Ive read a little about marxism stating societies' structure consist in
-superstructute
-infrastructure
Both instances conform each society.
Since ethnic groups are societies with a deep symbolic bound, and since the base over which societies rise is economy, would ethnic groups dismiss or split while not having a stable economy?
Is ethnic identity sustained by an economical system?
Jayden Johnson
Jonathan Nelson
naw, this is one of the better Veeky Forums threads I've seen. fuck off. half of these threads are about heretics, where do babies come from tier idiot qutestions, etc.
first off OP, stop reading marxist stuff
secondly, yes, ethnic identity is partially maintained by power over a mode of production. but mode of production does not determine the existence or ethnicity, it only helps define what particular form ethnicity expresses itself by.
you sound like you'd be more interested in organizational psychology. the question you asked isn't really inherently tied to ethnicity or economics
Jordan Edwards
Philosophy is part of humanities
Justin Stewart
I think halal and kosher dietary demands would be an example of how economic activity props up religious activity. It allows a place for the less capable religionists to be of use to their people.
Blake Thomas
Very nice response. Ty.
Ive read some of Max Weber and Talcott Parsons to answer myself this question of the relationship between society organization and economy but just marxism elaborates clearly this aspect (for what ive read). There is also structural anthropology studying the role myths have in organizing a social system.
Do you have any author that would help?
Im quite lost in psycholgy and have only read a little if Freud and Lacan, but they were psychoanalists tho.
Cooper Hughes
you're asking a very broad question and no single author/field is going to answer all of them. the fact that marx tries to do so proves he's a snake oil salesman
organizational psychlogy doesn't inherit the tradition of freud and lacan, who are insane. most of psychology is also insane.
org. psych is more along the lines of weber and parsons. the field is relatively new, and relatively politically interested, and tends to revolve around studies of industrial processes thus lacking coherent unity among researchers, so reccomending authors becomes tricky business.
I fnd that a particularly interesting case you can research which unlike most is inherently tied to your question about religion/ethnicity, however, is the case of the israeli kibbutz system, which was a communist experiment inside of israel where there was intense struggles between ther eligious elements and communist elements which both cohered and tore apart their mini-societies in a competetive fashion.
if you wanted to study specifically ethnic formation, I'd reccomend anthropology. if you wanted to study specifically economics, I have authors to reccomend.
Eli Russell
"you're asking a very broad question and no single author/field is going to answer all of them. the fact that marx tries to do so proves he's a snake oil salesman."
What do you mean?
Michael Nelson
your question is basically
>explain to me how ethnicity, religion, economic production, symbolism, and their interactions with neighboring ethnic, religious, economic, and symbolism systems work, and how, during those interactions, ethnic religious, economic, and symbolism systems split from one another
or, e.g. >explain the universe to me
can't be done, friend.
marx tried, and he was wrong about almost everything.
narrow the scope of your question. if you have more questions after the first one, ask more questions. but you cant just turn it all into one big question.
Isaac Edwards
No, ethnic identity has spanned in many places across many economic systems.
Chinese is a good example. Serbian is another good example. Both ethnicities have been through Feudalism, Capitalism, and Socialism but have a strong ethnic characteristic.
Blake Cooper
>would ethnic groups dismiss or split while not having a stable economy?
Read this article:
slate.com
It's a very interesting article that tells you that mantaining a Jewish identity is quite expensive and people that can't afford it would assimilate:
>And so the Jewish people have grown into a people of two intertwined legacies: a culture in which the Jewishly literate continue to pass the torch and one in which an emphasis on trades was necessary to continue to do so for all but the most fervently devoted. When a given family stopped being devoted or wealthy enough, it simply faded away.
For further reading, check out the book the article talks about, The Chosen Few by Botticini and Eckstein.
At least in the case of Judaism and Jewishness, there is indeed a connection between economics and identity.
Matthew Wood
Chinese is a pretty good example of a manufactured ethnicity though, that was forged via economic incentives.
some ethnicities would disintegrate without ecnomics, others would preserve. it really depends, which is why depth of knowledge is important, and "grand theory" works are largely bullshit.
OP's question is still really weird. is english your first language?
Adam Thompson
You are wrong, my initial question was not that. Read better before pulling this thread into a nasty and rood discussion. Im not willing to know the secret of the universe and all that nonsense ure trying to pull.
What i asked you secondly was in specific about you saying Marx was "a snake oil seller", im not familiar with that expression.
