21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettYou have not said anything about the different functions within men which could have led to formation of classes within this society.
I'm afraid the evidence does not back you up. If anything, it is the exact opposite, with females having much greater influence within hunter-gatherer societies than they do within more "civilized" societies.
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoThere was no significant differentiation of functions between the men that I'm aware of. In what is known as an 'immediate return' society, they all participated in the hunting or gathering of food and they all shared in the proceeds of that group effort. There was no stored surplus to instigate the development of hierarchies. It was not until the development of agriculture that you begin to see a 'delayed return' society with the storing of surplus, a growth of the concept of private property, and the development of labor specialization and hierarchical stratification.
You have not said anything about the different functions within men which could have led to formation of classes within this society.
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettIt appears then that the only way to achieve communism is to have no goods to fight over. (or at least that is what is suggested by your reference).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure
I am also not convinced that your reference supports your claim. It basically says that mobile societies with few goods have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. Not only does it not rule out heirarchial structures even for those societies, it says that whenever societies are not mobile, such structures appear. I am not convinced that all humans were mobile in the past.
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadHaving surplus goods certainly complicates matters. But the greatest stumbling block toward achieving 'communism' may be the huge population that an agricultural lifestyle made possible.
It appears then that the only way to achieve communism is to have no goods to fight over. (or at least that is what is suggested by your reference).
I am also not convinced that your reference supports your claim. It basically says that mobile societies with few goods have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. Not only does it not r ...[text shortened]... not mobile, such structures appear. I am not convinced that all humans were mobile in the past.
Given the mobile and fluid nature of hunter-gatherer society, the development of rigid hierarchies would have been self-defeating. A self-styled autocrat would have found himself abandoned as sub-groups split off and went their separate way, or as individuals defected to other hunter-gatherer bands. It was the development of agriculture, which tied people to a specific locale, that made them susceptible to the whims of autocrats. I can't say that hierarchies never developed in hunter-gatherer societies, but the evidence seems to indicate that they rarely did.
As for mobility, I fail to see how any hunter-gatherer population could not be mobile and survive. Most seem to have been either fully mobile or to have moved between semi-permanent sites with the seasons. Some, like the Haida (as the article I provided points out), lived in such a rich environment that they were able to become sedentary and develop a more hierarchical structure.
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettFirst you say you fail to see how, then admit an example?
As for mobility, I fail to see how any hunter-gatherer population could not be mobile and survive. Most seem to have been either fully mobile or to have moved between semi-permanent sites with the seasons. Some, like the Haida (as the article I provided points out), lived in such a rich environment that they were able to become sedentary and develop a more hierarchical structure.
But I think we are both agreed, when there is a low population density and lots of movement and practically no goods, there is very little hierarchical structure - because it cannot form.
However, I believe there nevertheless is some hierarchical structure, and that whenever the situation allows it, more hierarchy ensues.
So the only way to go back to your ideal communism is to go back to the stone age.
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by DasaThe one big failing of communism, where the state owns everything and the people own nothing, is there is a deep seated need to be able to have ownership of property. Of course you would force everyone to live on a subsistence diet, let the millions cattle roam free to die off because they would be unable to feed themselves in the wild and inevitably the leaders would drift upwards in wealth, get the best food, the best housing, the best transportation and medical treatment. I suppose you would argue there would be no need of hospitals since the billions of people who would be forced to be Krshna's under your regime would not need it.
You do not quote the system I have presented. - but a different system.
So your critical judgement is baseless.
Great system you propose.
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I don't think it's necessary to go back to the stone age. But my initial response to you in this thread was merely to counter your assertion that communism can never happen in the real world. Primitive communism was basically how most of mankind lived in the real world for 95% of their history. What we know as "civilization" is really a recent phenomenon, as are the litany of evils that formed in its wake.
First you say you fail to see how, then admit an example?
But I think we are both agreed, when there is a low population density and lots of movement and practically no goods, there is very little hierarchical structure - because it cannot form.
However, I believe there nevertheless is some hierarchical structure, and that whenever the situation all ...[text shortened]... rchy ensues.
