Past societys incorporating anarchist and communist principles

[casper]

I was reading online trying to find examples of anarchist or communist principles being put into action.

i came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Iroquois

Its a interesting economy.
I've read up on others as well, but thats one of the ones that stood out so far. does any one else have examples of past societies that embody anarchist or communist principles. having examples to point to may possibly be essential to spreading leftist ideology, something to counter the negative image of "communist countries" that most people have when they hear the word communism. People also like to know what their getting into, showing them examples from the past and present helps to ensure a sense of security and possibility in reality. so whats your guys' favorite sociaties?

[Plagueround]

I've tried pointing this and other things that Native Americans in particular had accomplished, and I got slammed because no one saw the contributions to history from Native Americans important. I think Pusher Strawman in particular laughed at the idea (but he's always been a racialist apologist so it's not surprising). People in America are still quite ethnocentric when it comes to American Indians.

[Bud Struggle]

Arr! Pirates, me Comrades!

Interesting thread from the Politics Forum.

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=98937

(Hat tip to RGacky who turned me on to Pirates being Communists.)

[danyboy27]

I was reading online trying to find examples of anarchist or communist principles being put into action.

i came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Iroquois

Its a interesting economy.
I've read up on others as well, but thats one of the ones that stood out so far. does any one else have examples of past societies that embody anarchist or communist principles. having examples to point to may possibly be essential to spreading leftist ideology, something to counter the negative image of "communist countries" that most people have when they hear the word communism. People also like to know what their getting into, showing them examples from the past and present helps to ensure a sense of security and possibility in reality. so whats your guys' favorite sociaties?

watch out man, you gonna have someone popping up and saying that you lack of credibility for pointing our unreliable source! wikipedia evil capitalist tool! grrrr
on a more serious note, i have to say that i love how this structure work, but just wondering, how come europeans countries discovered: transatlantic boat travel, gunpowder, rifling, ironwork, highly organized military chain of command, mining, industrialization etc etc etc, and that the indian didnt?

maybe it had nothing to do with their model, but i always had the feeling that society models really interfered with technological progress.
ho well, maybe i just dont get it.

[Plagueround]

on a more serious note, i have to say that i love how this structure work, but just wondering, how come europeans countries discovered: transatlantic boat travel, gunpowder, rifling, ironwork, highly organized military chain of command, mining, industrialization etc etc etc, and that the indian didnt?

Well, first off you're assuming 1. That they themselves discovered all these things and didn't get them from surrounding areas. 2. That all of these things are inherently superior and should be seen as progress. 3. That European countries had all these things at the time of contact and didn't develop them at the same time they were destroying Native American civilization.


maybe it had nothing to do with their model, but i always had the feeling that society models really interfered with technological progress.
ho well, maybe i just dont get it.

You don't. Not in the least. Native Americans were far advanced in metal working, medicine, agriculture, and many other significant breakthroughs. The early pioneers also would not have survived if they hadn't traveled with people who knew how to survive "untamed America".

Oh, I also heard they build some pyramids and massive cities or something in South America.

[danyboy27]

tanks you plague, has i said earlier, i am fully aware that those nation developped technologies and sciences has well, i just dont understand why they where not has advanced has europe was back then in certain fields.

also, its really curious that they never had the curiosity to see what was out there on the other side of the ocean.

[Bud Struggle]

tanks you plague, has i said earlier, i am fully aware that those nation developped technologies and sciences has well, i just dont understand why they where not has advanced has europe was back then in certain fields.

also, its really curious that they never had the curiosity to see what was out there on the other side of the ocean.

Well I would give a slightly different answer than Plague--the Europeans had the advantage of Plato with his dialectic. There were people living on earth for hundred of thousands of years, but within 2000 years of Plato we were walking on the mood.

The dialectic gave man the opportunity to intellectually create that which was not there before, and not as he had done before, out of necessity, but out of creativity. It allowed for the scientific method.

It was probably the greatest intellectual advancement of the human race. As A.N. Whitehead said, all of Philosophy os but a footnote to Plato.

FWIW, other societies also had versions of the dialectic but no one else put the idea down so succinctly.

