How could turn a tribal society in a socialist state?

[The Cheshire Cat]

Is it possible to turn a tribal society (like Lybia) into a socialist state?
It's seems near impossible to me, as a tribal society would be divided. And the workers wouldn't be able to make decisions if they were divided or if they refused to coöperate with one another. So a Dictature of the Proletariat would be impossible, right?

Maybe it would be possible to split up the country in several countries so every tribe would have it's own territory. That way the workers woud be unified. But this would probably end up in war.

Another option is to create a strong vanguard party existing of representatives of each tribe, which would have to unify the tribes, but this vanguard party would not solely exist of workers, which would make it un-socialist(?).

So how do people here think it could be done?

[Zulu]

Gaddafi was doing helluva job, but some bourgeoisie arose (as he wasn't a true socialist) which just waited for a chance to start a counter-revolution. Plus there are always the transnationals, he tried to strike a deal with them, and as usual it turned out to be a deal with the devil.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I definitely agree with you, Zulu, but frankly, that wasn't the question:).
I was wondering how someone could turn a tribal society into a socialist state.

[Dabrowski]

There is no such thing as a socialist state. Socialism is a classless society based on material abundance made possible by the highest levels of productivity achieved by capitalism.

For socialism, we need to defeat the bourgeoisie with an international workers revolution, and put the working class in power.

The term "tribal society" itself is kind of vague. There are some isolated indigenous peoples that haven't yet been genocided or dispersed by capitalism, and among these there is a great variety of different social structures -- in general socialists demand that the capitalist governments leave them alone and let them live however they want to on their land.

Often, though, I think the term is used to justify the backwardness and brutality of the local capitalist ruling classes in semi-colonial countries.

But in any case it all depends on the revolutionary movement of the working class. You can't have socialism in one country, "tribal" or not.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I thought there is no such thing as a communist state? With socialism, people often mean the transition from capitalism to communism, in which the classes and government slowly dissapears. In this case, there could be a vanguard party or just a normal government which is preparing the country for communism. And that's what I meant.

With tribal society I mean a society like Libya. A society in which life is fairly modern, but people are still strongly divided in tribes. The isolated indigenous people you are referring to often already living in some kind of communism, namely primitive communism. Ofcourse it is not real communism, since there is often a tribal head, but often there is no private property and everyone helps eachother.

And with your second sentence, what exactly do you mean with that? I'm sorry, but my english is not very good.

[thriller]

I thought there is no such thing as a communist state? With socialism, people often mean the transition from capitalism to communism, in which the classes and government slowly dissapears. In this case, there could be a vanguard party or just a normal government which is preparing the country for communism. And that's what I meant.

With tribal society I mean a society like Libya. A society in which life is fairly modern, but people are still strongly divided in tribes. The isolated indigenous people you are referring to often already living in some kind of communism, namely primitive communism. Ofcourse it is not real communism, since there is often a tribal head, but often there is no private property and everyone helps eachother.

And with your second sentence, what exactly do you mean with that? I'm sorry, but my english is not very good.

As for your first point, that is one interpretation of socialism vs. communism, some (like myself) don't distinguish between socialist and communist. Secondly the idea that indigenous tribes were communist is pretty much a myth. If you look at almost any tribe of North America, they had clearly defined boundaries (nations actually) common ethnic enemies (worker division) and HIGHLY divided society along religious and ritual lines (if you are interested, I wrote a 12 page paper on Blackfoot social hierarchy). For your original question, the tribes will have to be eliminated, at least in terms of legitimate power bases. The workers don't have to storm their territory and burn any resemblance or tribal society, but either A. the tribe will eventually be assimilated into communism if the majority of the outside world changes it's mode (and the means) of production or B. the majority of tribal society rises up and throws off the chains of ethnic/tribal divisions. The one thing about communism is that it is up to the people, the masses. They can not simply be given communism, since that requires no consciousness of class, no self-concept.. Btw, 400th post :D

(We may disagree on my last point, since I am not a big fan of the vanguard party)

[daft punk]

To get from a tribal society to socialism, you have to get the workers wanting it and thinking it's possible. To do that you need a workers party offering a clear socialist programme. The workers would have to unite against capitalism. This unity would cut across tribalism to a large extent. Socialism would require a high level of production as it's material base, as has already been mentioned. In socialism there would be no basis for tribalism. Tribalism is a struggle for resources.

