Pre-Marxist socialist societies

[A.R.Amistad]

I was wondering if we could start making a list of pre-Marxist societies that successfully abolished private property, was run democratically and where the means of production where owned in common. As I posted before, I know the most successful one I can think of is the Iroquois Confederacy. If at all possible, I'd like us not to focus so much on the "primitive" societies that where communalist, such as pre-history type of societies. Lets try to focus on post mesopotamian civilization communalist societies, preferrably with complex trade systems, etc. etc.

1. Iroquois Confederacy, League of Six Nations
2. Polynesia?

[vyborg]

The first state of humankind was based on economic planning (asiatic mode of production). Even if the cells of this society were still in a communist ownership of means of production (the single villages), these societies were based already on the exploitation of the net of villages by the town (starting from Uruk).

Any society before the asiatic mode of production, that is humankind before 4000 aC, lived along common ownership of means of production

[Dave B]

Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence

Engels

Written: in mid-October 1844

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm


.

[A.R.Amistad]

@ Dave B. I appreciate the article, and it was a great read, but that was kind of what I was trying to avoid. Many people know about the American communes, but the opponents of communism claim that those societies where small and not entirely self-sustaining, and they would be partially right. These were societies supported in part by the prosperity of American capital, and the societies were small and isolated and could possibly crumble if they were a larger society. This is why I prefer to use the Iroquois. The Iroquois were a HUGE society of people, were anything but isolated, and were just as prosperous and arguably advanced as its counterparts in Europe, and they were a communist society, and they prospered. Few if any of the American communes survived, and some of them became their own private corporations, such as the Onieda company. I am looking more for communist societies on the level of an entire civilization or large society living in a socialist way.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand almost all hunter gatherer cultures are egalitarian. Elements of this have been preserved in some agricultural societies such as the Iroquios. Engels in "Origin of The Family..." was overly schematic but I think his progression still stands up.

My understanding is that pre-industrial urban civilizations would have to be inegalitarian, they would lack the material conditions to transistion to another mode of production. I could be wrong about this. There have been many peasant uprisings in China, Iran, India, Europe. Sometimes these movements succeeded (outside of Europe)but once in power they just formed another ruling class. With the level of technology it would be impossible for them to do anything else.

Some people feel the Indus Valley civilization in what's now Pakistan, Minoan Crete, Catal Huyuk, and a civilization recently discovered in Peru,were egalitarian societies, maybe close to the communist ideal. I tend to think this is over romanticising, but I could be wrong.

I used to be a Gimbutas fan (until I found out her politics were yucky). Her basic idea (and that of other writers like Merlin Stone, Daniel Quinn, Riane Eisler). was that quasi-utopian civilzations or cultures existed in Crete, the Indus Valley, "Old Europe", and some Native American tribes.These were egalitarian or at least "matriarchal socialist".These writers take some ideas of Bachofen, Morgan and other anthropologists of that era, who also were an influence on Marx/Engels, but put their own twist on it.The basic idea is that Neolithic societies, being based on agriculture, were essentially feminist utopias and some of this was preserved in later urban civilizations like Crete.These civilizations were later destroyed or distorted by northern invaders, especially the Indo-Europeans. I used to be a big fan of this viewpoint myself but now I feel it is basically an "essentialist" view and isn't materialistic.

I could be wrong about this, I'm still learning.

[A.R.Amistad]

Lenina Rosenweg

I used to be a Gimbutas fan (until I found out her politics were yucky). Her basic idea (and that of other writers like Merlin Stone, Daniel Quinn, Riane Eisler). was that quasi-utopian civilzations or cultures existed in Crete, the Indus Valley, "Old Europe", and some Native American tribes.These were egalitarian or at least "matriarchal socialist".These writers take some ideas of Bachofen, Morgan and other anthropologists of that era, who also were an influence on Marx/Engels, but put their own twist on it.The basic idea is that Neolithic societies, being based on agriculture, were essentially feminist utopias and some of this was preserved in later urban civilizations like Crete.These civilizations were later destroyed or distorted by northern invaders, especially the Indo-Europeans. I used to be a big fan of this viewpoint myself but now I feel it is basically an "essentialist" view and isn't materialistic.


Hm, sounds interesting. Why were Gimbutas' politics so "yucky?"

