Were Switzerland a communist and anarchist territory?

[tuwix]

As history of Switzerland says the rural communes of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden have established a country in 1291 without any king. Tradition until today indicates that decision there were taken by direct democracy. Now Switzerland is undoubtedly capitalist state probably because of emergence of bourgeoisie.
However, due to lack of any feudal institutions which on the Middle Ages were private property, it seems that in early Switzerland there was only personal property.


Then could we describe an early Switzerland as new form of social organization that is free of state and free of private property which means communist?

[Skyhilist]

Did they export or import items to/from other regions? If so then they relied on capitalist/feudalist markets and therefore couldn't be considered to have had communism. Also, how were resources and labor distributed within Switzerland?

[DOOM]

I'll write an extended answer later. But I can say that switzerland of course had a feudal stage.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Were the means of production controlled by society in Switzerland? No, they were not, they were controlled by the nascent bourgeoisie, by the guilds and by the patricians. So, sorry, no communism in one Old Swiss confederation.

Communism in mediaeval Switzerland, I think I've officially seen it all now.

[Luís Henrique]

As history of Switzerland says the rural communes of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden have established a country in 1291 without any king. Tradition until today indicates that decision there were taken by direct democracy. Now Switzerland is undoubtedly capitalist state probably because of emergence of bourgeoisie.
However, due to lack of any feudal institutions which on the Middle Ages were private property, it seems that in early Switzerland there was only personal property.


Then could we describe an early Switzerland as new form of social organization that is free of state and free of private property which means communist?

I think we should describe early Switzerland as a society based on simple commodity production.

Luís Henrique

[tuwix]

Did they export or import items to/from other regions? If so then they relied on capitalist/feudalist markets and therefore couldn't be considered to have had communism. Also, how were resources and labor distributed within Switzerland?

Trade is done by tribes in phase of primitive communism. In the most primitive communities, some entities trade with tools of hunt or daily life, and they are still in the phase of primitive communism despite of that. The reason why they are communist is lack of private property although a personal property emerges very quickly (tools for defense and hunting don't belong to group; they belong to entities).
And Switzerland despite trade seems in their early period not to have a private property because it's just a union between rural communities.
So the question stands...


I'll write an extended answer later. But I can say that switzerland of course had a feudal stage.

Then I wait, but an early Switzerland seems to be not feudal at all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

tuwix, who do you think had ownership of the means of production in the Old Swiss Confederacy?

[tuwix]

^^ Haven't I told you not to read my posts because they're too difficult to understand for you?

Or probably you haven't understood it too...

[Tim Cornelis]

Trade is done by tribes in phase of primitive communism. In the most primitive communities, some entities trade with tools of hunt or daily life, and they are still in the phase of primitive communism despite of that. The reason why they are communist is lack of private property although a personal property emerges very quickly (tools for defense and hunting don't belong to group; they belong to entities).
And Switzerland despite trade seems in their early period not to have a private property because it's just a union between rural communities.
So the question stands...



Then I wait, but an early Switzerland seems to be not feudal at all.

It's like talking to a brick wall. As I explained last time, in primitive communism there is no trade (of goods or services) and there are no tribes.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

^^ Haven't I told you not to read my posts because they're too difficult to understand for you?

Or probably you haven't understood it too...

I imagine it would take a truly exceptional person to "understand" your posts to the extent that they accept that your bizarre claims are true. I'm just trying to see how deep a hole someone can dig for themselves. So, who owned the means of production?

Of course, if you think the OSC was "socialist", that raises the question of what sort of socialist you are. Oh wait, we know the answer, a market "socialist".

[PhoenixAsh]

Certain parts of Swiss did not have a feudal lord or were no longer governed by nobility or church but by the local communities of self liberated serfs who did wage war and did have revolts and revolutions in order to reach that phase.

These parts were governed by local open democratic councils who, when it needed to happen, elected representatives for specific representation.

The rights of ownership of (mostly agrarian) productions facilities was by the community.

There was trade between communities.


And this model directly inspired revolutions in Germany and Italy.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Certain parts of Swiss did not have a feudal lord or were no longer governed by nobility or church but by the local communities of self liberated serfs who did wage war and did have revolts and revolutions in order to reach that phase.