[The Cheshire Cat]

The one thing about communism is that it is up to the people, the masses. They can not simply be given communism, since that requires no consciousness of class, no self-concept.. Btw, 400th post :D

(We may disagree on my last point, since I am not a big fan of the vanguard party)

Maybe a little off-topic, but is it not possible that a vanguard party creates that consciousness and then lead the revolutian, after which it dissolves?

And could you please send me a link or something to your 12 page paper on Blackfoot social hierarchy? Thank you.

[The Cheshire Cat]

To get from a tribal society to socialism, you have to get the workers wanting it and thinking it's possible. To do that you need a workers party offering a clear socialist programme. The workers would have to unite against capitalism. This unity would cut across tribalism to a large extent. Socialism would require a high level of production as it's material base, as has already been mentioned. In socialism there would be no basis for tribalism. Tribalism is a struggle for resources.

Thank you for answering, but could you explain the sentence: 'Socialism would require a high level of production as it's material base, as has already been mentioned'? I'm afraid my english is insufficient, or maybe I lack the knowledge regarding that subject:(

And how could one create a party that is able to get the attention of a divided people in a tribal society, when tribal people only listen to their own tribe members?

[daft punk]

Thank you for answering, but could you explain the sentence: 'Socialism would require a high level of production as it's material base, as has already been mentioned'? I'm afraid my english is insufficient, or maybe I lack the knowledge regarding that subject:(

And how could one create a party that is able to get the attention of a divided people in a tribal society, when tribal people only listen to their own tribe members?

Er, socialism is next to impossible in a backward country. I'm not sure how backward Libya is exactly. However a revolution can start in a backward country, but it could only achieve socialism if it then spreads to advanced countries, and the advanced ones then help the backward one.

Basically to get socialism you need to be able to produce eveything everyone needs, and most of what they want, otherwise they are just busy fighting over everything. If you can produce plenty, people can stop squabbling and get on with organising society in a cooperative way. Tribalism would die out during and after a socialist revolution. Libya is tribal, and capitalist. If the workers want to achieve socialism they have to unite against capitalism.

To create a party all you have to do is have a socialist programme. In Libya it would get a lot of support I think. Gaddafi said he was a socialist but he wasn't. You would have to make that distinction.

I think capitalism encourages divisions like tribalism, sectarianism and so on. For instance, Yugloslavia wasnt socialist, but sort of half-socialist. As soon as capitalism came back the people divided along ethnic lines into civil war. A socialist party should have been able to cut across all that crap. People cling to their tribe/ethnicity if that's all they have. In socialism it would be irrelevant, as everyone is equal and tribe means nothing.

Does that make any sense? It's a hard one to explain.

[Lolumad273]

Gaddafi was doing helluva job, but some bourgeoisie arose (as he wasn't a true socialist) which just waited for a chance to start a counter-revolution. Plus there are always the transnationals, he tried to strike a deal with them, and as usual it turned out to be a deal with the devil.

This is off topic, but from what I see on TV, Gaddafi was a bad guy, who killed a bunch of his people.... If he was doing a good job, why the revolution? Should I start a new thread about this..?

Sorry for off topic!

[GoddessCleoLover]

Gaddafi was a military officer who spearheaded a coup d'etat. His ideology was at best Nasserism. By the mid-1970s he had become a despot who hanged university students for peacefully protesting against his dictatorship. He squandered billions of petrodollars on military adventures in sub-Saharan Africa. His family apparently still has more than a billion dollars that the Gaddafis stole from Libya. His corrupt tyranny finally provoked the masses of the Libyan people to revolt against his dictatorial rule. While it is true that Libya is still in many ways a tribal society, one thing that a majority of the members of all tribes other than the al-Gaddafha agreed upon was to revolt against Gaddafi.

