Primitivive communism?

[StromboliFucker666]

Can someone go into more detail about Engles idea of primitive communism and what can we learn from it if we are to build a modern communist society?

[Sewer Socialist]

I'm assuming you're referring to Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State?

Firstly, the point is not that we can seek to recreate primitive communism, isolated from other social groups, and without any sort of industry. But in simply pointing out that it existed, it counters arguments that things have always been this way, that patriarchy exists because of biology, that property is innate and instinctive, etc. as well as providing a revolutionary praxis for the destruction of those things.

Rather, The social superstructure changes with the economic relations of a society (aka the "mode of production"). It also, in turn, changes those economic relations. So the structure of things like the family have changed over the years. For example, the nuclear family and its particular patriarchal form is unique to capitalism, where the husband is the sole wage earner, and the unwaged wife and children serve to reproduce him and the family. Most importantly, the point is not to study primitive communism in isolation, but as it changed and evolved until it could no longer be called primitive communism. Analyzing these changes and the forces behind them also provides insight into that which we would like to change.

And when we ask, "how can we end class society?", we must also ask, why does class society exist? Where does it come from? Why does patriarchy exist? Why does property exist?

All these questions are actually linked with a common history. Going back to our conception of the family, there was once a time where monogamy and patriarchy were not the norm; the identity of a child's father was unknown, and lineage was traced through mothers, rather than fathers as is the case today. However, with private property (initially livestock and land, I believe), we begin to see the accumulation of wealth by men, who want to pass on ownership of the herd to their offspring - their sons, more specifically. As such, these herdsmen demanded sexual exclusivity, and control over the social and sexual lives of their wives. The woman became the mere servant of her husband; a sexual object to produce his heirs, and reproduce his (and society's) capability to herd. This is what Engels calls the "historic defeat of the female sex".

And so, to get to the more important point, we can see the economic basis for the creation and evolution of social structures and relationships, and the necessity of enabling liberation through the revolutionary change in the economic relations, not simply reforming things like marriage laws, to give a recent example.

Origin of the Family is a good read, though Engels has some funny conclusions which are generally disregarded today, like heterosexual monogamy being the highest form of sexual relationship (or whatever precisely he said - it's been a few years since I've read it).

[StromboliFucker666]

I'm assuming you're referring to Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State?

Firstly, the point is not that we can seek to recreate primitive communism, isolated from other social groups, and without any sort of industry. But in simply pointing out that it existed, it counters arguments that things have always been this way, that patriarchy exists because of biology, that property is innate and instinctive, etc. as well as providing a revolutionary praxis for the destruction of those things.

Rather, the social superstructure changes with the economic relations of a society (aka the "mode of production"). It also, in turn, changes those economic relations. So the structure of things like the family have changed over the years. For example, the nuclear family and its particular patriarchal form is unique to capitalism, where the husband is the sole wage earner, and the unwaged wife and children serve to reproduce him and the family.

And when we ask, "how can we end class society?", we must also ask, why does class society exist? Where does it come from? Why does patriarchy exist? Why does property exist?

All these questions are actually linked with a common history. Going back to our conception of the family, there was once a time where monogamy and patriarchy were not the norm; the identity of a child's father was unknown, and lineage was traced through mothers, rather than fathers as is the case today. However, with private property (initially livestock and land, I believe), we begin to see the accumulation of wealth by men, who want to pass on ownership of the herd to their offspring - their sons, more specifically. As such, these herdsmen demanded sexual exclusivity, and control over the social and sexual lives of their wives. The woman became the mere servant of her husband; a sexual object to produce his heirs, and reproduce his (and society's) capability to herd. This is what Engels calls the "historic defeat of the female sex".

And so, to get to the more important point, we can see the economic basis for the creation and evolution of social structures and relationships, and the necessity of enabling liberation through the revolutionary change in the economic relations, not simply reforming things like marriage laws, to give a recent example.

Origin of the Family is a good read, though Engels has some funny conclusions which are generally disregarded today, like heterosexual monogamy being the highest form of sexual relationship (or whatever precisely he said - it's been a few years since I've read it).
Yes! I should have mentioned it in my OP. I read it before I was even a socialist so I had a lot of questions. Now I understand the concept a lot better but still felt like this would be valid to bring up as I didn't see another post about it.

I never meant to imply that we should strive for that, I was simply asking if there is anything we can learn from these "primitive communists" other than that capitalism isn't part of human nature and for a simplified definition.

Thanks for the reply, it was interesting to read.

[Sewer Socialist]

I actually just tried to edit in an important thing I left out which addresses that:


The point is not to study primitive communism in isolation, but as it changed and evolved until it could no longer be called primitive communism. Analyzing these changes and the forces behind them also provides insight into that which we would like to change.

[StromboliFucker666]

I actually just tried to edit in an important thing I left out which addresses that:
Thanks! I'll have to do more reading some time.

[StromboliFucker666]

OMG I just saw the mistake in my title. I'm a fucking moron. haha