hunter and gatherers

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

Weren't hunter and gatherer's communist in a way? They had no nations, although I'm not certain about tribes at this time. They had no money/economy, everything they had went to the community/village. I don't know too much about this time period but I'm certain they had classes, such as a tribe leader, women were gatherers and men were hunters. So in a way, they were communists.
So the main question is, were hunter and gatherers communist? and was the globe in a successful communist state for most of human history.

[Leftsolidarity]

Weren't hunter and gatherer's communist in a way? They had no nations, although I'm not certain about tribes at this time. They had no money/economy, everything they had went to the community/village. I don't know too much about this time period but I'm certain they had classes, such as a tribe leader, women were gatherers and men were hunters. So in a way, they were communists.
So the main question is, were hunter and gatherers communist? and was the globe in a successful communist state for most of human history.

It's called "primitive communism". Also, a tribe leader does not mean there were classes.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Yes, in a way they were a classless, moneyless, society

See: "Primitive Communism"

Communism as we know it requires surplus. And such a large surplus is only possible through industrialization.

[Yugo45]

The hunter-gatherer societies (also known as hordes, at least in my language) didn't have a "tribal leader". Tribes are a different sort of society, which came after hordes, when the division of labour became more developed. Hordes were classless. The first inequalities came with tribes, which, as countries and nations formed from them, grew into economic and political classes.

[bcbm]

that seems like speculation, we know relatively little about gatherer-hunter societies social organization.

[The Douche]

that seems like speculation, we know relatively little about gatherer-hunter societies social organization.

I don't think its necessarily that we know so little, but that H-G societies were very different from one another.

In some women were hunters and men were gatherers, some were led by women, some by men, they had various degrees of religious organization, and various degrees of domestication of plants and animals.

[Zukunftsmusik]

that seems like speculation, we know relatively little about gatherer-hunter societies social organization.

what about current hunter-gatherers? like tribes in Brazil, Indonesia etc.

[daft punk]

Hunter gatherers dont produce enough surplus for classes to arise. howver there can be some hierarchy, eg leaders who may or may not get some privileges, and may or may not be elected. Lots of variations.

If you read up on American Indians for example there are lots of variations.

The classic story is Cayonu and Catalhoyuk in what is now Turkey about 10,000 years ago. A class society evolved, but then the poor people had a revolution and scrapped it. From then on there was primitive communism in the area for over 1,500 years. This is detailed here:

http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html

http://www.urkommunismus.de/bilder/logo.gif

From Çayönü to Çatalhöyük

Emergence and development of an egalitarian society
Bernhard Brosius


The new society is best seen at Catalhoyuk. They lived in identical houses all joined together, with communal roofs. You worked up on the roof, and got into your house down a ladder.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Catal_H%C3%BCy%C3%BCk_Restauration_B.JPG/200px-Catal_H%C3%BCy%C3%BCk_Restauration_B.JPG


http://globalheritagefund.org/images/uploads/projects/catal_overview_main.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/2307/2070808711_504321d63d_d.jpg

The women and men were equal and there was no violence, btw.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The Inuits (Eskimo) were probably the most "communist" society. They literally shared everything and things like thievery or murder were completely unheard of in their societies.

[bcbm]

I don't think its necessarily that we know so little, but that H-G societies were very different from one another.

its both really. gatherer-hunter societies in prehistoric times left little in the way of evidence due to their highly mobile nature. what evidence that has been found that shines light on social organization (burial sites, primarily) does suggest some level of 'class' (i am using the term loosely) distinction, with some people being buried with more elaborate clothing and items, possibly a sign of wealth. this is all speculation of course, gatherer-hunter ornamentation may have had entirely different meanings than what we read into it today.


what about current hunter-gatherers? like tribes in Brazil, Indonesia etc.

we can extrapolate from these societies, but it is important to note that many of these, by the time they were studied, had been pushed to marginalized or inhospitable areas in order to avoid their civilized neighbors and maintain their lifestyles. in my earlier comment i meant pre-historic gatherer-hunter societies specifically, who make up the majority of humanity's time on this planet.