[Omsk]

Yugloslavia wasnt socialist, but sort of half-socialist. As soon as capitalism came back the people divided along ethnic lines into civil war


Are you talking about Tito's Yugoslavia,or the post 1980 Yugoslavia?In either case,the country was not socialist,it didn't function good,it was not self-sustainable,it was not planned good.(The very country,Yugoslavia) The people did not devide along ethnic lines when the war started,they were already devided,by the many constitutions that were clearly simply wrong,although the "Brotherhood and unity" idea was preached,old conflicts remained alive,and there were many dangereous events,for instance,nationalism was wide-spread for the better part of the 1980. corruption,crime and decay also.These borders,in the long term,they brought up to the fall of Yugoslavia,it was a badly planned experiment,and it was just a false sense of security,both economic and social.



This is off topic, but from what I see on TV, Gaddafi was a bad guy, who killed a bunch of his people.... If he was doing a good job, why the revolution? Should I start a new thread about this..?




He was obviously not doing a good job,but i guess you can open a thread about the Libyan conflict,and point out what questions you want answered.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Gaddafi was a military officer who spearheaded a coup d'etat. His ideology was at best Nasserism. By the mid-1970s he had become a despot who hanged university students for peacefully protesting against his dictatorship. He squandered billions of petrodollars on military adventures in sub-Saharan Africa. His family apparently still has more than a billion dollars that the Gaddafis stole from Libya. His corrupt tyranny finally provoked the masses of the Libyan people to revolt against his dictatorial rule. While it is true that Libya is still in many ways a tribal society, one thing that a majority of the members of all tribes other than the al-Gaddafha agreed upon was to revolt against Gaddafi.

I disagree with you on this topic, but maybe someone could create a Gadaffi topic, I think it would be interesting.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Secondly the idea that indigenous tribes were communist is pretty much a myth. If you look at almost any tribe of North America, they had clearly defined boundaries (nations actually) common ethnic enemies (worker division) and HIGHLY divided society along religious and ritual lines (if you are interested, I wrote a 12 page paper on Blackfoot social hierarchy).Primitive communism isn't communism as we know it, just pre-class society. As far as I know, northeastern Native American groups were already pretty developed and had some basic class divisions already due to a more settled lifestyle compared to smaller nomadic bands that people usually think of with "primitive communism". Compounded to their own social development was European trade which came usually before European settlements and actually vastly increased class distinctions. Indigenous plains societies had really been influenced by these changes while European settlements were still well east of the Mississippi. Horses were introduced and the fur trade which altered their societies greatly and made some groups in the blackfoot nation into basically raiders.

Despite these changes and the pre-colombian class divisions that already appeared, these groups were generally more equal and much less polarized than European colonists or Classical civilizations or Mesoamerican empires.

Anthropological research into more untouched and mostly pre-agriculture groups show that people lived a much more egalitarian lifestyle all else being equal. Without a surplus for a minority to control, everyone who can produces and so there is little ability for people to control other people in a meaningful sense.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Er, socialism is next to impossible in a backward country. I'm not sure how backward Libya is exactly. However a revolution can start in a backward country, but it could only achieve socialism if it then spreads to advanced countries, and the advanced ones then help the backward one.

Basically to get socialism you need to be able to produce eveything everyone needs, and most of what they want, otherwise they are just busy fighting over everything. If you can produce plenty, people can stop squabbling and get on with organising society in a cooperative way. Tribalism would die out during and after a socialist revolution. Libya is tribal, and capitalist. If the workers want to achieve socialism they have to unite against capitalism.

To create a party all you have to do is have a socialist programme. In Libya it would get a lot of support I think. Gaddafi said he was a socialist but he wasn't. You would have to make that distinction.

I think capitalism encourages divisions like tribalism, sectarianism and so on. For instance, Yugloslavia wasnt socialist, but sort of half-socialist. As soon as capitalism came back the people divided along ethnic lines into civil war. A socialist party should have been able to cut across all that crap. People cling to their tribe/ethnicity if that's all they have. In socialism it would be irrelevant, as everyone is equal and tribe means nothing.

Does that make any sense? It's a hard one to explain.


It makes a little sense know, I will think about it for awhile and search some more info regarding that topic. I don't think Libya is capitalist, but like Yugoslavia, half socialist or semi-socialist, since education, healthcare and housing are free or near free in Libya as far as I know. Besides, Gadaffi always defended the women's rights (he had 4 female bodyguards) and Libya is (was) the only country without government debt while the vast majority of the people live good lives, compared to those of other africans, etc.