[danyboy27]

Well I would give a slightly different answer than Plague--the Europeans had the advantage of Plato with his dialectic. There were people living on earth for hundred of thousands of years, but within 2000 years of Plato we were walking on the mood.

The dialectic gave man the opportunity to intellectually create that which was not there before, and not as he had done before, out of necessity, but out of creativity. It allowed for the scientific method.

It was probably the greatest intellectual advancement of the human race. As A.N. Whitehead said, all of Philosophy os but a footnote to Plato.

FWIW, other societies also had versions of the dialectic but no one else put the idea down so succinctly.

so, its all luck if the european prevailed if i understand?

[Plagueround]

TomK's answer is one of massive ethnocentrism and ignorance. As usual, someone would like you to believe that European dominance was the result of a superior intellect or world view. :rolleyes:

Fiction:Europeans "discovered" scientific knowledge, but American Indians "stumbled upon" it – they didn’t know what they were doing. Fact: All scientific knowledge comes from a process of trial and error – a messy guessing game that involves many false starts and much stumbling. Scientists first make an educated guess based on their observations. Then they test it and carefully observe the results to see if the guess was correct. If it wasn’t, they guess again. The haphazardness of this process led Albert Einstein to say, "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

Pre-contact American Indians used trial and error, carefully observing the results of these trials. Three pieces of evidence, selected from many, are:


Indians in the North American Northeast used foxglove (Digitalis purpurea) to treat heart problems. They administered it with extreme care since high doses were needed and the plant is highly toxic.
Manioc, a staple food crop of Mesoamerican, Circum-Caribbean and South American Tropical forest peoples, is poisonous in its natural state. Four to five thousand years ago indigenous people discovered a process to detoxify the plant and began cultivating it.
Indigenous people of Mesoamerica invented a four-step process to cure vanilla, transforming it into a flavoring ingredient. Vanilla processing plants were not established in Europe until the 1700s because Europeans couldn’t figure out the indigenous process.

Using loaded language to hide the fact that pre-contact American Indians gained knowledge in the same way all scientists do is not only biased scholarship – it is racist scholarship.


Fiction: American Indian knowledge and inventions sprung from hunches or intuitions, rather than rigorous and systematic study. Hunches and intuitions aren’t valid; linear thinking is.

Fact: Undoubtedly many American Indian scientific discoveries were initially based on intuition, as are many modern Western discoveries today. Intuition is a critical part of science. If knowledge based on hunches, intuitions and lightning bolts of inspiration doesn’t count, then organic chemistry is invalid. (Freidrich August von Kekule’s dream of a snake biting its tail enabled him to visualize the structure of the benzene molecule and birth the field of organic chemistry.) So is the periodic table of elements, an inspiration revealed to Russian chemist Mendeleev in a dream.

We can forget about neurochemistry. (A dream showed Nobel prizewinner Otto Lowei that the chemical messengers, we now call neurotransmitters, are responsible for the flow of information in the human brain.) We can write off pasteurization, penicillin, and hundreds of other modern discoveries and inventions while we’re at it.
Alexander Graham Bell used intuitions that he called "a conquering force within" to invent the telephone and Henri Poincare, the mathematician who created the science of topology, said, "It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover."


Holding American Indians to a narrower definition of the scientific discovery process than is used for Europeans is not only unfair scholarship – it is racist scholarship.


Fiction:American Indians did not know about the scientific method, so their knowledge and inventions could not be scientific.

Fact: Even if the scientific method were the only way to make discoveries, American Indians can’t be faulted for not using it before 1492. Europeans didn’t use it either because it hadn’t yet been invented. Historical researchers seldom mention this critical fact.

Most scholars credit Francis Bacon, an English philosopher and statesman who lived from 1561 to1626, as the father of the scientific method. Sometimes Galileo, an astronomer, who lived from 1564 to 1642, is also credited. Both were born well after Columbus landed in the Americas. The fact that Galileo was arrested by the Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for heresy and held prisoner until he died in 1642 indicates that the scientific method was not only unwelcome in Europe for at least 150 years after 1492 – it was considered a sin and a crime.
Insisting that pre-contact American Indians ought to have used the scientific method before it existed is not only sloppy scholarship – it is racist scholarship.