These parts were governed by local open democratic councils who, when it needed to happen, elected representatives for specific representation.

The rights of ownership of (mostly agrarian) productions facilities was by the community.

There was trade between communities.


And this model directly inspired revolutions in Germany and Italy.

I'm not sure what period you're referring to, but the original rebellion of the three cantons was against the Habsburgs, and the three cantons were led by the nobility, albeit the urban patriciate instead of the large landowning princes like the Habsburgs, Luxemburgs or Zaehringens. De iure, serfdom in Switzerland was not abolished until the period of the Helvetic Republic. Most offices (such as the landmann) were restricted to the patricians and some of the "new" nobility, descendants of ministeriales and so on. Finally the various cantons of Switzerland held subject territories.

There was common land (as was the case in England before the enclosures), but feudal rents and other such instruments were not abolished until the Helvetic Republic.

[Slavic]

There was common land (as was the case in England before the enclosures), but feudal rents and other such instruments were not abolished until the Helvetic Republic.

This.

You do not need a king or nobility for a feudalistic system to exist.

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm not sure what period you're referring to, but the original rebellion of the three cantons was against the Habsburgs, and the three cantons were led by the nobility, albeit the urban patriciate instead of the large landowning princes like the Habsburgs, Luxemburgs or Zaehringens. De iure, serfdom in Switzerland was not abolished until the period of the Helvetic Republic. Most offices (such as the landmann) were restricted to the patricians and some of the "new" nobility, descendants of ministeriales and so on. Finally the various cantons of Switzerland held subject territories.

There was common land (as was the case in England before the enclosures), but feudal rents and other such instruments were not abolished until the Helvetic Republic.

Yes but what you are talking about is only one of the two political systems which developed at the same time but in distinctly different ways: the rural area's and cantons and the argrarian area's and cantons and waldstatte.

And the jure Swiss remained part of larger empires but defacto this could not be applied in every region of Swiss.

Kind of like the Dutch provinces being de jure part of Spain and defacto were largely freed from Spain.

[tuwix]

It's like talking to a brick wall. As I explained last time, in primitive communism there is no trade (of goods or services) and there are no tribes.

If explanation has nothing to do with truth, it's not just valid. And that is the case. Primitive tribes do trade. And your imaginations don't change that.




Certain parts of Swiss did not have a feudal lord or were no longer governed by nobility or church but by the local communities of self liberated serfs who did wage war and did have revolts and revolutions in order to reach that phase.

These parts were governed by local open democratic councils who, when it needed to happen, elected representatives for specific representation.

The rights of ownership of (mostly agrarian) productions facilities was by the community.

There was trade between communities.


And this model directly inspired revolutions in Germany and Italy.

The could you describe this communes' confederation as area free of state? And even communist in your opinion?

[Tim Cornelis]

If explanation has nothing to do with truth, it's not just valid. And that is the case. Primitive tribes do trade. And your imaginations don't change that.

Again, there were no fucking tribes in primitive communism, tribes developed with the onset of neolithic gardens, i.e. agriculture, which gradually replaced hunting and gathering. Primitive communism was a band society, not a tribal society. This is a scientific consensus in anthropology. So on what authority do you speak? Saying it's my imagination and not the truth?


Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

Gatherer-hunter bands, which are generally egalitarian. [i.e. primitive communism]
Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank and prestige. [i.e. what you wrongly confuse with primitive communism]
Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains (see Chiefdom). [i.e. what you wrongly confuse with primitive communism]
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments
.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe

[PhoenixAsh]

The could you describe this communes' confederation as area free of state? And even communist in your opinion?

Well, you could describe them as open democratic but not as classless societies,

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes but what you are talking about is only one of the two political systems which developed at the same time but in distinctly different ways: the rural area's and cantons and the argrarian area's and cantons and waldstatte.

And the jure Swiss remained part of larger empires but defacto this could not be applied in every region of Swiss.

Kind of like the Dutch provinces being de jure part of Spain and defacto were largely freed from Spain.