Gabriel Hill
I wouldnt call chinese manufactured by economic means. Id call it manufactured by the idea of the Han, the empire that all chinese empires tried to emulate. It systemized governance, learning, economics, everything chinese. Id say that as a whole chinese is a manufactured identity, but as long as people remember the Han it will remain an identity despite economic conditions.
Jonathan Garcia
Nice.
I think ive just read something about how judaism is, precisely, strong because the bounds they hold are not "erased" through time, they keep toghether regardless the economical system they have passed through.
Benjamin Collins
your question is very poorly worded, user. it's fine if you're ESL but don't throw the first brick.
snake oil means he promises things he can't deliver. his theory is too broad and grand. your questio is rather broad as well, in addition to being a grammatical mess.
the han empire was the economic production of han chinese. their economy was the production of genetic material, more so than rice or "typical" means of production. they'd regularly burn excess amounts of rice, military surprlus, etc.
they had always measured their progress by the number of literate citizens, decreases in violence, technological progress, etc.
the economy of china itself revolved around adapting progressively southern O haplotypes into the cultural machine via economic incentives. consumption was always quite low, particularly in terms of food and diet. the primary goods available for consumption were generally in terms of upward mobility, e.g. allowing genetically superior people to become "more han" than the inferior ones.
I'm not a chna hater and saying they'l immediately fall apart if the economy tanks. I'm just saying that they never were the same group of people, and that without a unified system they'd go their own ways, probably.
Luke Garcia
It seems like your mixing cultural assimilation with ethnic identity.
They arnt the same genetically. Chinese as an ethnicity isnt tied to a single genetic trait but to a variety if factors.
This has been expanded upon in recent years to the point of hilarity, but being chinese isnt the same as being born in china proper. That being the central plains, yellow river basin, etc.
Chinese identity is hilariously strong because it can eat other ethnicities whole and be relativly unchanged.
The Han Idea is about this dominance of rightous chinese peoples. Much like the idea of the Romans today. Except they still are relatively close to their 'Roman' counterparts than say French identity being to Roman identity.
If we are talking about straight genetics then we are talking about the ability to reproduce. And then live to reproduce again.
If we are talking about ethnicity as cultural identity then the definitive answer is No, it is not dependant on economics but it helps.
If we are talking about ethnicity in the spread of genetic material then. Yes it is entirely dependant on economics.
Camden Allen
Now that i think again about what you say, could we really say there is a "chinese ethnicity"? I mean, China is a country-nation bounded by language and general common racial traits, but still is conformed by many little ethnic groups:
>en.m.wikipedia.org
Many countries in the world have also this internal subdivision in regard to ethnicity. Mexico for example is also composed by many little ethnic groups even if the general image we get tends to be quite homogeneous.
I dont know if the disolution of some of those little groups along history was determined by economic processes.
And yeah, english is not my first language, im even new to Veeky Forums.
Brandon Brown
...
yes, ethnicity is no tied exclusively genetics. the engine of chinese ethnic assymilation was essentially their scheme of economic production. without which, the northern chinese and various southern branches would have gone their separate ways a long time ago, and tey'd no longer be known together as chinese.
yes, even parts of their culture would disappear. as a great deal of chinese culture is DELIBERATELY knocking down the walls between ethnicities, deliberately vesting values into higher ideals and deliberately looking down with contempt on regionalism, etc.
vast amounts of chinese culture would be lost without their integrative ecnomic engine. I think most of the country would stop being so open minded and greedy for one, but on the other hand, they'd probably end up being more reclusive like the koreans and japanese.
quite a bit of their culture itself is dependent on the economic mode of production.
that's not to say all cultures or ethnicities would split without a particular scheme of production.
but the chinese? yeah, they just might.
Nathan Morales
Thanks !
I'll read the article and search the book.
Christopher Martin
It was less economics and more stability policy and politics with cultural minorities.
I think your thinking of Cao Cao's policies as the staple of chinese policies which is hilariously untrue. The best examples of noneconomic assimilation are Manchus (self assimilation for government), Tibetans (destruction of cultural identity for stability.)
The big thing is, you seem to already think that all reasons to do anything point to an act to bolster an economy. Although many acts may in fact bolster it, many do not.
For example in the high middle ages many nations still dissalowed usury. Nonchristian bankers allowed proto-capitalistic tendencies to occur and then later spread to christian communties after seeing its use. Assimilation of that group would allow your community to maintain itself with more control and increae the number if ethnic people in that community, but it would negatively impact trade and guild communities that depended upon loans, bonds, and banking.