Fiction:American Indians (the Maya) independently invented the wheel, but it isn’t a real invention because they only used it for toys.

Fact: Many European scientific inventions started out as toys or "curiosities." These include the telescope and the microscope. "We are more ready to try the untried when what we do is inconsequential," wrote philosopher Eric Hoffer. "Hence the remarkable fact that many inventions had their births as toys."

Scholars who use wheeled transportation as a benchmark for measuring civilization rarely take the natural environment into account. Suitable draft animals did not exist in the pre-contact Americas. The two largest animals – bison and llamas – weren’t easily domesticated to pull carts or chariots
Terrain was another factor that discouraged the development of wheeled transportation in the Americas. European new to North America often found their wheeled wagons inappropriate for the land they were trying to cross. Frequently they traded this clumsy transport for American Indian forms of transportation – the canoe, snowshoes and toboggans. Indigenous people throughout the Americas used runners to deliver communications. The Inca built a road system that included suspension bridges for their runners.
Failing to consider the environmental context in which American Indian science arose is not only superficial scholarship – it is racist scholarship.

Fiction: American Indian people were living in Stone Age culture at the time of conquest.

Fact: Although the polar Inuit near Baffin Bay did use meteorites to make iron blades, for the most part, other American Indians did not work with iron (a prerequisite for entering the Iron Age). American Indians did begin making metal tools before Europeans did. The people of the Old Copper Culture in the Great Lakes region of North America 7,000 years ago are considered by many scientists to have been the oldest metal workers in the world. They developed annealing to strengthen the tools they made.

Pre-Columbian metal workers invented sophisticated techniques for working with other metals. Pre-contact metallurgists living in what are now Ecuador and Guatemala learned how to work with platinum, a metal that has the extremely high melting point of 3218 degrees by developing a technique called sintering. Europeans were unable to work platinum until the 19th century. Metal workers in other parts of the Americas knew how to solder, could make foil and used rivets to fasten pieces of metal together.
In areas where no metal deposits lay close to the surface, American Indians made tools of bone, wood and stone. The blades of their flint surgical instruments were so thin that the incisions they made could not be duplicated until the advent of laser surgery.
Focusing on the Iron Age while failing to mention the metallurgical abilities of many American Indian culture groups is not only ignorant scholarship – it is racist scholarship.

If you want to find more, I'd suggest taking a look at this site, the source for this info I posted. (http://www.kporterfield.com/aicttw/)

I'll be purchasing this book soon to further combat this ethnocentric trash.

[Bud Struggle]

As I said other cultures developed along interestingly enough, but let's face it--you are speaking English not Arapaho. American/European culture DOMINATES the world.

It's not racist to say that Western society invented a tool that other societies didn't. Europeans conquered (for better or worse) India, and Africa and South America and North America and Australia.

They had a tool--the dialectic that other societies didn't. That was all I was saying--I'm sure your PC website is fine, but Capitalism is Eurocentric, Marx was a European and his philosophy dominated even a great civilization like China.

Just the way it is.

Don't get me wrong--American Indians are cool. :)

Plague, your thinking is revisionist in the same way you don't recognize that Communism's time has come and gone is revisionist. I find it charmingly romantic.

[Plagueround]

As I said other cultures developed along interestingly enough, but let's face it--you are speaking English not Arapaho. American/European culture DOMINATES the world.

You'll get no argument from me (other than that I'm a Yakama and Choctaw and don't have any basis for learning Arapaho) on the domination that occurred. However, the reason it occured was largely because of superior numbers, disease, and a doctrine of conquest. It wasn't entirely technology, and it certainly was not a greater way of thought or superior organization.


It's not racist to say that Western society invented a tool that other societies didn't. Europeans conquered (for better or worse) India, and Africa and South America and North America and Australia.It is racist to imply that the dialectic gave them a creativity that other civilizations lacked, and that they were the only ones developing in such a manner while all other societies were concerned with was survival.


