Mike,
I doubt if we can label such civilizations as "capital accumulating"
ones. At least, it is clear that they didn't got to accumulate enough
capital to survive the first millennium BC "disturbances". Yet, most
accounting of the old empires continues sleeping, as it seems we
lack of enough students to finish the analytics. So please let me
to avoid strong claims in this area. In any case, the capital
accumulated
in that civilizations was completely destroyed, so it does not originate
"our" actual capital.
It is interesting to remark that first civilizations are located
in very specific sites, the nature of the terrain and clima are
characteristic. If, on the other hand, labour were the only implied
factor, civilizations would be randomly scattered around the globe.
Your point about water wheel seems to me more fundamental. I think
you would move the invention some centuries back, but I am
unsure. Note that by first century BC the principles of mechanics
were well known (Archimedes "support point" and all that). Perhaps
I would choose sailing as the first example of direct intake
of energy for social/economical purposes.
I think that capital accumulation is closely related to the intake
of energy each civilization was/is able to do. So, we start playing
animals (very indirect sun energy), and primitive uses of wood and
coal, then we proceed to wind and water, then a centuries wide
epoch of harvesting again from nature (and humans), and finally
we restart with vapour machine, and now oil and nuclear. Capital
seems very related to this intake. Aside, let me to note that
Wall Street fundamental line has only two "plains", correlating
to 1929 crisis and to seventies' oil crisis.
Last but no least, we must not forget that we look for an egalitarian
society as a mean to continue our civilization, no to starting it.
Our guess is that a non-egalitarian society (or species) has a survival
probability lower than an egalitarian one. I am sorry if I sound too
crude, but if anyone want spiritual reward, I'd urge him to contract
some religion.
Alejandro
> If the point is "surplus labour as origin of capital
> accumulation", we should bear in mind that until
> the first century BC or so (when the water wheel was
> developed), humans steal energy only from other humans
> or animals. If we go back to the actual "origin" of
> capital accumulation, at the dawn of history we find
> a great deal of work-- farming for example or cloth
> making-- performed by virtually interchangeable unskilled
> human laborers in exchange for shelter and food. It's
> not at all unreasonable to see the "value" of something
> like a woven rug in 4th millenium Uruk as being the sum
> total of the labor embedded in it, nor to argue that a
> rug made by a poorly fed and unpaid slave might have a
> "surplus" value higher than whatever subsistence ("wage")
> was supplied to the slave.
>
> Uruk, Peru, China.... there's no place in the world where
> nice egalitarian societies built civilizations. Capital
> accumulation of some sort (temple mounds, trade goods) is
> possible without too much exploitation, up to a point,
> but "real" progress always seems to require whips and
> chains and god-kings.
>
> Sad, ain't it?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ms44278@huey.csun.edu
> Mike Shupp
> California State University, Northridge
> Graduate Student, Dept. of Anthropology
> http://www.csun.edu/~ms44278/index.htm