African Communism [Archive]

STI

10th May 2005, 03:40

Originally posted by guerillablack+--> (guerillablack) Calling it primitive in my observation is racist.[/b]

No it isn't. It applies to all technologically undeveloped societies, the issue of "race" was never mentioned.

It is communism.

No it isn't. It's communalist. Communism has to occur in technologically-advanced societies and result from the overthrow of capitalism.

There isn't no half-stepping.

You're right, and that's exactly why primitive communist (communalist) societies are not communist.

That's why China isn't communist or any European Nation.

...And?

The white man created communism, like he discovered america.

As was mentioned earlier, that was only because communism must come out of capitalism, and Europe just happened to be the first place where capitalism developed. Had it developed first in Africa, for example, the same ideas as Marx and Engels would have existed. It has nothing to do with "race".

MKS
The main argument again was not that Marx or Engles ( and other Socialist/Communist thinkers) claimed the origins of Communism, but ignored clear examples of a communistic society that thrived in Africa, it was not just another stage of societal evolution but a permamnet mind set, or culture. The Eurocentric thinkers ignored this when developing modern communist idealogy.

Why does everybody equate "not recognizing primitive communalist societies as communist" with "Eurocentrism" or "racism"? They aren't the same. There are significant differences between, say, a communalist tribe of North American Aboriginals, and a technologically-advanced communist society which resulted from the overthrow of capitalism.

The most significant difference is the fact that there is no proletariat in the former, which is required to overthrow capitalism.

they expalined communism as a product of the Eurocentric working class, and ignored evidence of communism as a real, almost organic creation in the African model.

Again, the "African model" to which you refer was simply not communist. It was communal, yes, but not communist.

Maybe Henrik was trying to communicate that white eurocentric men(sometimes women) have developed a very narrow view of history and social evoltuion looking only to european examples, ignoring the historical examples of non european/non white cultures.

Marx and Engels may not have been right when it came to their outlook on imperialism, but they used more than simply European examples. When examining capitalism, yes, they used only European societies. Why? Because Europe was, at the time, the only place where capitalism had developed. What other societies would you have had them use to examine capitalism?

The eurocentric mindset established capitalism, so only the eurocentric mindset (evolved) can destory it.

How was capitalism established by eurocentrism?

Furthermore the African world or people have evolved faster than europe, maybe not in materialistic ways, but in shaping community, and true equality

Not really. Plenty of societies had the same types of communal societies as African tribes, but had developed through several other stages of social progression.

A good example can be found in North America. Several tribes had the same types of communal lifestyles, but others, those which had advanced further technologically (and therefore socially), the Aztecs, or Mayans for example were despotisms.

That's just the way societies progress. The African tribes which were spoke of in this thread would have developed the same way if they were given time. Colonialism and imperialism halted that progression, yes, but it would have happened.

[QUOTE]The eurocentric world will always dismiss Africans as primitave in order to maintain a semblance of superiority.[QUOTE]

No, I don't think so. All societies which are technologically undeveloped are primitive. The fact that those African tribes didn't progress further before European domination has nothing to do with the fact that "they aren't European", and no serious communist would ever claim that.

EDIT: Quote tags.

guerillablack

10th May 2005, 03:47

This is Che was talking about. Some people are so dogmatic when it comes to Marxism. Marx wasn't infallible. Communism does NOT have to come about from overthrowing capitalism.

STI

10th May 2005, 03:54

Ya, sure. Whatever. Don't bother responding to anything I actually said, just cut right to an appeal to authority/ad hominem.

Again, you're not allowing yourself to see the distinction between communalism and communism.

redstar2000

10th May 2005, 04:22

I have never seen any "documentaries" by John Henry Clarke.

Assuming you are summarizing his views correctly --

In that film Henrik contends that the Eurocentric leftists (i.e., Marx, Engles, etc. up to modern American leftists) ignored the very real communist societies that thrived in Africa before colonialism destroyed them.

-- that's simply not true.

Africans did not live in "primitive communist societies" when the Portuguese, British, French, Belgian, German, etc. imperialists arrived. They had kingdoms, empires, and even slaves. They had cities and even iron weapons that they had learned to make entirely on their own. I do not know if they had written languages yet...but it's likely that they would have developed them within a few centuries or less had they been left unmolested.

The image of Africa in the "west" -- taken from "Tarzan" movies c.1938? -- is entirely false. In much of the "dark continent", Africans were "civilized" people, not "savages".

