[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


 No.1105797

A lot of recent anthropological research seems to be throwing shade on the idea that primitive communism and truly equitable hunter gatherer societies ever existed.

Class stratification based around blood-line and slavery seemed to have existed in many PNW hunter gatherers and in other bands intergenerational inherited wealth and wealth inequality were present along with stratification around familial and economic lines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2999363/

What do we think hismat bros? I don't think its super relevant to modern communism but it is interesting from a theoretical and anthropological perspective.

 No.1105812

>>1105797
I will read study later. The only thing I can add is that I am almost certain not all groups of humans in prehistory were organised the same way. The concept of primitive communism then could be obsolte because it tries to groupe all this different cultures across a vast amount of time (100,000 years ago to 5,000 years ago more or less). I will say that everybody had to eat.

 No.1105834

>>1105812
Thanks.

 No.1105840

>>1105797
I've heard the last book by Graeber talks about this. No idea though.

 No.1105867

Yes but, like you said, primitive communism and communism are two very different beasts. The former is just the social organization method of some tribal societies who have a very limited production output. Think of sub 100 people amazonian tribes, for example. Even within native american tribes, the vast majority of them developed past primitive communism long before Europeans arrived.

 No.1105873

>>1105797
>Class stratification based around blood-line and slavery seemed to have existed in many PNW hunter gatherers
How does that 'debunk' primitive communism?
Nowhere do they say every single hunter gatherer society was like that. The fact that slavery existed in some literally doesn't matter

 No.1105893

File: 1659660283956.mp4 (8.76 MB, 856x480, bartermyth.mp4)

"primitive communism" never existed and neither did entire societal economies that revolved around barter. those were both theoretical BS unsupported by archeology or anthropology

 No.1105898

>>1105797
It was communism of scarcity, of course it wouldn't be true communism, but it was more or less communistic out of necessity.

 No.1106290

i dont get how anyone could give a shit about this

 No.1106363

>>1105797
as far as i know (i've taken a couple of anthropology classes) primitive communism is a pretty accurate generalization of human societies prior to about 12k years ago

 No.1106364

>>1105893
marx wasn't a barter theorist

 No.1106379

>We have removed equestrian societies
horsefuckers btfo'd
the study confirms that hunter-gatherer societies are largely (90%) nomadic
the study also confirms that only personal property is passed down and that private property does not exist. how this deboonks primitive communism I'm not sure. it does point toward abandoning a naïve view on primcom, which I agree with. this is similar to metropolitans thinking rural life is better
finally the keeping of slaves does not a slave economy make
>>1105893
didn't Engels btfo barter as well? mostly citing some other guy but still. it's Smith that goes on about barter, as the video points out
the current theory as I understand it is that money appears with agriculture, and that initially it is grain that is used as money. does pro-agrarian money exist? that would be interesting
>"primitive communism" never existed
archeology says otherwise

 No.1106454

>Did primitive communism really exist?
no, the idea was just european bourgeois socialists thinking communism is when you share food or something

 No.1106456

>>1106454
The power of Stalin compelles you to share food

 No.1106481

>gommunism is when equality
>gommunism is when barter
The absolute state. The point of the idea of primitive communism is that means of production were held in common and that was most definitely be the case, as we can observe it within all societies on a stone age level development. Nobody claims that there weren't chiefs or shamans that were more powerful than the common tribesman.

>>1105893
How does this guy think people traded before the introduction of currency? People just didn't trade? Occam's razor suggest that people bartered, the first money (backed up my muh archaeological evidence) were religious tokens used by the Sumerians. Of course people traded before them.

 No.1106483

>>1106290
I constantly see people "debunking communism" by making the argument Marx was a naive idiot and people were always greedy or some shit like that about hooman nature.