They had a tool--the dialectic that other societies didn't. That was all I was saying--I'm sure your PC website is fine, but Capitalism is Eurocentric, Marx was a European and his philosophy dominated even a great civilization like China.Lord. Where is Rosa when you need her? On that note, I've been writing a lot lately on how if communism is to be world wide, it must be careful not to fall into the same ethnocentic "kill the indian, save the man" thinking that caused the extermination or near extermination of many indigenous cultures worldwide. It's one of my "larger works" you probably won't see her for some time because I'm still working a lot of it out in my head.


Plague, your thinking is revisionist in the same way you don't recognize that Communism's time has come and gone is revisionist.Fighting history's original revisions is not revisionist. However, if anyone is ignoring the changing political tide of the world, it is not me.


I find it charmingly romantic.Well, I have been known to be charming and romantic...In the past, a bit too much for my own good.

[casper]

so far we have native Americans and some pirates.
any one else have a favorite?

[Blackscare]

All this debate hinges on the idea that the Native Americans were pursuing the same goals as Europeans, namely the creation of permanent cities and such. They had a totally different relation to the land than other cultures around the world, and were very well suited to the lifestyle they lead.

I don't think tech is a good way to measure the value of a past culture objectively. It may be now, because the world is so small and countries are all "playing the same game" you could say. The way to compete and survive NOW is tech and industrialization, it's an error to apply that thinking to the value of past societies.

Sure, a tech oriented society may be better able to dominate another society, but should we judge them along these brutal Darwinistic lines?

Also, a large part of the reason Europeans were able to dominate was disease and alcohol susceptibility. As people migrated through Asia and eventually over the land bridge through North America on into South America, genetic diversity dwindled. That's why the natives died off in vast numbers, they had no immunities to the large array of diseases Europeans were exposed to over many generations.

Also, most (if not all) Native Americans did not ferment alcohol historically, so they had extreme sensitivities to it, and were prone to alcoholism because that gene hadn't been reduced in the population by the higher death rate that accompanies it. Of course, there's plenty of alcoholism in Europe, not trying to come off as racist or anything :)

Who's to say that a few smelly Europeans on boats would not have been eradicated by the much larger native population, had the playing field only been equal? It's nothing to be proud of to dominate a group because you brought a bunch of rum and germs over with you.

[Bud Struggle]

so far we have native Americans and some pirates.
any one else have a favorite?

Well there were the Soviets and the Chinese--they are both "in the past" :D

No? OK how about the religious orders of monks in the Catholic church. They practiced a form of communism--everything including their clothes was owned by the order--the monks owned nothing personally and shared everything. They've been doing that for 1500 years.

[danyboy27]

I don't think tech is a good way to measure the value of a past culture objectively. It may be now, because the world is so small and countries are all "playing the same game" you could say. The way to compete and survive NOW is tech and industrialization, it's an error to apply that thinking to the value of past societies.


but we didnt said nothing about their cultures, i personally think they had a more developed spiritual sense than the europeans back then.

we are talking about the model of their societies and the technological progress linked to it.

has i said earlier, i for myself dont quite know if their social models have something to do with their technological progress, plague say no, Tomk say yes, for myself i am not quite sure, both Tomk and plage sound reasonable in their own ways.

[Bud Struggle]

Well you can always change the rules of the game. So far the rules of the world have been success through techno-progress. The iron swords shattered the bronze ones--all the way up.

Now if you want to change the rules to say a successful society is based on how people live close to the land, or how people best contemplate their navel or best play Chinese checkers--well that's all fine, too. As long as you note that you are changing the prexisting rules.

Things always might have been different if the conditions had been different--but history is not the story of what "might have been if only..." it's about what actually happened.

Change the rules if you will, but just note that you are indeed changing them.