[robbo203]

Hunter gatherer societies basically break down into two broad types

Simple HG societies
Complex HIG societies.

The former - the earliest and most long=lived form of human social organisation - are called band societies, Their kinship structure is based on the principle of "segmentary lineages" What this means is that is that have a constant tendency towards fission = to break up - in the face of, say, environmental pressures or social conflict. A "segment" of the band consisting of closely related kin will hive off and set themselves up as another social group. In other words people can very easily "vote with their feet", as the expression goes, and this simple fact goes a long way towards explaining the non-hierarchical egalitarian nature of band societies. This also goes with an almost ingrained disregard for private property. Accumuating possessions , whenb you think about it, would actually seriously hinder mobility and a nomadiic way of life because you dont want to be lumbered with carrying a lot of things around with you while you are on the move. Besides, what you need by way of raw materials to make into tools and equipment etc will mostly like be found whererever you move to

Complex HG societies tend to be tribal societies rather than band societies. Unlike with the latter the territorial principle assumes much more impoirtance and you also begin to see a greater degree of complexity in the social ties that bind people together (and to their territory) which helps to ensure the contination of larger more stable groups - such as the appearance of age cohorts along rituals of intiation and so on. While hunting and gathering may be stll be the mainstay you may begin to a shft towards the domestication of plants and animals - farming - and ia common form of faming at this point is shifting or "slash and burn" agriculture as the colonialists used to disparagingly call it, which offers a kind of compromise between a sedentary and nomadic way of life

Complex HG soceities are a kind of transitional form of society between acephalous or stateless societies and class-based statified societies and are interesting for that reason. Stephen Pinker has claimed that HG societies are, relatively speaking, far more violent in terms of the percentage of deaths by homicide compared with modern industrial societies. Pinkers evidence is highly questionable and in any case I suspect is overwhemingly based on data relating to complex HG societies rather than simple HG societies.

There is a simple reaon for this and that is that the latter not being so attached to territory , typically tend to respond to external aggression by simply moving on avoiding bloodshed. With compex HG societies in which the territorial principle is much more pronounced this option may not be available.

[MotherCossack]

seems to me it dont matter that much.... since they pre-date money and all the nonsense that inevitably followed... stands to reason that they were a lot more fair, equal.. even civilised than the present systeme diabolique.
i suppose it is likely that there may have been signs of dodgy dealings and nepotistic shananagans in the simple heirarchy of the settlements.... but i dont suppose there is much you can do with a huge surplas of mammoth meat, fur, tusks, bone, manure..... apart from demand that your subservient hunters and gatherers do your share of said work.... the scope for exploitation was nominal.....
but i suppose .... from little acorns.... big trees grow.... i wonder if they had known what we know..........
if i had been around when a certain smart arse came up with the idea of cash.... i'd have said politely...
'nah....terrible idea mate.... bound to end in tears....lets keep it simple...' and pushed him into the jaws of a sabre tooth had he insisted.

[Lynx]

What Marx referred to as the 'ancient' mode of production, or was that strictly for self-employed individuals?

[Amal]

What Marx referred to as the 'ancient' mode of production, or was that strictly for self-employed individuals?
Words like "self-employed" are basically useless of human kind. From the very beginning, we are social creatures and that's the root of our development. Even during hunting and gathering, we need combined effort and from this, all languages, tools, techniques and other things that we are just accustomed too are developed.
Class is based on surplus, as a hunter gatherer community cannot produce enough surplus (if they, they wouldn't be just hunter-gatherer anymore), most probably no class, private property existed there. Private property is useless until and unless you can employ someone into that for you.

[Zealot]

Yes, so-called "Primitive Communism". Bear in bind that a hunter-gatherer society is separate from tribal societies. Hunter-gatherers had no hierarchy or class but in some instances may have had a "big man"; someone who wasn't seen as better than anyone else, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from anyone else either, but they were simply influential or knowledgeable.