Modern communist theory is indeed the "invention" of a couple of "dead white guys" -- but as they themselves noted, that was a matter of chance.

When objective material conditions are favorable for the emergence of a new theory, then not only will someone "invent it" but often it will be "invented" more than once. There were contemporaries of Marx and Engels who were "on track" towards developing the same ideas.

We'd have the basic elements of Marxism today even if Marx and Engels had never lived.

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina
The white man didn't create communism...Karl Marx did, and he was a Jew.

Marx's father was a Jew...who converted to Lutheranism before Marx was born.

Marx was also somewhat "darker" than the European "norm" of his time -- he was known as "the Moor" to some of his family and friends.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Paradox

10th May 2005, 04:33

Africans did not live in "primitive communist societies" when the Portuguese, British, French, Belgian, German, etc. imperialists arrived. They had kingdoms, empires, and even slaves.

True, there were kingdoms, but there were also tribal societies, much like those of the Native Americans. Are you saying that those groups were not primitive communist? These tribal societies had communal land and the whole tribal community played a part in the raising of children and such. But again this is primitive communism, which is not unique to Africa.

Communism does NOT have to come about from overthrowing capitalism.

How would you have us go about it then?

redstar2000

10th May 2005, 04:42

Originally posted by Paradox
True, there were kingdoms, but there were also tribal societies, much like those of the Native Americans. Are you saying that those groups were not primitive communist?

A few may have been...I'm far from being an authority on African history. But if some were, and one of the African kingdoms wanted their land, they just took it. And enslaved the losers.

Africa was not "the Garden of Eden".

Just as it wasn't "Tarzan of the Jungle".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

guerillablack

10th May 2005, 04:44

Yes you definatly not are a African historian. :-p

MKS

10th May 2005, 05:24

John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk

In his interview he stated that many African cultures (not all) had developed societies which you could label in modern terms as communism or socialism. Their economy, laws/ethics, family establishments were created for the good of all within the community.

It is communism.

No it isn't. It's communalist. Communism has to occur in technologically-advanced societies and result from the overthrow of capitalism.

Isnt that arguing semantics, communism is the creation of a classles society "ruled" by the masses (workers) for the good of masses. The African cultures were communist, because they lived by this model. Your argument again is a clear example of the eurocentric mindset. Communism has to be this because this white man established it as such. Did you ever think socialism/communism existed before the name of socialism/communism was ever invented, before Marx was borne, before Europe even existed as a coherent body of identifiable "nation-states" Taking the ideals of community, sharing, etc and applying them to the material realities of modern europe is original, but the ideals that is was dervied from existed well before european eyes ever looked to them.

Africans did not live in "primitive communist societies" when the Portuguese, British, French, Belgian, German, etc. imperialists arrived. They had kingdoms, empires, and even slaves. They had cities and even iron weapons that they had learned to make entirely on their own. I do not know if they had written languages yet...but it's likely that they would have developed them within a few centuries or less had they been left unmolested.
Quote from redstar2000

African civilizations (paticularly in the nile valley) had dveloped complex socities, with written language, farming, irrigation, codes of law, etc, etc. These socities in Henrik's assertion resembeld socialist/communist models, and were ignored by modern communist theorists, maybe not out of a true malevolenc, but from the constant oversight and sometimes racism of eurocentric theorists and historians.

Marx and Engels may not have been right when it came to their outlook on imperialism, but they used more than simply European examples. When examining capitalism, yes, they used only European societies. Why? Because Europe was, at the time, the only place where capitalism had developed. What other societies would you have had them use to examine capitalism?
Quote from STI

To examine capitalism maybe they only had Europe, but to examine other forms of communism (or communal socities) there was a wealth of examples from the African cultures.

How was capitalism established by eurocentrism?
Quote from STI

Because Europe was, at the time, the only place where capitalism had developed. What other societies would you have had them use to examine capitalism
Quote from STI

To your own contention Europe (eurocentric thought) was the only place to develop capitalism.

As was mentioned earlier, that was only because communism must come out of capitalism, and Europe just happened to be the first place where capitalism developed. Had it developed first in Africa, for example, the same ideas as Marx and Engels would have existed. It has nothing to do with "race".

The same basic ideas of Marx and Engles did exist in Africa (the basic ideas of equality, shared work and responsibility etc.) That has been my point, it existed without the emergence of capitalism, from almost an organic cultivation of culture and tradition. Much like some Native American tribes. Just because Marx used the material reality of industrialisation (sp), does not mean the ideals of communism never existed before he did.