[Sir Comradical]

"Primitive communism" perhaps? That would mean the parts of the world lacking the material conditions for an agricultural revolution to take place, ie. pre-colonial Australia and Papua New Guinea.

[red cat]

"Primitive communism" perhaps? That would mean the parts of the world lacking the material conditions for an agricultural revolution to take place, ie. pre-colonial Australia and Papua New Guinea.

Or perhaps all communities existing before the emergence of the slave system ?

[A.R.Amistad]

But I'm trying to focus on societies after such a time period. So far the Iroquois are the only society that consistently fits the model of a sophisticated socialist society in action. Societies such as Papua New Guinea have almost no surplus value in their economy, whereas the Iroquois had communal farming and a sort of industrialized hunting system. I've heard that some of the ancient Scandinavian societies before the Nordic tribes were egalitarian, and even has inspired many modern Odinists to be anarcho-communists. Also, were the matriarchal societies in West Africa before European Imperialism socialist? Just a few ideas I wanted elaborated.

[Sir Comradical]

Or all communities prior to the slave system ?

I'm kind of detracting from the original question which was asking whether there were any pre-marxist societies where property existed but was was then abolished. I think the answer to this is no, that's purely because the material conditions would have rendered a pre-capitalist overthrow of property relations highly unlikely.

However primitive communist societies existed before the agricultural revolution (10,000 BC). My thoughts on this subject have been hugely influenced by Jarred Diamond who's ideas are in my opinion, complimentary to historical materialism. Basically the agricultural revolution was arguably the biggest turning point in human history because it was the first time humans had learned to dominate nature thereby producing a surplus which is the necessary predecessor of private property.

[Sir Comradical]

I was wondering if we could start making a list of pre-Marxist societies that successfully abolished private property, was run democratically and where the means of production where owned in common. As I posted before, I know the most successful one I can think of is the Iroquois Confederacy. If at all possible, I'd like us not to focus so much on the "primitive" societies that where communalist, such as pre-history type of societies. Lets try to focus on post mesopotamian civilization communalist societies, preferrably with complex trade systems, etc. etc.

1. Iroquois Confederacy, League of Six Nations
2. Polynesia?

So you're saying that the Iroquois Confederacy abolished private property? I don't think this is true. I think these societies never had a system of private property to begin with.

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm kind of detracting from the original question which was asking whether there were any pre-marxist societies where property existed but was was then abolished. I think the answer to this is no, that's purely because the material conditions would have rendered a pre-capitalist overthrow of property relations highly unlikely.

However primitive communist societies have existed but In my opinion, they existed before the agricultural revolution (10,000BC). My thoughts on this subject have been hugely influenced by Jarred Diamond who's ideas are in my opinion, complimentary to historical materialism. Basically the agricultural revolution was arguably the biggest turning point in human history because it was the first time humans had learned to dominate nature thereby producing a surplus which is the necessary predecessor of private property.

But what about post agricultural revolutionary societies like the Iroquois, who had a socialist society lasting around 800 years? Surely there were at least a minority of agricultural societies who practiced socialism.

[Sir Comradical]

But what about post agricultural revolutionary societies like the Iroquois, who had a socialist society lasting around 800 years? Surely there were at least a minority of agricultural societies who practiced socialism.

I just found this on wikipedia, it might help us out here.

"In Reflections in Bullough's Pond, historian Diana Muir argues that the pre-contact Iroquois were an imperialist, expansionist culture whose use of the corn/beans/squash agricultural complex enabled them to support a large population that made war against other Algonquian peoples. Muir uses archaeological data to argue that the Iroquois expansion onto Algonquian lands was checked by the Algonquian adoption of agriculture. This enabled them to support their own populations large enough to include a body of warriors to defend against the threat of Iroquois conquest."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

From this it seems evident that property relations did exist.

I know it's not a great source but hey, it has a reference.

[A.R.Amistad]

So you're saying that the Iroquois Confederacy abolished private property? I don't think this is true. I think these societies never had a system of private property to begin with.

There was property in the feudal sense before the Iroquois confedertion, so in a way it would seem they skipped a step, but property was owned in common. Before that the Mississippian cultures had a form of private property I believe.

[Sir Comradical]

There was property in the feudal sense before the Iroquois confedertion, so in a way it would seem they skipped a step, but property was owned in common. Before that the Mississippian cultures had a form of private property I believe.

