You're missing out the entire coercion/war/trading in women and cattle/institutional knowledge part

The relation with the land drastically changes once you settle down on it instead of moving constantly, which makes the above factors possible in the first place

And it changes when families develop because patriarchal structures create smaller families living in one settlement

And when people have more sophisticated and easily available weapons with which they can defend "their land" versus just simple hunting tools

And when people can access food easier so that the first divisions of labor can happen since there is a surplus product which also led to the first kings and queens who didn't have to work for their food

gowans.blog/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work

"From the moment in 1928 that the Soviet economy became publicly owned and planned, to the point in 1989 that the economy was pushed in a free market direction, Soviet GDP per capita growth exceeded that of all other countries but Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. GDP per person grew by a factor of 5.2, compared to 4.0 for Western Europe and 3.3 for the Western European offshoots (the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) (Allen, 2003). In other words, over the period in which its publicly owned, planned economy was in place, the USSR‘s record in raising incomes was better than that of the major industrialized capitalist countries."

"No other country had more physicians per capita or more hospital beds per capita than the USSR. In 1977, the Soviet Union had 35 doctors and 212 hospital beds per 10,000 compared to 18 doctors and 63 hospital beds in the United States (Szymanski, 1984). Most important, healthcare was free. That US citizens had to pay for their healthcare was considered extremely barbaric in the Soviet Union, and Soviet citizens “often questioned US tourists quite incredulously on this point”"

"For example, outside its southern core, Latin America’s GDP per capita was $1,332 (1990 US dollars), almost equal to the USSR’s $1,370. By 1989, the Latin American figure had reached $4,886, but average income in the Soviet Union had climbed far higher, to $7,078 (Allen, 2003). Public ownership and planning had raised living standards to a higher level than capitalism had in Latin America, despite an equal starting point. Moreover, while the Soviet peacetime economy unfailingly expanded, the Latin American economy grew in fits and starts, with enterprises regularly shuttering their doors and laying off employees."

"Perhaps the best illustration of how public ownership and planning performed better at raising living standards comes from a comparison of incomes in Soviet Central Asia with those of neighboring countries in the Middle East and South Asia. In 1928, these areas were in a pristinely pre-industrial state. Under public ownership and planning, incomes grew in Soviet Central Asia to $5,257 per annum by 1989, 32 percent higher than in neighboring capitalist Turkey, 44 percent higher than in neighboring capitalist Iran, and 241 percent higher than in neighboring capitalist Pakistan (Allen, 2003). For Central Asians, it was clear on which side of the Soviet Union’s border standards of living were highest."

Lol. How's Russia doing in the vienna talks right now? Heard they siding with the USA on the centrifuges issue lmao..

Peanut brained user

finally someone said something!

iran def got something to do with it

MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS

MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS

MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS MULLAHS

YOURE A MUSLIM? NO IM NOT A ISLAMAPHOBE BUT YOU ARE SUPERTITIOUS IDIOT WHO IS A SPY FOR IRAN! BECOME ATHEIST AND BE LIKE THAT WHITE MAN THAT WILL FIX ALL YOUR PROBLEMS !!!

Frantz Fanon was writing about a certain user back in the day.

Neoliberalism rly is a disgusting ideology

Folks, the bourgeois, they're no good, more and more people are saying it. All these workers— the biggest, we have the biggest workers— very handsome workers come up to me and say, Comrade Trump there is a specter haunting Europe, and you know what, they're right. These bourgeois are very nasty people, very very rude, and very unfair to the workers. They are stealing our surplus value and no one is doing anything about it. The proletariat comes up to me every day and says, Comrade Trump will you lead the revolution? And I gotta turn to them and say look, the instruments of capitalism will be used to bring about its destruction, believe me. The means of production, Obama never wanted to seize them. Well guess what? I'm seizing them. Landlords? They're done for folks. Everyone told me— they said, Comrade Trump you won't be the vanguard of the revolution and they would laugh, the media laughed the democrats laughed, guess who's laughing now?

And then you have these capitalists, those are real beauties! This is their new hoax- they take a piece of machine, a big beautiful shiny new means of production, and they buy it and y'know, they own it, it's a big beautiful shiny new machine, all the bells and whistles, bing bing bing, and then they have the workers- who are totally not being treated fairly in this country, folks, BELIEVE ME, totally exploited, and they have these workers-and they pay them a certain amount, could beee... $20 per hour, could be TEN, could be FIVE, could be TWELVE, they pay them a certain amount, okay, and with their labor they build the product.

And the owner of the machine, of the capital, "Capitalist" they turn around and sell the product at a yuge markup, they call it "profit." ok, so they call it profit! They don't sell it at the cost it took to make it, okay, so what do they do with this extra, you know what I call it? I call it surplus value. I call it surplus value, and do they share the surplus value with the people whose labor PROVIDED the value it took to make that product? I don't think so, folks.

