revolution. It has been argued that this would be achieved by people organising themselves into their own revolutionary movements that is equally controlled by everyone in them. These groups would eventually unify internationally (into a united international working class) and bring about the long needed revolution.

Society and everyone one in it will thus become free and see the end of Capitalism.

There are however some problems with this theory. The first is that without a state there can be no law and no law enforcement. That is why there would still be some sort of authority in place. An Open Sourced Network would be at the heart of this society. This Network would be controlled only by the people using a direct democratic system. This system would only have power over those who wished to be apart of it. Anyone who was part of it would also be able to leave it at anytime. This system would therefore act as a safe barrier from criminals such as rapists and murderers. It would also stop one community violently invading another to try and form a new state or expand its power by exploiting others. This system would also ensure that capitalism could not return.

The second problem would be the situation where there was a lack of work done by the people. That is why this society would be better suited in a more advanced era were automation was common and self sustaining. This would mean that jobs such as frequent maintenance to public works were constantly being done by machines.

The network would also aid in gathering hands for projects such as the maintenance of infrastructure such as the building of new transport systems. For example a commune who wished to develop a transport system would request help on the OSN. It can be assumed that engineers, planners etc and labour forces would aid in doing this as they to would require benefit from a transport system. They would also benefit helping others as others would then be more likely to aid them. For example if an engineer required food, or housing, the commune he/she was helping could provide this. In organising this it would most likely be the Trade Unions and/or Workers Councils as in this society, organised labour would be at the heart of everything. This sort of arrangement would also be much easier in an advanced automated, self sustaining society.

Communities would also likely have their own local laws which if anyone did not agree with they could leave the community. The open source network would in theory be the closest thing to a world government with which participation was voluntary. The open sourced network would also likely only allow laws to be made that were aimed at preventing people from harming each other. The OSN would also play a role in monitoring and regulating welfare services such as health care and energy demand. Again however in a more automated society this to would have little problems as machines would have access to all of humanities information via the Internet and could be programmed to function in a way that responded to the needs of the people.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of Anarchist Communism is its ability to get rid of Capitalism. By this it is meant that Communists (be they Marxist or other) should ally with the Anarchists across the world in order to work together in bringing about revolution. After all the both Communists and Anarchists have similar ends which allows them to achieve their goals with out opposing each others ideologies. It therefore seems that the choice is either wait for society to become more technologically advanced and be highly automated and abolish the state quickly through a quick spontaneous revolution or for the entire working class of the world to unite and implement an organised revolution and enter into the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In doing this the ruling working class can place focus on creating this; technologically advanced, automated society more quickly and then abolish the state, thus entering into Communism and also allowing Anarchist to implement their form of society within their own independent communes.
The other possibility would be for the Anarchists and the Communists to have mutually agreed to not interfere with each other and agree to revolt using revolutionary methods at the same time and once Capitalism is overthrown negotiate on achieving the end by compromising on the means of achieving this end. It does therefore seem that the only way revolution could be successful would be a joint attack from Anarchist Insurrectionary forces (using methods proposed in the coming insurrection) and mobilising Communist labour organisations (such as Trade Unions and Workers Councils) (as stated in the Communist Manifesto) and also using Leninist Revolutionary Vanguard Political Parties to seize power. After all there is strength in numbers.

I am aware that some groups of Anarchists and Communist would find it difficult to work together as certain aspects of the two ideologies oppose each other. This is why a compromise would need to be met as unless the Far Left unite then Capitalism will forever remain. This is due to the fact that at present, there appears to be no agreeable alternative to Capitalism.

In the words of Otto Von Bismarck 'Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!'

Note: It must be noted that while most of these theories tend to be Communist answers, Anarchist still have a place within this society. This is due to the fact that everyone is free to live apart from the system, which means Anarchist could live within their own communes and be left alone by the Communists and live in a way that is acceptable to their ideology.

Again, it must be stressed that for those that disagreed with the Communist way of living (such as the examples given earlier) would also be free to live in a way they see fit. However the biggest problem would be when two communes came into conflict with each other. I.e. claim over land or resources. The problem would be the same problem we have now with the Nation States that exist now, there would be war. To avoid this, the OSN would be used to mobilise a peacekeeping force. This 'armed force' could be used to prevent conflicts between communes or prevent a commune from turning into a nation state. This sounds impractical, however it does work as this method was successfully used by the Spanish Republic and its supporting factions during the Spanish Civil War. All communes would be free from all laws set down by the OSN (with the exception of people not being able to harm one another or claim authority over one another). Again to many this would sound impractical, but it was done with a degree of success by the Spanish. It only failed because other Nation States existed and the Spanish Republic received little help from the outside world in dealing with the Fascists (who had help from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy). It therefore leads me to conclude that in order for Communism and Anarchism to work, the effect would have to be global and be monitored by a minimal 'Nightwatchmen State' (the OSN) in order to be protected.

An immature experience of Zen.

I don't want this to come off as religious. i use the word zen because i was reading koans before i thought of writing this.

The Idea is to disregard everything. Just for a moment, but seriously and honestly. A thought might not just cut it. It requires us to completely let go of the floor we are sitting on.

I mean, honestly, you're sitting on it, but what does that mean? to what point does it satisfy to consider it.
at what point does it satisfy to consider anything. Really, why is it so necessary?

We can either reject reality. or accept it. It really makes no odds.

If we do, then what, the world is in your head.

If we don't and this means accepting investigations into reality such as physics or biology, then a world is out that we are in.

It really does not matter. Nor does my correctness to that situation.