So the only way to go back to your ideal communism is to go back to the stone age.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI would argue that to qualify as a communist society, you actually have to have some
No, I don't think it's necessary to go back to the stone age. But my initial response to you in this thread was merely to counter your assertion that communism can never happen in the real world. Primitive communism was basically how most of mankind lived in the real world for 95% of their history. What we know as "civilization" is really a recent phenomenon, as are the litany of evils that formed in its wake.
civilisation.
Communism is an economic system and I don't think you can meaningfully talk
about a society as being communist if they are not yet sophisticated enough to have
any kind of economics worth the name.
I don't think that communism exists as a concept on its own. You need a society of people
to give it meaning, and that society has to understand and codify what it is doing.
EDIT: And what evils of civilisation?
Show me a pre-civilised society better than modern western civilisation please.
No [known] system is perfect, and we can still make our civilisation better,
but it is still vastly to be preferred to living without civilisation.
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettWell we obviously disagree about what 'it can never happen' means. There is a future tense in there. I also think I agree with googlefudge that one cannot really call hunter-gatherer society "communism".
But my initial response to you in this thread was merely to counter your assertion that communism can never happen in the real world.
Remember also that you said
"For communism to function effectively there must be no leaders. The people must take their own welfare to heart."
And I don't think hunter gather society is 'people taking their own welfare to heart' as in rejecting leadership, but rather a case of having no choice in the matter.
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeNot surprisingly, I disagree. You can have a de facto communist society without having any knowledge of what communism is. I have frequently contended on this forum that Jesus was a de facto communist (or socialist if you prefer). At any rate, I have qualified hunter-gatherer societies as having "primitive communism" to distinguish them from Marxist communism. But primitive communism is still communism.
I would argue that to qualify as a communist society, you actually have to have some
civilisation.
Communism is an economic system and I don't think you can meaningfully talk
about a society as being communist if they are not yet sophisticated enough to have
any kind of economics worth the name.
I don't think that communism exists as a concep ...[text shortened]... r civilisation better,
but it is still vastly to be preferred to living without civilisation.
As for the evils of civilization, one need only look around to see them. Vast inequality, oppression, hierarchical stratification, militarism, organized warfare, mass slaughter, habitat loss, unsustainable population growth, environmental degradation, specialization, alienation, loss of personal autonomy, the list goes on and on. How preferable will your glorious civilization be when it has made the planet completely uninhabitable?
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you don't have the concept of 'leadership', then there's no need to consciously reject it. Since modern society has been fully exposed to the concept, and since it largely and erroneously believes it to be a natural state of affairs, it would be necessary for modern man to consciously reject leaders and hierarchical stratification in order to bring a new communistic society into being.
Well we obviously disagree about what 'it can never happen' means. There is a future tense in there. I also think I agree with googlefudge that one cannot really call hunter-gatherer society "communism".
Remember also that you said
[quote]"For communism to function effectively there must be no leaders. The people must take their own welfare to heart."[ ...[text shortened]... heart' as in rejecting leadership, but rather a case of having no choice in the matter.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettjust popping in...
Not surprisingly, I disagree. You can have a de facto communist society without having any knowledge of what communism is. I have frequently contended on this forum that Jesus was a de facto communist (or socialist if you prefer). At any rate, I have qualified hunter-gatherer societies as having "primitive communism" to distinguish them from Marxist communi ...[text shortened]... rable will your glorious civilization be when it has made the planet completely uninhabitable?
I agree that Jesus as represented by the bible was a proponent of ideas that today we would regard as communistic.
Which is why the American Christian Right's embrace of capitalism is so entertaining.
As for your evils of civilisation.... Some are not products of civilisation, or are when civilisation breaks down,
some I don't regard as evils, and many were worse, or trumped by other worse things before civilisation.
I don't buy that the planet will be made completely uninhabitable, or that it would be 'civilisations' fault if it was.
I would also be intrigued by what you would suggest we have instead of civilisation that would make the world a
better place.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettyou may not have a term for it, but the leader of a group (in primitive societies) is
If you don't have the concept of 'leadership', then there's no need to consciously reject it. Since modern society has been fully exposed to the concept, and since it largely and erroneously believes it to be a natural state of affairs, it would be necessary for modern man to consciously reject leaders and hierarchical stratification in order to bring a new communistic society into being.
often the big bloke with the club who decides what the group does because he is
stronger than everyone else.
If you look at small 'tribes' of other great apes they almost invariably have a leader
but no term for it.