Another example is Al Andalus. Its Jizya tax policies made it hard to become a muslim, and traded stability for income. Their are no ethnic andelusians today due to such policies.
But with your definition, I believe, thus far would find especially telling and impossible the Andelusian situation. Being tied to a hilariously rich and moneymaking policy would in your eyes of "acts = economy = stable ethnicity" would make the collapse of the Andelusian identity impossible.
Another big example of a disconnect is Bohemia. Which was Germanified due to religion then Slavified due to inheritance.
Jacob Wood
Thats interesting.
For what ive read, marxism doesnt say economy determines every single aspect of a society nor even determines if a society lives or dies (split) but rather says economy sets the limits and conditions over which the entire society exists. What you say really makes it clear for me. The way an ethnic group reproduces its identity depends on many factors, and economy is just one of those factors.
Angel Brooks
they do exist, in fact. their future is up for grabs though.
wasn't just caocao. the entire chinese machine is a gigantic eugenics machine. they had some setbacks, say, with the nomialists, but the neoconfucians continued making pretty profound contributions to what might as well have been a huge eugenics experiment. the eugenic product of their endeavor was a proliferation of high iq people all across china. single high iq bureaucrats would basically genetically take over entire towns by sleeping with half of the women and disallowing dumber peasants from procreating.
THIS was their economy. I'm aware they had stark limitations on things like loans, banking, means of production, etc.
What I'm telling you is that the economy is more than just ledgers and accounts.
the explicit and stated aim of chinese bureaucrats was to "refine" the chinese people through diligence, but also lineages/bloodlines.
the chinese willingly threw aspects of their economy into the trash if they thought it would threaten the above.
the chinese economy was an economy of refining control over bloodlines, and allocating to these people, the fruits of deliberately restrained production. they were quite aware that overproduction would create an unmanageable series of riots and/or peasant armies.
marx says that everything is material, which is his way of saying that the means of production is the singular factor in human existence. it's not a surprise he thought they could kill all of the nobles, destroy traditional knwoledge, etc, and have everything turn out fine.
don't go strictly by what marx claims. his claims are broad, rhetorical, and just plain wrong. he was a hard materialist, practically a determinist, and he thought he understood human nature eprfectly. which is why killing children and priests was justified if it rectified inequality.
don't read him, srs.
Christian Butler
You are just bringing a twisted interpretation of what marxism is in the context of soviet and chinese revolution (and many others in other countries).
Marx's theory is materialist indeed but marxism exceeds those limits drawn by the specific turns some marxists made out of his writtings. Unless you actually tell what book of **his** clearly justifies all these horrible actions (killing children, priests, etc), you lack all credibility.
Marx's argument do give economy a strong presence within societies but still, he said there are also other factors that have an effect in them calling economy to be a "determination in the last stance".
Societies are "overdetermined".
Please stop being harsh and telling me what to do. If you dont like marxism its ok, im not trying to show it as a panacea for nothing (even now that there are lots of *theories* related to social organization), im just making it clear what ive read for the purpose of the topic.
I asked you for bibliography but instead you are just pushing this thread to something it was not meant to be. Now I ask you for respect, thats all.
Caleb Cox
right, communism isn't real communism
suicide bombers screaming allahu ackbar as they behead jews aren't real muslims
blacks shooting cops isn't bad because they're disadvantaged
did I miss anything? surely I missed a few
the fact that I'm offering you a valid criticism of marx in reference to your repeated injections of his theorizing into the conversation, and you react as if it's "disrespectful" just shows how thin skinned you people are.
if it can't stand up to criticism, maybe it has a problem, buddy
further, I just told you to "not take claims as self reinforcing" that's not so fucking hard, you retard. is "I just said I'm a good person, therefore I'm good" a good set of proof? no? of course it isn't. marx does that about what he says. he'll say "I said X about X" when in fact he often says the opposite. it's a big problem in his work.
I'd give you more authors if you asked about a more specific topic. I already said that. but you're gonna have to stop acting like a bitch.
Connor Rodriguez
Still waiting for quotes of Marx asking for communists to kill children and priests.
Still waiting for you to understand marxism is more than the derivatives it had in different contexts.
Still waiting for you to understand my intentions bringing marxism to the conversation.
Still watching you being harsh.
There is also a difference between critique and being what you would call "a bitch".
Kevin Hall
I was trying to be helpful the entire thread. But you know what, the first poster was right.
apparently his post was deleted and he was warned, so I'm just gonna take back my post that this was a good thread and echo what he said
you're a fucking shitposter.
Xavier Harris
You got materialism wrong, dude