I think the Old Swiss Confederation formally seceded from the Holy Roman Empire some time before their war with Burgundy, but I'm not sure. In any case, what specific cantons did you have in mind? Because to the best of my knowledge, the arrangement I described was in place in every canton - except the subject areas, the Grey League and some of the minor areas under abbeys and so on.

[tuwix]

Again, there were no fucking tribes in primitive communism, tribes developed with the onset of neolithic gardens, i.e. agriculture, which gradually replaced hunting and gathering. Primitive communism was a band society, not a tribal society. This is a scientific consensus in anthropology. So on what authority do you speak? Saying it's my imagination and not the truth?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe

I've never heard about any scientific consensus in terms of primitive communism. As far as i know, the fact of existence of the primitive communism is rather hidden in consideration due to ideological reasons.

Beside tribes or bands... Nonetheless, they have been doing trading. For example, with their results of hunting and gathering. And your imagination is that there was no trade at all. All archaeological sites indicate traces of trade in times where there was no private property which means primitive communism...




Well, you could describe them as open democratic but not as classless societies,

Let's focus on first three rural communes. I don't know much of them. Then what classes were there?

Certainly when the cantons with quite large cities as Zurich and Bern had joined the confederation, there were young bourgeoisie. But Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden seem to be just peasant communes...

[Tim Cornelis]

I've never heard about any scientific consensus in terms of primitive communism. As far as i know, the fact of existence of the primitive communism is rather hidden in consideration due to ideological reasons.

Beside tribes or bands... Nonetheless, they have been doing trading. For example, with their results of hunting and gathering. And your imagination is that there was no trade at all. All archaeological sites indicate traces of trade in times where there was no private property which means primitive communism...

Indeed, primitive communism is called band society. There was no exchange of products from hunt or gathering. They consumed it in a shared fashion. Trade only came into existence when there were neolithic gardens. There was no reason to trade when everyone was a hunter-gatherer, and only when agricultural societies emerged did a reason come into existence.

[tuwix]

^^ Then you're just wrong.
There you have a video with primitive communism band:
E88gOuI3XJQ

I can assure you that this band hasn't given a permission for this footage for free... They were trading for it...

[Hrafn]

Indeed, primitive communism is called band society. There was no exchange of products from hunt or gathering. They consumed it in a shared fashion. Trade only came into existence when there were neolithic gardens. There was no reason to trade when everyone was a hunter-gatherer, and only when agricultural societies emerged did a reason come into existence.

To my knowledge, there was an extensive trade in Stone Age Scandinavia, in flint and other valueable minerals.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Then there's the minor matter that primitive pre-class communalism, called "primitive communism" by way of analogy, has little to do with communism in the sense of a global post-class society...

[Alexios]

This.

You do not need a king or nobility for a feudalistic system to exist.

That sounds like a term you just invented. Either power is based on feudal relationships or it isn't; I don't see how there can be an in-between.

[BIXX]

^^ Then you're just wrong.

There you have a video with primitive communism band:

E88gOuI3XJQ



I can assure you that this band hasn't given a permission for this footage for free... They were trading for it...


Is it not possible that interaction with Leviathan forces you to be consumed by it?

I am not saying that primitive societies are better or whatever (they certainly weren't) but I think most people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Leviathan when they discuss primitive life vs modern civilized life.

[John Nada]

Let us now transport ourselves from Robinson‘s island bathed in light to the European middle ages shrouded in darkness. Here, instead of the independent man, we find everyone dependent, serfs and lords, vassals and suzerains, laymen and clergy. Personal dependence here characterises the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organised on the basis of that production. But for the very reason that personal dependence forms the ground-work of society, there is no necessity for labour and its products to assume a fantastic form different from their reality. They take the shape, in the transactions of society, of services in kind and payments in kind. Here the particular and natural form of labour, and not, as in a society based on production of commodities, its general abstract form is the immediate social form of labour. Compulsory labour is just as properly measured by time, as commodity-producing labour; but every serf knows that what he expends in the service of his lord, is a definite quantity of his own personal labour power. The tithe to be rendered to the priest is more matter of fact than his blessing. No matter, then, what we may think of the parts played by the different classes of people themselves in this society, the social relations between individuals in the performance of their labour, appear at all events as their own mutual personal relations, and are not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of labour.It sounds similar to this, no?