That's not the impression the wiki article on the Iroquois gives me. It appears to me that they did have property.

[A.R.Amistad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Iroquois

[Dave B]

FYI


http://nefac.net/anarchiststudyofiroquois#introduction

[Sir Comradical]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Iroquois

A unique system of property rights, perhaps?

[A.R.Amistad]

A unique system of property rights, perhaps?

The main society before the Iroquois would have been the Mississippian Culture. The Mississippian Culture did have private property based on family lineage, so the Iroquois would have had a concept of private property, or property other than community owned property. Also, trade with other non-Iroquoian nations would have brought them into contact with other systems, which they were well aware of So yes, other forms of property had been conceived before Iroquois socialist society.

[Sir Comradical]

The main society before the Iroquois would have been the Mississippian Culture. The Mississippian Culture did have private property based on family lineage, so the Iroquois would have had a concept of private property, or property other than community owned property. Also, trade with other non-Iroquoian nations would have brought them into contact with other systems, which they were well aware of So yes, other forms of property had been conceived before Iroquois socialist society.

I'd rather not call it socialist, because I hold that word to a high standard. I mean, we're not delusional enough to call Sweden socialist just because it's a more humane form of capitalism, so we shouldn't idealise these native american societies in the same way.

[Leo]

I don't think the Iroquois society at least as was absorbed could in any way be described as a socialist society. It was a society which had moved away from primitive communism, and while still hunting and gathering, agriculture and trade were also quite important components of the Iroquois economy. The Iroquois society, from what I've read about it, rather showed characteristics of a clan democracy.

While being a mostly egalitarian society, the role of men and women in such societies is more distinct and apart compared to hunter-gatherer societies (women dominating agriculture aside from gathering, while men dominating trading aside from hunting). This conflict eventually creates patriarchy within the society, with men utilizing its political leadership due to trade and strength advantage gained due to hunting in order to take the dominion of agriculture from women - a more or less similar dynamic led to the rise of slavery as a mode of production and the ancient empires.

While it is clear that the Iroquois society was a patriarchal one in formation, it is also clear that the developments that took place in other societies around the world didn't take place within the Iroquois (or with other native North American societies). This possibly could be tied to two elements: one being the geographical nature and the vastness of the continent (and of course the lack of transport animals), limiting trade and thus the political power of men in their own societies due to the contact with the outside being limited itself; and added to that the nature of the basic agricultural products grown by the Native American societies. These two reasons, we could say, resulted in the native societies of Northern America evolving differently from their counterparts in the rest of the world, while only the former reason could be an explanation to why the societies in Central and South America evolved differently from their Northern counterparts.

On the point of private property, all similar societies have a concept of extensive personal property to slightly varying degrees, although it can't be said that private property in relation to the means of production existed in such societies, except in embryonic form. Also, I don't think the Iroquois warring with the Algonquian people really shows the Iroquois society was "expansionist", let alone "imperialist" (which is an utterly ridiculous thing to suggest, considering the social circumstances). War between neighboring tribes is a common phenomenon for such societies after all. The Algonquians also had corn/beans/squash as their agricultural products. In any case though, even if they hadn't, warring with the Iroquois would have resulted in them eventually getting it. One can not expect such events not to play a role in developments in history, such as the development of agriculture in North America.

On a different point, I think it is important to remember that a point of view centered on political concerns of our day can't be the way to analyze the history of the pre-contact North American societies in a materialist manner. Both searching for "socialist inspiration" as well as "proto-imperialism to condemn" is not something to start from, if one is to reach healthy conclusions.

[A.R.Amistad]