We all talk about the things "here", about all the "stuff" - Eastenders, Easter, cornflakes and politics.
But it's really all of the "things". There is nothing, essentially, we made these ideas and these arguments. We constructed the dress code and the etiquette, we built the "nation" and the connotations of colour.
We act around each other, along with our beliefs in these odd "things". This is what we do, and we do it all the time.

Through time, whole peoples have not forgotten them. It's managed to spawn religions, beliefs, tribalism, South Park and Dorritos.

Forget it. There's just you and me.
We are pretty much all there is.
We've got to put behind us the ways that we think just to recognise this.
If we did recognise each other -and just that brute fact- we would be able to accomplish so much more.

Think before you see, before you feel - think before you think.

We're all doing it. We've done it for millennia.
We speak it, we act it, we live by it, in it, through it.

We can't help thinking like we do.

We build and construct, ideas, notions and feelings.

We see the world by them, and never without.

It's trapping us in a tiny box. It obscures what we can think about things.
Why do we need some starting point for thought, some framework of discourse?
Why does it take a set of preconceived ideas just to put the kettle on?

More importantly, why does it need those preconceived ideas just to say we should love each other?



Don't you want to shout. To scream. Say "STOP". And have it stop. To have it cease.

To see the world as it is, not as it should be, as it could be, as it will be, as it has been.
To see the world for what it is. To see it how it is.

Crystallize the world as though through a prism and we can all angles.

But it won't. It will not stop.

Everything here happens so fast. If you don't stop, it's not that you'll miss it, you will miss what we are all missing.

The Rhetoric of democracy

i wrote this for politics magazine, but they rejected/ignored my request to write for them.

The Rhetoric of democracy

It seems quite right that after the last few, and I say few, I mean long, years of political stagnation that our major broadcasters propose live debates as seen in the US presidential run-up. The conservatives and the liberal democrats seem all up for the fight, but Gordon is holding back, causing some strife for labour and political ammunition for the opposition. The debates are a move that would allows us to see up close the views of each leader.

The face off we see at prime ministers question times is an old joke, Gordon and Cameron a swords length apart; supported by their party with bouts of laughter, pointing fingers and waving papers, all red-faced, suit-clad politicians. It is defence and parry, block and retaliate. But the whole act seems without prestige, without the greatness and popularity of presidential debates.

The opportunity here is obvious; with decline of voter turnout political parties finally have the opportunity to revamp their electorate, to ignite another flame like the near 85% turnout of the 50’s. Questions that have been avoided find a new place under the burning spotlight and piercing camera. People can ask: Will you implement electoral reform? How are you tackling the economy? And what is your position on foreign affairs, Iran and so forth.

Mr Brown’s shunning of televised debates is likely a political move seeing he is at a low in some opinion polls. Gordon thinks this means he is somehow impaired [insert reference to one eye here]. The voice in his head must be telling him the nation would be laughing at him. As of Cameron and Nick Clegg, David is on a high and wants use this advantage to snatch the polls up. It’s a win-win for him, if Brown goes in David will demolish him (as he does at question time) if he doesn’t then he’ll chide him (as usual). Clegg is likely seeing an opening where he can voice himself and show he is a valid party leader worth voting for.

The debates would manifest a new dimension to British politics, the air of accountability, scrutiny and democracy. But at what cost? I’d say rhetoric and superficiality. The winner of the debates will be the best speaker not the best politician, the person who can be ambiguous but seem precise, the person who can make a fool of the other, the best presented and most well spoken. Obviously this strikes Gordon right off the list and places Cameron on a pedestal; he is a very powerful debater against the government at question time. Not to mention the amount of ammo that an incoming leader would have: thirteen years of New Labour initiatives to ridicule. The next general election win seems more like a default than a choice.

is this a truthful doctrine?

All social phenomena are a product of:

A= A persons existence (1)

B= Their environment (2)

(1) (Physically & mentally, essentially their being)*
(2) This refers to anything external to A. It is their surroundings, other people etc. This will necessarily constitute other social phenomena.*

*This is supposed to be a dynamic interaction that cannot be quantitatively realized. The description is intended to refer an objective state of affairs and the central purpose is to show how social phenomena, broadly, are produced.

Considering this, a priori, social phenomena are guaranteed to exist. In addition to this, knowing its constituent parts A & B and noting (or emphasising) the individuality of A in B,

It will be sustained, generated and essentially mediated by:

X .a person’s perception of their existence within the environment

And by including “environment” we must therefore include in X

X. Social phenomena

Therefore if social phenomena are guaranteed to exist as a product of A and B and be dependant on a dynamic relationship with X (a person’s perception in the environment) then social phenomena should be restricted to A and B with regard to X. The “regard” to X ensures we note that X generates social phenomena based on perception which is naturally arbitrary (but somehow seems consistent) because of the single, individual A within the shared B.

This is my doctrine of existence.

The problem is that social phenomena (X) do not refer to themselves as subjective accounts. This difficulty is language, our perception (X) of reality doesn’t suggest subjectivity and thus our language doesn’t make that discrepancy. Language thus has no self referential gauge that points to words or ideas and indicates their validity to reality.

The outcome of this state of affairs, as our social evolution has progressed, is that our social phenomenon, our structures of organisation, morality and language do not take into account their foundations (A, B, X) and therefore their ultimately, restricted relationship with regards to actual reality.

It is as though progress has thought that there is an A and there is a B. The existence of X is negligible. Or we could say, and then a single perception (X) and it (X) is right. X somehow reflects some objective and tangible ideology or claim to truth.

The only truth it seems is our descriptions of A and X and B.

It is essential that our accounts of reality (X) assert themselves as subjective accounts in B.