[casper]

Well there were the Soviets and the Chinese--they are both "in the past" :D

No? OK how about the religious orders of monks in the Catholic church. They practiced a form of communism--everything including their clothes was owned by the order--the monks owned nothing personally and shared everything. They've been doing that for 1500 years.
where was their freedom? weren't they confined to the monastery? sounds more like a form of religious serfdom. or if profit is being derived then slavery/capitalism unregulated and monopolized in a area.(they were knowen to copy books, books could of been sold, however i admittedly know little about monks)

[Bud Struggle]

where was their freedom? weren't they confined to the monastery? sounds more like a form of religious serfdom. or if profit is being derived then slavery/capitalism unregulated and monopolized in a area.(they were knowen to copy books, books could of been sold, however i admittedly know little about monks)


Monks (and nuns) are (they still exist) voluntary organizations of men and women that decided to dedicate their lives to God. They give up all their posessions to the order and the order fed them clothed them and give them a place to live. The work together to make things (books, beer, etc.) to sell to the outside world to support themselves. (They may be Communistic, but the world isn't.)

They eat their meals together, work together, and share everything in common.

Not exactly Marxism, but definitely an form of Communism.

And further: the Catholic Worker Movement. Not Communist, but rather more Socialistic. I was a member of this group myself when I was a grad student living in Greenwich Village in NY.

http://www.catholicworker.org/

(FYI: If you want to to grad school no better place than NYU in the Village.)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

How is that a form of stateless classless society?

[Bud Struggle]

How is that a form of stateless classless society?

That wasn't the quesion. Here's the question:


does any one else have examples of past societies that embody anarchist or communist principles.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

That wasn't the quesion. Here's the question:

Communism = stateless classless society.

[Bud Struggle]

Communism = stateless classless society.

www.dictionary.com (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.dictionary.com)


Communism

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

That dictionary can suck my nob

Ask the communists what communism is not some dickhead cold war influenced entry on an online dictionary.

[Bud Struggle]

That dictionary can suck my nob

Ask the communists what communism is not some dickhead cold war influenced entry on an online dictionary.

He who controls the dictonary controls the world. :D

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Im starting my own

Your going to be a type of tea leaf and barbed wire will be a four headed frog

[Bud Struggle]

Im starting my own

Your going to be a type of tea leaf and barbed wire will be a four headed frog


You are the man, Joe! :thumbup1:

[Blackscare]

Things always might have been different if the conditions had been different--but history is not the story of what "might have been if only..." it's about what actually happened.


I wasn't trying to be nostalgic or anything, just saying that even by your standards, the Europeans weren't necessarily better, or able to dominate the natives. They didn't dominate because they were better, they dominated because of factors that were largely out of their own control.

[trivas7]

I was reading online trying to find examples of anarchist or communist principles being put into action.

i came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Iroquois

Its a interesting economy.

Libertarians totally agree.

What's an "anarchist or communist principle" IYO?

[RGacky3]

What's an "anarchist or communist principle" IYO?

W/O hiarchy (and to not have an argument over it), that includes private property in my opinion.

[trivas7]

W/O hiarchy (and to not have an argument over it), that includes private property in my opinion.
I frankly don't know what this means. Is a family a hierarchy? Most surely aren't democratic by any means. Is the doctor in a hierarchical relation to her patient? The architect over the contractor? How does anything in society get done w/o a division of labor and some having an authoritative voice over the decisions of others?

[RGacky3]

I frankly don't know what this means. Is a family a hierarchy? Most surely aren't democratic by any means. Is the doctor in a hierarchical relation to her patient? The architect over the contractor? How does anything in society get done w/o a division of labor and some having an authoritative voice over the decisions of others?

Non consensual Hiarchy, thats what I mean.

[trivas7]

Non consensual Hiarchy, thats what I mean.
???

[RGacky3]

Do I really have to explain this?

Consensual hiarchy: The Doctor knows more than me about my sickness so I'll listen to him, the mechanic knows more about my car so I'll do as he tells me

Non-Consensual Hiarchy: The State, Landowners, If a guy sticks a gun to your head and tells you to do something.

Its pretty damn common sense.

[casper]

There is a difference between being told what to do and getting slapped(or worse) for not doing it. And agreeing to do something.

[trivas7]

Do I really have to explain this?
[...]
Its pretty damn common sense.
Would that ethical choices re authority were simple...