Even Marx and Engels characterized the Iroquois Confederation as a socialist society, so no matter what "strict" standard you hold socialism to, the Iroquois were no Scandinavian social democracy. Check out Engels Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. There's a whole chapter devoted to the Iroquois. Also, everyone seems to believe that the Iroquois transitioned from primitive communism to agricultural communism without a previous system of class division. This just isn't true at all. First of all, the Eerie's were "conquered" (I put that in quotes because they were constitutionally guaranteed to secede peacefully and without reprisal but choose not to) by the Iroquois and thus became the sixth nation sometime in the 18th century. Before that, the Eeries were living based off of a monarchical chiefdom hierarchy. The Eerie adopted the laws of the Iroquois and they too became a classless and democratic society in the confederation. So this is mark one against the theory that the Iroquois went straight from primitive communism to agricultural communism.
Also, we must consider the history inscribed on their wampums belts. Although much of it is obviously shrouded in myth and superstition, we have to consider the tales in social context. The tales of Iroquois history speak of a "Great Peacemaker" who called the nations of the Americas to come together, throw down their weapons and establish a peaceful society free of poverty, want, hunger, violence and vice. According to the stories, these societies were ruled by despotic warlords obsessed with power and bloodshed. The nations didn't listen to the "Great Peacemaker" and such affairs continued as they had until Hiawatha was inspired to put the "Great Peacemakers" ideas into practice. We have to take these stories with a grain of salt, but we can deduce some things for certain:
1. Iroquois society was aware of other societies that had other property and class structures, and therefore knew of other societies besides their own classless one.
2. There must have been classed societies before the Iroquois Confederation was formed that inspired the stories. Given the rhetoric of these stories and that of their constitution, it is likely that the Iroquois Confederation was forged in some sort of social revolution against the warlord-rulers before them.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Lenina Rosenweg


Hm, sounds interesting. Why were Gimbutas' politics so "yucky?"

A late reply. Marija Gimbutas was a Lithuanian-American anthropologist who worked mostly at the University of Chicago. She did important work in studying the Kurgan people of Russia, the Indo-European migration,and the relationship between art and mythology of ancient cultures.

Later, in the 80s, she developed a theory of the Neolithic as being a sort of feminist, matriarchal, or at least "matrifocal" culture. She extended this to more urban civilizations like Crete or Catal Huyak in Turkey. "The Language of the Goddess" is supposed to decode feminist spiritual symbolism in this culture.

Many people say that Gimbutas had some interesting ideas but read way too much into things without evidence to back it up.

Gimbutas' ideas were and are extremely popular among the New Age crowd and in the feminist spirituality movement. Some Marxists (Loren Goldner, others) say Gimbutas' myth is an ironic flip side of the Nazi myth. Primevil society had a holistic, organic unity until it was disrupted by an outside influence. W/the Nazis, it was "the Jews" w/Gimbutas and New Age people, it was ironically, "the Aryans". Some people do feel that Gimbutas later theories have ideological connections w/fascism.Both views are essentialist in that they posit some ancient paradise that was taken from us by a twist of history. This view removes human agency to create out own world by changing material conditions.

[A.R.Amistad]

I did some research on Gimbutas. She sounds interesting, albeit quite Utopian like you described.

Lenina Rosenweg

Both views are essentialist in that they posit some ancient paradise that was taken from us by a twist of history. This view removes human agency to create out own world by changing material conditions.

I like the way you think, comrade ;):thumbup1:

[Leo]

Even Marx and Engels characterized the Iroquois Confederation as a socialist society

I don't think they did, and would be interested to see your quotes on it. As it could be seen in Marx's Ethnographic Notebooks and Engels' Origins of Family Private Property and State, they viewed the Iroquois society (and Native American societies in general) as societies in transition between primitive communism and the class system. It is also Marx who notes the development of patriarchy within the Iroquois system.


Check out Engels Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. There's a whole chapter devoted to the Iroquois.

And there are whole chapters on Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans... Doesn't make them socialist, does it?


Also, everyone seems to believe that the Iroquois transitioned from primitive communism to agricultural communism

I don't think the Iroquois system can be described as "agricultural communism" in the first place. While the ownership of the lands were communal for the clans and there was a general tribal control over all available lands, there was conflict between the clans among each other, and the clans with the tribal council regulating the land distribution. In that sense, the Iroquois agriculture could be considered communal in the sense that there wasn't private property of the lands, and agriculture was practiced in a communal way in the micro level, but can't be considered communist in the sense that the general system worked. It was doubtlessly transitory in its nature. Of course agriculture couldn't have been communist in the general sense (like the primitive communist societies were communist) due to the very nature it had in the period.


without a previous system of class division. This just isn't true at all. First of all, the Eerie's were "conquered" (I put that in quotes because they were constitutionally guaranteed to secede peacefully and without reprisal but choose not to) by the Iroquois and thus became the sixth nation sometime in the 18th century Before that, the Eeries were living based off of a monarchical chiefdom hierarchy.