 No.1106485

>>1106481
Horrifically barter wasn't done within tribe but rather I think Graeber among other anthropologists has pointed out was a means to make new friends and reduce tensions between seperate groups in hunter gatherer societies until they got to know each other better

Essentially to the extent that humans can be said to have any kind of human nature as such trade was a means of peacemaking

That such a thing could empower the eldrich alien thing such as Capital is extremely sad

 No.1106488

>>1106485
Capital isn't simple trade
The eldritch horror wasn't born out of trade on its own, but slave trading, enclosure, warfare, and conquest
It was trade on a foundation of human sacrifice
Trade in human skin is what conjured the abstract parasite

 No.1106489

It might be handy to think of primitive communism as a sortof marxist version of the state of nature.
Guys like Hobbes and Locke were talking about the state, so they needed a point were there is not yet a state. This then becomes "the state of nature". Marx is talking about man's alienation from his labour/production, so he needs a point were man is not yet alienated from his labour/production. This then takes the shape of that point in time where civilization is still so small, undeveloped and primitive that the means of production can still be held communally and man therefore has freedom to decide what to produce.

Note that the idea of a state of nature is significantly more ahistorical than Marx' primitive communism.

Primitive communism as a concept only really falls apart when people decide to transpose the concept on hunter-gatherer civilizations in general, which obviously doesn't work and is also (imo) not what Marx meant with the term. Basically, once a primitive society creates a leadership structure, which happens quite quickly once it reaches a certain size, man's alienation from his labour/production has started and primitive communism has ended.

 No.1106505

>>1106489
>Basically, once a primitive society creates a leadership structure, which happens quite quickly once it reaches a certain size, man's alienation from his labour/production has started and primitive communism has ended
we don't really see such permanent hierarchy in pre-agrarian societies

 No.1106506

>>1106481
>Nobody claims that there weren't chiefs or shamans that were more powerful than the common tribesman.
To add to this, it obviously depends on the tribe. In some tribes, i.e the Namoeteri in South America, the chief held no actual power over other tribesmen with the exception of periods of war. Look up Helena Valero, a woman captured by the Yanomami and married a chief called Fusiwe who had a personal grudge with another tribe and wanted to rally his own tribe to war, yet they refused, so he went there alone and naturally died. The chief holding no actual power to force people to do things was common among those tribes, his only power was in his knowledge and experience, but the tribe ultimately had the final say.
Also IIRC Geronimo tried to rally the Apaches to fight but failed as well, but I don't remember if he was a chief, but he certainly as respected and had influence.

 No.1106508

>>1106489
Worth noting the current research suggests that number would be the Dunbar number

 No.1106521

>>1106488
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 No.1106643

>>1105797
>A lot of recent anthropological research seems to be throwing shade on the idea that primitive communism and truly equitable hunter gatherer societies ever existed.
>Class stratification based around blood-line and slavery seemed to have existed in many PNW hunter gatherers and in other bands intergenerational inherited wealth and wealth inequality were present along with stratification around familial and economic lines.
Protip: The indigenous people of the Americas were not, as a rule, "primitives." Before contact, we have much sparser evidence, but the evidence we do have tends to point toward much more advanced development than what is commonly assumed, which is that they were in a "state of nature." The hunter-gatherer societies that were found once Europeans started seriously trying to colonize the New World (particularly North America, which had been first contacted at least 100 years prior to the first permanent settlements) were formed in the aftermath of disease wiping out 90-95% of the original population and causing the total collapse of whatever society existed before. Contrast with the conquistadors fighting the Aztecs and Inca pretty much as soon as they were contacted.

Unfortunately a lot of the evidence of the development of these cultures was deliberately destroyed by colonists. Colonists in North America systematically destroyed pretty much all of the earthen mounds that they discovered left over by the Mississippian people. The Mayan Codices were burned, a loss far more significant to anthropology than the burning of the Library of Alexandria. As a result of this intentional destruction and erasure, many people still erroneously believe that such inventions as writing, the wheel, and metalworking had not been invented in the Americas. While there were people somewhere on these two large continents who were still in a "primitive" stage of development, the tl;dr is that the Americas as a whole were much more advanced at the time of contact than they are given credit for being due to racist colonizers playing down their level of advancement and playing up differences (such as being consciously conservationist) as evidence of backwardness. Depending on where you're looking you would see something more like a slave society or even a feudal one, but I would argue (as Marx himself suspected) that these stages needed to be expanded on and rethought to some degree.