In terms of primitive, in the context of the times the African cultures were not primitive, one could argue that europe was more primitive during that time in history.

Im not setting Africa up as perfect model for communism, I am simply putting forth the idea that maybe, Henrik had some good points in pointing out the narrow scope of history and social evolution with the compete oversight of Africa, and relegating them simply to a primative continent. Africa's history has been perverted by eurocentric historians. In terms of communism, this has also happened. Moderm communists have come so loyal to Marx and the modern thinkers, that cannot concieve of other models of communism (or communal living), The conclusion could easily made such loyalty illustartes, either consiously or subconciously, a proclivity to the Eurocentric school of thought.

It speaks to the greater evil of the destruction of African culture and identity.

The eurocentric mindset established capitalism, so only the eurocentric mindset (evolved) can destory it.
Quote from myself.

The assertion of the infallablity of Marx and modern communist theorists(mostly all eurocentric). seems to me to be an unwillingness to even explore other ideas of communism. We, as socialists, or even just as human beings must look to the whole of mankind for examples and models in order to create a truly equal society. Marx was a smart man, and contributed a wealth to the communist cause, but he was not the only person to do so, and the europeans not the only continent to harbour such sentiments and examples of true equality through community.

guerillablack

10th May 2005, 05:34

Eurocentric mindset establishd captilism, so in that case it just be destroyed for communism to exist. Yet in Africa it is a different story. Stop being dogmatic.

MKS

10th May 2005, 05:43

How am I being dogmatic? My arguments could be construed as anti-dogmatic. Africa today might be a different story, but I was arguing about historical Africa.

guerillablack

10th May 2005, 05:52

Wasn't directed at you, i was just adding on. :ph34r:

redstar2000

10th May 2005, 15:28

Originally posted by MKS
In his interview he stated that many African cultures (not all) had developed societies which you could label in modern terms as communism or socialism. Their economy, laws/ethics, family establishments were created for the good of all within the community.

That assertion, on its face, is flatly impossible.

In the context of African history -- say c.1400CE -- the "developed societies" were kingdoms and empires. They had classes...including a ruling class. (I would imagine class and clan would heavily over-lap.) They almost certainly had class struggle...though the absence of written evidence precludes certain knowledge.

If there was any primitive communism left in Africa at that point, it was marginal and confined precisely to those who were not "developed" and had not yet invented "property".

Communism has to be this because this white man established it as such.

What is the purpose of this "race-baiting"?

Are you suggesting that Marx and Engels posited the future achievement of communism as part of a "white plot" to "rule the world"?

Marx and Engels attempted to provide an objective scientific foundation for communism...one that would stand regardless of ethnic considerations.

One may, if one wishes, argue that they were not successful in that regard.

But then one must provide materialist explanations for the "existence" of "developed African communism" as well as real evidence for its "existence" in the first place.

Taking the ideals of community, sharing, etc....

"Ideals" are not the point. The point is what social forms are possible in a given set of material circumstances.

Someone at the head of a victorious army can temporarily impose any social arrangement they like...but that arrangement will immediately begin to respond to the prevailing material conditions.

Developed African societies had slaves and a slave trade; this reveals more than anything else what their stage of development really was.

African civilizations (particularly in the Nile valley) had developed complex societies, with written language, farming, irrigation, codes of law, etc, etc. These societies in Henrik's assertion resembled socialist/communist models, and were ignored by modern communist theorists, maybe not out of a true malevolence, but from the constant oversight and sometimes racism of eurocentric theorists and historians.

And they had a thriving slave trade with Muslim societies to the north. On what grounds can this fact be reconciled with any conceivable "model of socialism/communism"?

If developed African societies had law codes (probably true or at least not unlikely), how can it be assumed that such codes had anything in common with modern communism since none of those codes survived?

Given their level of development, is it not far more likely that such codes resembled the codes that have survived from early Middle Eastern civilizations?

Why should they be significantly different?

The same basic ideas of Marx and Engles did exist in Africa (the basic ideas of equality, shared work and responsibility etc.)

But those are not the "basic ideas" of Marx and Engels...as "ideals", they've been floating around for at least 2,500 years or so.

What Marx and Engels did was to tie those ideas to material reality.

Showing why societies are more or less egalitarian depending on material circumstances is crucial.

That has been my point, it existed without the emergence of capitalism, from almost an organic cultivation of culture and tradition.

Now see, that's just mysticism. It's a collection of words that sounds like a coherent sentence but has no objective meaning whatsoever.