They stick in a bank and then they say "ohhhh I can't afford to pay you more!" Bad- BAD people. It's totally phony, folks. Raw deal, our proletariat are getting a raw deal. But not for long! We're gonna- and by the way it never occurs the workers to pool their resources and buy the big beautiful machine in order to share the profit that they created in the first place with their labour! And you know why? Because the capitalists pay the workers such a low wage they can't afford to then invest and pool their money and share in ownership... of the means of production! Can't do it! This is the biggest scam on the planet, folks! Boy, I've heard some real beauties but that one, WOW, that's a doozy. That's a real beauty. But we're gonna fix it, folks, we're gonna fix it, okay? and you know what the laborers are going to do? They're gonna WIN.

Folks, what we did in 1917–the Revolution I call it, with a capital R–it's never been done before. So many big beautiful red flags, you couldn't even–now that, folks, that's a flag we stand up for, we don't kneel for our terrific red flag–and you couldn't even see the Winter Palace, you know. You know the Mensheviks, you take a look at what they said, and they were a, uh, a failed party, and Renegade Kautsky, very nasty to me but that's okay, they said we couldn't do it! They said, "Oh, Vlad, the material conditions are bad, we have to have a bourgeois republic to develop the forces of production." You know what that means, right? Semi-feudal economy! Okay, you get Semi-Feudal, and I said, I told them we can't have Semi-Feudal. Well, look at where we are now, Julius. We are going to develop the forces of production so fast it'll make your head spin. We are going to do in a generation what it took them many, many years to do. BELIEVE ME.

LMAO I see those all the time around my city can’t stand em

are you okay my hizbullahi brother? You seem distressed.

Don't worry Russia is only playing games they won't backstab the Ayatollah, they gonna let him keep his centrifuges inshaallah

I guess your post confused me. I thought the Neolithic era still had communal property relations despite being non-nomadic. Meaning they tilled the same land, they shared the same tools, they shared the surplus, so it’s communal, right?

they didn’t have rents; didn’t have yours-vs-mine (like you said); didn’t have latifundiums, etc, therefore, it isn’t private

I’m just wondering what your definition is of private property vs communal property; like we agree the same stuff happened at the same period but we’re just disagreeing (if you want to call it that) on what to call it

The neolithic era is where this communal living broke down, it wasn't primitive communism anymore. It was barter economy, later on palace economy. Agriculture ended primitive communism in most places in the world at around the same time. The major exception was Australia at this time

Space cadet being a space cadet and reminiscing the good old days. I thought it's not a bad idea to wake him up and show him what Russia is up to right this moment. Politics is a dirty game, hypocrites play both sides. Keep up to date mate

Nomadic primitive communism with mainly hunting and gathering economies morphed into a mostly settled barter system based on agriculture. This is when class society and private property first appeared. In more advanced areas this turned into centrally planned palace economies. These broke down in the Late Bronze age in Europe and the Middle East for still contested reasons. From these ruins the ancient era started with villages and peasant economles. Their wars started big empires with a focus on slavery.

In the Mediterranean area slavery lasted quite a while before morphing into feudalism.

Feudalism took a long time to morph into capitalism as well, we generally say capitalism as dominant mode of production first appeared in England with the Industrial Revolution.

This does not mean that capital, commodity production, private property, money, rent, the division of labor or banking did not exist before "capitalism" came into being. It's just that it had the thus far highest concentration of these practices in human history.

Other places in the world had a slighlty different trajectory. The Incas for example had a highly successful centrally planned palace economy from 1430 - 1530. Other places stayed feudal a very long time, up to the early 20th century. There was a re-introduction of slavery during the post-feudal transition most notably in the US south. Some Australian and Oceanic cultures never developed agriculture.

The introduction of socialism made it even more complicated. Mongolia switched from feudalism straight to socialism. Socialist economies later switched back to capitalism.

wasn’t feudalism primarily a european thing like what were the modes of production in the middle east, or india

little does he know I have him blocked

Marx initially classified them specifically under "Asiatic Mode of Production" distinct from feudalism, but later he (or could have been Engels, i dont fully remember chronologically) dropped and basically said it may as well have been a form of feudalism (not word for word but more or less). iirc this is a debate that post-Marx authors/theorists haven't really settled, different theorists have approached the question in different manners

i aint even that mad (but he aint targeted me like that yet so) cause he clearly likes being ITT shoutout to u buddy

same goes for the bozos I DO have blocked, they obv like engaging in socialist discussions and find it fun so whatever good for them

oh yeah i know about the asiatic s*** i was wondering once that was dropped if they made something new or was it something before feudalism or was it feudalism