Admittedly, some hunter-gatherers actually reached the organizational level of chiefdoms when there was an abundance of resources that allowed classes to develop. So there are some overlaps but generally they were a primitive type of Communism.

[Lynx]

Words like "self-employed" are basically useless of human kind. From the very beginning, we are social creatures and that's the root of our development. Even during hunting and gathering, we need combined effort and from this, all languages, tools, techniques and other things that we are just accustomed too are developed.
Class is based on surplus, as a hunter gatherer community cannot produce enough surplus (if they, they wouldn't be just hunter-gatherer anymore), most probably no class, private property existed there. Private property is useless until and unless you can employ someone into that for you.
They would have had to produce surplus, to support their children at the very least. All of Marx's modes of production involve surplus, the question is whether a particular mode was exploitative.
I'm drawing from Richard D. Wolff's lectures, who may have incorrectly translated when he used the word 'ancient'.
HG groups were self-sufficient, thus in a manner of speaking, 'self-employed'.

[bcbm]

in some instances may have had a "big man"; someone who wasn't seen as better than anyone else, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from anyone else either

there is evidence of different degrees of ornamentation in gatherer-hunters clothing and accessories (spear throwers, etc) though its meaning is unclear to us, obviously.


HG groups were self-sufficient, thus in a manner of speaking, 'self-employed'.

self-employed implies individually employed, gatherer-hunter production was an entirely collective process.

[Luís Henrique]

What Marx referred to as the 'ancient' mode of production, or was that strictly for self-employed individuals?

No, the "ancient mode of production" is an already agricultural mode of production.

Luís Henrique

[MotherCossack]

well whatever it was.... there is a lot to be said for it....
imagine..... of a morning..... the sun rises above an unspoilt savanna or a lush valley protected by majestic and glorious mountains, you stir from within a bed of the softest , cosiest animal hide. eyes open to the sun streaming in through the cave entrance, or throuigh the simple straw roof that covers your simple one room dwelling.
you venture outside, shaking off the sleep..... no hint of any chemically induced after effects or hangover and no need for alka seltzer.
you take a deep breath...... !!! can anyone imagine it..... the smell of a brand new morning on a fit, unspoilt, young planet before it has been kissed by the likes of an arrogent, destructive, untidy, clumsy, irresponsible, greedy, ambitious, uncoordinated, ignorant, thoughtless, careless, selfish, unrestrained and unfortunately unchecked species that happens to evolve on it.
i am working hard.... but well.... it must have smelled better than your average plug in air freshener...... ooh.... yeah!!! the idea of it..... almost enough to make me think about quitting the evil weed....

in real life.... people really lived then and there.... blimey though .... you know what i mean.....fwah!!
deep!! i reckon!
it was probably a load of shite and then you die.... but must a been a lot of fresh air.

[The Jay]

well whatever it was.... there is a lot to be said for it....
imagine..... of a morning..... the sun rises above an unspoilt savanna or a lush valley protected by majestic and glorious mountains, you stir from within a bed of the softest , cosiest animal hide. eyes open to the sun streaming in through the cave entrance, or throuigh the simple straw roof that covers your simple one room dwelling.
you venture outside, shaking off the sleep..... no hint of any chemically induced after effects or hangover and no need for alka seltzer.
you take a deep breath...... !!! can anyone imagine it..... the smell of a brand new morning on a fit, unspoilt, young planet before it has been kissed by the likes of an arrogent, destructive, untidy, clumsy, irresponsible, greedy, ambitious, uncoordinated, ignorant, thoughtless, careless, selfish, unrestrained and unfortunately unchecked species that happens to evolve on it.
i am working hard.... but well.... it must have smelled better than your average plug in air freshener...... ooh.... yeah!!! the idea of it..... almost enough to make me think about quitting the evil weed....

in real life.... people really lived then and there.... blimey though .... you know what i mean.....fwah!!
deep!! i reckon!
it was probably a load of shite and then you die.... but must a been a lot of fresh air.

Imagine dying of malaria and having no idea why or how. Imagine being cut by a thorn and dying from sepsis.