Thanks for answering, I starting to get the idea I think.

[Rooster]

See, capitalism normally would have had removed all of the old guff like tribes and tradition and such. It hasn't in Libya so it's the task of the proletariat to remove old hangovers such as those.


Gaddafi was doing helluva job, but some bourgeoisie arose (as he wasn't a true socialist)

Bravo! What an explanation! If only Gaddafi, one man, was more of a true socialist! :crying:

[Ostrinski]

You need heavy industry as a prerequisite for socialism. Interactions with the industrial process are what equip the proletariat with what they need to plan the economy.

Primitive communalism=/=industrial socialism

[Soseloshvili]

This is all very dependent on your perspective and different Socialists / Communists have advocated different ways of doing this.

Some believe that a society DOES need to pass through the phase of Capitalism in order to produce a Socialist state. As in, you really can't have a proletarian revolution without a proletariat in existence.

If, however, you're asking whether it's possible for a modern pre-Capitalist society to "skip" Capitalism and jump right to an Industrial and yet collective society, I would say it highly depends on the situation.

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

This is an island that never knew true Capitalism among the people at the time of its revolution. Essentially, European Capitalists moved in, mined the place for a bit, and then abandoned all of it. There was a HEAP of Industrial technology just lying around. Lumped in with Papua New Guineau after the second world war despite cultural differences, the people were oppressed and revolted.

They were isolated from the world, highly religious, and had no conception of private industry. They did, however, have industrial technology left behind by Imperialists and were able to use in incredibly intelligently to facilitate their existence. During their isolation the means of production were collectivized, and it bore a lot of similarities to a Socialist state.

I'd say that provided there's some Capitalist technology lying around this hypothetical tribal nation, then it's possible to build a socialist state providing the conditions are correct, without passing through Capitalism. :)

[daft punk]

Are you talking about Tito's Yugoslavia,or the post 1980 Yugoslavia?In either case,the country was not socialist,it didn't function good,it was not self-sustainable,it was not planned good.(The very country,Yugoslavia) The people did not devide along ethnic lines when the war started,they were already devided,by the many constitutions that were clearly simply wrong,although the "Brotherhood and unity" idea was preached,old conflicts remained alive,and there were many dangereous events,for instance,nationalism was wide-spread for the better part of the 1980. corruption,crime and decay also.These borders,in the long term,they brought up to the fall of Yugoslavia,it was a badly planned experiment,and it was just a false sense of security,both economic and social.

There has never been a socialist country. The people may have been divided before, but they were not fighting until capitalist restoration came along.


It makes a little sense know, I will think about it for awhile and search some more info regarding that topic. I don't think Libya is capitalist, but like Yugoslavia, half socialist or semi-socialist, since education, healthcare and housing are free or near free in Libya as far as I know. Besides, Gadaffi always defended the women's rights (he had 4 female bodyguards) and Libya is (was) the only country without government debt while the vast majority of the people live good lives, compared to those of other africans, etc.

Thanks for answering, I starting to get the idea I think.

Libya isnt completely capitalist obviously, it was a sort of pseudo-socialiat state. Actually it was just a military dictatorship. There was quite a bit of capitalism though. However now I imagine it will be more capitalist.

[Blake's Baby]

Student: perhaps it would help if you explained if you have any particular 'tribal society' in mind, and what you think a 'socialist state' is, or whether this is a theoretical, academic question that doesn't really relate to the real world. Because as it is there are differnt interpretations of the question, let along the answer.

But, taking a stab at one set of possible meanings, my answer would be that socialism can be acheived in a tribal society only with the world revolution.

I'm not a Menshevik, I don't believe everywhere has to have x-years of capitalist development before socialism can happen - if I were, and if all those others who support this notion were honest about it, we'd be in Namibia trying to get Bushmen to buy Coca-Cola and generally cheering American attempts to conquer Third World Countries to integrate them more fully into the world market. This was the point of Marx's letter to Vera Zasulich, that it may be possible (if for instance there was a revolution in Germany in 1885) for the Russian 'mir' to form the basis of a socialist society in the agricultural areas of the Russian Empire.