 No.1106672

>>1106643
I remember reading something once claiming the indigenous groups on the west coast of America had cultivated large areas of land with tree plantings but that by the time the British colonists arrived it was all so overgrown from the collapse of indigenous society from disease that the cultivation wasn't recognised.

 No.1106709

>>1106483
>I constantly see people "debunking communism" by making the argument Marx was a naive idiot and people were always greedy or some shit like that about hooman nature.
mfw

 No.1106880

>>1106672
This is probably true of most of N. America and is also true of various parts of central and S. America, most notably the Amazon river basin. The concept of "El Dorado" originated from the first contact made by Europeans with the people in the area, noting large sprawling cities (that they barely got to see before being chased away lel), but when colonists came back centuries later the evidence had been swallowed by the jungle. They thought it was all bullshit until deforestation for farming started uncovering the ruins of large city squares etc. Once people realized this happened, they started doing scans with LiDAR (radar but with lasers) that can scan below the soil, and found that not only have a lot of major ruin systems become overgrown and disappeared, but many well known sites are actually far larger than we used to think. This has had implications ranging as far as Angkor Wat in Cambodia, so I would fully expect there to be similar stories in places like the PNW.

There was a period of about 100 years, 1540-1640 where Europeans were initially exploring the Amazon river (starting with Orellana), but permanent settlements only started being made there in the late 1600s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Orellana#First_exploration_of_the_Amazon_River

First major contact with Europeans in (eastern) N. America happened also around 1540 (de Soto), ranging from present day Florida to Texas, while the first permanent settlement on the continent was in 1607 (Jamestown).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_De_Soto#De_Soto's_exploration_of_North_America

First direct contact on the Pacific Northwest is probably a Spanish explorer around the time of Captain Cook (1778), but this depends on how far north you're looking. The history of exploring vs settling the western coast is a bit more protracted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_knowledge_of_the_Pacific_Northwest
First settlements were being established in the late 1780s there, and Fort Vancouver (near Portland OR) was established in the 1820s, already 250 years since de Soto brought diseases to the continent and 40 years since Cook was there. Settlers didn't start making it to the west coast in really large numbers until the gold rush in 1848, about 300 years after diseases reached the continent, 70ish years since Cook passed by. So the farther west you go the longer there was for the diseases to reach people before settlers made actual contact and began documenting them.

 No.1107573

>>1106485
then graeber has the same view as marx
>In fact, the exchange of commodities evolves originally not within primitive communities, [11] but on their margins, on their borders, the few points where they come into contact with other communities. This is where barter begins and moves thence into the interior of the community, exerting a disintegrating influence upon it.
>11. Aristotle makes a similar observation with regard to the individual family considered as the primitive community. But the primitive form of the family is the tribal family, from the historical dissolution of which the individual family develops. “In the first community, indeed which is the family, this art” (that is, trade) “is obviously of no use” (Aristotle, loc. cit.).
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch01.htm#11a

>Objects in themselves are external to man, and consequently alienable by him. In order that this alienation may be reciprocal, it is only necessary for men, by a tacit understanding, to treat each other as private owners of those alienable objects, and by implication as independent individuals. But such a state of reciprocal independence has no existence in a primitive society based on property in common, whether such a society takes the form of a patriarchal family, an ancient Indian community, or a Peruvian Inca State. The exchange of commodities, therefore, first begins on the boundaries of such communities, at their points of contact with other similar communities, or with members of the latter. So soon, however, as products once become commodities in the external relations of a community, they also, by reaction, become so in its internal intercourse.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htm