This has got nothing to do with your point about classes existing in the Iroquois society before the rise of agriculture. By then, the general situation in Northern America had been significantly altered by the Europeans appearing in the continent, and the wars between natives too were being fought by gunfire. The result of the conflict between the Iroquois and the Eries was the fur trade market with the Europeans. I've never read that the Eries were particularly, monarchical, but all native societies had chiefdom and a form of monarchy was, in this or that form, sort of in formation within all the different societies.


The Eerie adopted the laws of the Iroquois and they too became a classless and democratic society in the confederation.

I think its more that their tribe was destroyed and only a few survivors were integrated into the Western Seneca. Its not as if they joined the Iroquois confederacy as a separate nation, adopting the laws of the Iroquois on will - their survivors had nowhere to go to.


So this is mark one against the theory that the Iroquois went straight from primitive communism to agricultural communism

Uh... no, it's not.


Also, we must consider the history inscribed on their wampums belts. Although much of it is obviously shrouded in myth and superstition, we have to consider the tales in social context. The tales of Iroquois history speak of a "Great Peacemaker" who called the nations of the Americas to come together, throw down their weapons and establish a peaceful society free of poverty, want, hunger, violence and vice. According to the stories, these societies were ruled by despotic warlords obsessed with power and bloodshed. The nations didn't listen to the "Great Peacemaker" and such affairs continued as they had until Hiawatha was inspired to put the "Great Peacemakers" ideas into practice. We have to take these stories with a grain of salt, but we can deduce some things for certain:

This is very dubious, certainly. Certainly myths do show things, but talking of Hiawata and Deganawita wanting to "establish a peaceful society free of poverty, want, hunger, violence and vice" is purely projecting a world-view based on today into the past. This myth does not show in any way the existence of class societies in North America previous to the formation of the Iroquois confederacy (that is not to say they weren't aware of it), there are no old rulers overthrown, no old systems changed etc. The internal matters of the tribes in fact does not change with the establishment of the Iroquois confederacy, the tribes are simply united into a confederacy, a very wise strategic move for the Iroquois surely, which did result in giving the Iroquois dominance in the areas they inhabited, and enabled them to compete with other tribes and confederacies nearby. Needless to say, according to stories, Deganawita does not overthrow anyone or any previous class, but simply convinces the tribes of his spiritual powers.


Iroquois society was aware of other societies that had other property and class structures

This isn't very likely, while varying slightly in how patriarchal they were, most North American agricultural native societies showed similar characteristics. There was of course other societies which were still hunter-gatherer societies, with less centralized structures, less established leaders and a generally less patriarchal nature. The only way the Iroquois society could have come into any awareness of actual class societies would be through the empires based on slavery in Central and South Americas, but even that would most likely not be the result of any direct contact with those societies, but rather stories of them traveling tribe to tribe till it reached the Iroquois lands.

[ChrisK]

I was wondering if we could start making a list of pre-Marxist societies that successfully abolished private property, was run democratically and where the means of production where owned in common. As I posted before, I know the most successful one I can think of is the Iroquois Confederacy. If at all possible, I'd like us not to focus so much on the "primitive" societies that where communalist, such as pre-history type of societies. Lets try to focus on post mesopotamian civilization communalist societies, preferrably with complex trade systems, etc. etc.

1. Iroquois Confederacy, League of Six Nations
2. Polynesia?

Closest I can think of is Iran when Mazdak and his followers took a degree of power. It was a religious group that seized and redistributed wealth to everyone equally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazdak

[A.R.Amistad]

Closest I can think of is Iran when Mazdak and his followers took a degree of power. It was a religious group that seized and redistributed wealth to everyone equally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazdak

Yeah I read into that too. The Mazdak movement seems pretty neat. How much power did Mazdak and his followers gain? Wikipedia wasn't specific on that and the internet sucks when looking for detailed information.

[ChrisK]

Yeah I read into that too. The Mazdak movement seems pretty neat. How much power did Mazdak and his followers gain? Wikipedia wasn't specific on that and the internet sucks when looking for detailed information.

I'm not too sure. There is limited information in English about him. Maybe there is more info in Iran.

From what I can tell they had almost total control over the Sassanid Empire, which at that time covered the Cental and Eastern parts of the Middle East.