I'm also not a national socialist, I believe that it's the international development of capitalism and class struggle that condition the development of the revolution. No country is ever, on its own, 'ready' for socialism, no matter how developed it is; there is no national socialism.

So ultimately a tribal society is very much in the same situation as any other society. Without the world revolution there is no road to socialism, national or not, developed or not. With the world revolution integration of different areas becomes not a race (as in capitalism) but a complementary process. Areas will not be competing but co-operating because there will be no 'states' that need to conquer 'markets'. Just different places producing different things to fulfill human needs.

[Rooster]

Libya isnt completely capitalist obviously, it was a sort of pseudo-socialiat state. Actually it was just a military dictatorship. There was quite a bit of capitalism though. However now I imagine it will be more capitalist.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but, nationalisation of industry doesn't equal socialism. So actually, what Gaddafi had was just a capitalist dictatorship.

[Rooster]

I thought there is no such thing as a communist state? With socialism, people often mean the transition from capitalism to communism, in which the classes and government slowly dissapears. In this case, there could be a vanguard party or just a normal government which is preparing the country for communism. And that's what I meant.

Only people with a very shallow understanding of Marxism think that. See, you've already just explained it away by saying that classes slowly dissappear. Reformism through revisionism. You can't have a socialist nor a communist state because a state is the expression of a class society.


With tribal society I mean a society like Libya. A society in which life is fairly modern, but people are still strongly divided in tribes. The isolated indigenous people you are referring to often already living in some kind of communism, namely primitive communism. Ofcourse it is not real communism, since there is often a tribal head, but often there is no private property and everyone helps eachother.

The historic role of capitalism is to remove all of the old baggage of society such as tribalism, monarchy, the landed estate, serfdom, etc. This was when some people called capitalism progessive but capital is now unwilling and/or unable to remove these relics from the past. And it's developed like this unevenly in society so we have tribes still in some places, some countries still have a monarchy, some countries have the hacienda, and so on as capital progressed. So it's up to the proletariat now, through it's role as the only class capable of resolving the issue of class society, to sweep away all of this old garbage. Not to preserve it as a power base. So through a process of revolution, these institutions have to dealt with.

[thriller]

Primitive communism isn't communism as we know it, just pre-class society. As far as I know, northeastern Native American groups were already pretty developed and had some basic class divisions already due to a more settled lifestyle compared to smaller nomadic bands that people usually think of with "primitive communism". Compounded to their own social development was European trade which came usually before European settlements and actually vastly increased class distinctions. Indigenous plains societies had really been influenced by these changes while European settlements were still well east of the Mississippi. Horses were introduced and the fur trade which altered their societies greatly and made some groups in the blackfoot nation into basically raiders.

Despite these changes and the pre-colombian class divisions that already appeared, these groups were generally more equal and much less polarized than European colonists or Classical civilizations or Mesoamerican empires.

Anthropological research into more untouched and mostly pre-agriculture groups show that people lived a much more egalitarian lifestyle all else being equal. Without a surplus for a minority to control, everyone who can produces and so there is little ability for people to control other people in a meaningful sense.

Yes, I think most people would argue many tribes had a more egalitarian way of life than Europeans at the time. However, as you mentioned class distinction and even private property (well personal religious property) and social status all played a role in making most tribes structured societies. I just get kind of pissed when people say to me "Ohh communism, like Native Americans lived!" uhh no.

@Student: While I encourage every party to promote class consciousness, I don't think any group can lead the revolution other than the workers themselves. As far as my paper goes, I'll post it tomorrow and send you a link, if you are still interested.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Yes, I think most people would argue many tribes had a more egalitarian way of life than Europeans at the time. However, as you mentioned class distinction and even private property (well personal religious property) and social status all played a role in making most tribes structured societies. I just get kind of pissed when people say to me "Ohh communism, like Native Americans lived!" uhh no.

@Student: While I encourage every party to promote class consciousness, I don't think any group can lead the revolution other than the workers themselves. As far as my paper goes, I'll post it tomorrow and send you a link, if you are still interested.