>Exchange begins not between the individuals within a community, but rather at the point where the communities end – at their boundary, at the point of contact between different communities. Communal property has recently been rediscovered as a special Slavonic curiosity. But, in fact, India offers us a sample chart of the most diverse forms of such economic communities, more or less dissolved, but still completely recognizable; and a more thorough research into history uncovers it as the point of departure of all cultured peoples. The system of production founded on private exchange is, to begin with, the historic dissolution of this naturally arisen communism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch17.htm#value

>>1106488
but engels said…
>The rise of private property in herds and articles of luxury led to exchange between individuals, to the transformation of products into commodities. And here lie the seeds of the whole subsequent upheaval. When the producers no longer directly consumed their product themselves, but let it pass out of their hands in the act of exchange, they lost control of it. They no longer knew what became of it; the possibility was there that one day it would be used against the producer to exploit and oppress him. For this reason no society can permanently retain the mastery of its own production and the control over the social effects of its process of production unless it abolishes exchange between individuals.

>But the Athenians were soon to learn how rapidly the product asserts its mastery over the producer when once exchange between individuals has begun and products have been transformed into commodities. With the coming of commodity production, individuals began to cultivate the soil on their own account, which soon led to individual ownership of land. Money followed, the general commodity with which all others 101 were exchangeable. But when men invented money, they did not think that they were again creating a new social power, the one general power before which the whole of society must bow. And it was this new power, suddenly sprung to life without knowledge or will of its creators, which now, in all the brutality of its youth, gave the Athenians the first taste of its might.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch05.htm

 No.1107611

It really didn’t. Can’t blame Marx though. He was working off archeological and anthropological evidence at the time which to say biased and fragmentary was an understatement. It also does do much as a debunk of hismat as a tool to interpret the development of the MoP as regards to the development of stages in human societies. In many ways it even solves the question better than before as it proves that communism is a direct development beyond capitalism rather than a return of the primordial state as enlightenment philosophers had said.

It’s also a big problem with anprim movements as a whole because like fascists they’re trying to achieve a glorified past mode of production that didn’t actually exist.

 No.1107618

>>1107611
I think it’s most accurate to say it did exist bur human communities are and were extremely diverse; everyone started that way but divergences were swift

 No.1107732

>>1106364
he repeats the barter myth in volume 1 of capital, but only in passing. it's not essential to his theory, but he did inherit that particular idea from Adam Smith, even if he didn't need it to get across everything else.

 No.1107773

>>1106489
For Hobbes, it isn't necessarily a state; it's some common power. From Leviathan:
>Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man. For WAR, consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time, is to be considered in the nature of war; as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather, lieth not in a shower or two of rain; but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war, consisteth not in actual fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE.

 No.1107797

>>1107773
>people only get along if there's a daddy to keep them in line
people believe this tripe?

 No.1107798

>>1107797
you have to keep in mind most people are kinda dumb

 No.1108270

>>1107732
no he doesn't

 No.1108891

File: 1659837239835.png (88.92 KB, 740x289, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1106483
>hooman nature is to be greedy.
Tired of hearing this shit. But throughout history we can very much see examples that this is not a costant. Cases that i can think of from the top of mind that illustrate my point:
>Middle age Europe (when christians tought being poor was a virtue, and it made them live their lives closer to that of Christ, untill protestant ethic changed it all around)
>Pre Colombian America (Kraut talked about this in his first Mexican American border video, around 8:00 min or something, how everybody shared with each other willingly and there was a real sense of trust between them all, until the spaniards changed it all around)
>The whole philosophy of Ubuntu (i am because we are)
>picrel (from the communist manifesto)
I guess hismat would tell us that these eventually had to make way for capitalism, but at least we know its not something as ingrained and imutable as anti-communists make it out to seen, and that it is something which potentially could again – in a new form – in the future.
>In place of the bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.


Unique IPs: 24

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]