But if the workers lead a revolution, there has to be some kind of central organ to coördinate the revolution. Wouldn't that central organ automatically become a vanguard party? And I'm still interested in your paper.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Only people with a very shallow understanding of Marxism think that. See, you've already just explained it away by saying that classes slowly dissappear. Reformism through revisionism. You can't have a socialist nor a communist state because a state is the expression of a class society.


I know a state is an expression of a class society, but I thought one of the bigger diferences between communists and anarchists is, that anarchists demand an immediate dissolvement of the state, while communists prefer a slower dissolvement of the state?


The historic role of capitalism is to remove all of the old baggage of society such as tribalism, monarchy, the landed estate, serfdom, etc. This was when some people called capitalism progessive but capital is now unwilling and/or unable to remove these relics from the past. And it's developed like this unevenly in society so we have tribes still in some places, some countries still have a monarchy, some countries have the hacienda, and so on as capital progressed. So it's up to the proletariat now, through it's role as the only class capable of resolving the issue of class society, to sweep away all of this old garbage. Not to preserve it as a power base. So through a process of revolution, these institutions have to dealt with.

I don't totally agree with your first sentence, since capitalism supported tribalism in many cases. For example, many chiefs of tribes were paid to deliver slaves by European capitalists. Those chiefs had acces to those slaves because they were chief of a tribe, which granted the the power to take and sell slaves.

[daft punk]

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but, nationalisation of industry doesn't equal socialism. So actually, what Gaddafi had was just a capitalist dictatorship.
Nationalisation of industry could lead to socialism it it had a workers democracy. I dunno how much was nationalised in Libya. Some, but anyway, it was a dictatorship with a mixed economy.

[Rooster]

I know a state is an expression of a class society, but I thought one of the bigger diferences between communists and anarchists is, that anarchists demand an immediate dissolvement of the state, while communists prefer a slower dissolvement of the state?

Communists should be aiming for a dissolution of the state through the act of revolution. Not; revolution first, attain state control, then implement socialism. That's a crazy hair brained idea.


I don't totally agree with your first sentence, since capitalism supported tribalism in many cases. For example, many chiefs of tribes were paid to deliver slaves by European capitalists. Those chiefs had acces to those slaves because they were chief of a tribe, which granted the the power to take and sell slaves.

I'm not sure you get what I meant. Maybe it's my fault. Which part of "capital is either unable or unwilling to do with tribalism" are you having difficulty with?

[Rooster]

Nationalisation of industry could lead to socialism it it had a workers democracy. I dunno how much was nationalised in Libya. Some, but anyway, it was a dictatorship with a mixed economy.

It wasn't a mixed economy. It was capitalist through and through. Do you consider the French train system to be socialist?

[daft punk]

It wasn't a mixed economy. It was capitalist through and through. Do you consider the French train system to be socialist?
Er, not really. Call it capitalist then.

[The Cheshire Cat]

It wasn't a mixed economy. It was capitalist through and through. Do you consider the French train system to be socialist?

It was not capitalist through and through. It definetly wasn't socialist, but also not capitalist. A capitalist system would never allow free or near free healtcare, education and housing. Also, capitalism would not support a full and fair democracy. The next fragment is from Gadaffi's Green Book, chapter 'Plebiscites':


Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy. Those who vote "yes" or "no" do not, in fact, express their free will but, rather, are silenced by the modern conception of democracy as they are not allowed to say more than "yes" or "no". Such a system is oppressive and tyrannical. Those who vote "no" should express their reasons and why they did not say "yes", and those who say "yes" should verify such agreement and why they did not vote "no". Both should state their wishes and be able to justify their "yes" or "no" vote.

What then, is the path to be taken by humanity in order to conclusively rid itself of the
elements of dictatorship and tyranny?

As you see, he opposed dictatorship. Not that Libya was a very democratic society, but I am afraid democracy will turn out in one big bloody mess at the moment. I suggest you read the Green Book if you haven't already.

http://zadishefreeman.com/images/Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

[The Cheshire Cat]

Communists should be aiming for a dissolution of the state through the act of revolution. Not; revolution first, attain state control, then implement socialism. That's a crazy hair brained idea.

Why?


Which part of "capital is either unable or unwilling to do with tribalism" are you having difficulty with?

I'm sorry, but I have a very basic and limited knowledge of english. I think it is the 'to do', I'm not sure how to translate it.