Indeed, it is a remarkably European sentiment; 19th century European romantics talked like that all the time. A phrase like "the organic cultivation of culture and tradition" would have been immediately recognizable to them...and they would have enthusiastically agreed.

I'm not setting Africa up as perfect model for communism, I am simply putting forth the idea that maybe, Henrik had some good points in pointing out the narrow scope of history and social evolution with the compete oversight of Africa, and relegating them simply to a primitive continent. Africa's history has been perverted by eurocentric historians.

Almost certainly true; historians have enough problems "getting it right" even when the written records are abundant. In Africa, all we have to work with are oral traditions, some archaeological evidence, and the written accounts of the earliest white visitors (hardly unbiased).

Europeans, like all peoples, are socialized to think that their own culture is "superior in every way" to all other cultures. Some progress has been made in overcoming this bias over the last half-century or so...but a residue will probably endure a long time.

Modern communists have come [to be] so loyal to Marx and the modern thinkers, that [they] cannot conceive of other models of communism (or communal living). The conclusion could easily made such loyalty illustrates, either consciously or subconsciously, a proclivity to the Eurocentric school of thought.

I don't think that conclusion could be "easily made"...except by those who want to introduce ethnic considerations into a scientific discussion.

Let's face it: there are still a lot of people who think "ethnicity rules".

It doesn't.

It speaks to the greater evil of the destruction of African culture and identity.

No, African culture was not "destroyed"...it exists today in Africa.

But it did change as a consequence of its confrontation with European imperialism.

That's usually what happens -- only rarely are cultures completely "wiped out". Instead, they adapt to new material circumstances.

Anyone who imagines that cultures are or can be "pure" and "totally isolated" are just fooling themselves...or have an agenda that is probably not a very good one.

The assertion of the infallibility of Marx and modern communist theorists (mostly all eurocentric) seems to me to be an unwillingness to even explore other ideas of communism.

No one claims that Marx was "infallible".

But when you speak of "exploring other ideas of communism"...what exactly is there to explore? Who has come up with something "better" than the Marxist paradigm?

Even if the claim of African "communism" could be verified, what relevance would that have to the modern world?

Indeed, what relevance would it even have to modern Africa?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

MKS

10th May 2005, 16:52

That assertion, on its face, is flatly impossible.

These assertions or conclusions are those of Henrik and other contemporary African-American thinkers. I think just claiming them flatly impossible would be to ignore a brilliant man and men and thier ideas and years of study. Henrik was describing certain "tribal" communites, that flourished among the nile river valley as well as central and southern africa. Of course not all african civilizations were like this, but many did exist. The evidence is presented in Henrik's writings and lectures.

QUOTE
Communism has to be this because this white man established it as such.

What is the purpose of this "race-baiting"?

I am merely trying to express my view that is seems as though people cannot accept a definition of communism, or anything for that matter unless it was derived from a eurocentric mindset. Your argument seems to me to be, lets not even look to Africa, even though some of their cultures were monarchical, some may not have been, but lets discount any contribution they could make. Lets simply only look at Africa throught the context of eurocentric thought and history.

Are you suggesting that Marx and Engels posited the future achievement of communism as part of a "white plot" to "rule the world"?

Absolutely not. Again I am trying to put forth ideas that I have come across as legititmate for further study and insight. Were Marx and Engles racists, probably not, however most of thier ideas although original had been shaped by eurocentric schools of thought, they ignored the African model either on purpose or simply to streamline thier hypothesis and conclusion, or just because they have never been exposed to other cultures or ways of study, this ignorance perpetuated through time and was evident in the modern American communist movements of the 20's,30's etc. etc.

The same basic ideas of Marx and Engles did exist in Africa (the basic ideas of equality, shared work and responsibility etc.)

But those are not the "basic ideas" of Marx and Engels...as "ideals", they've been floating around for at least 2,500 years or so.

They are ideals that inspired Marx and Engles to study the scientific aspect of communism, and to work to create communism.

That has been my point, it existed without the emergence of capitalism, from almost an organic cultivation of culture and tradition.

Now see, that's just mysticism. It's a collection of words that sounds like a coherent sentence but has no objective meaning whatsoever.

Indeed, it is a remarkably European sentiment; 19th century European romantics talked like that all the time. A phrase like "the organic cultivation of culture and tradition" would have been immediately recognizable to them...and they would have enthusiastically agreed

I was trying to communicate the emergence of such communist type societies without the material progression that Marx and Engles wrote of. The African cultures that worked around a communist-type model came about naturally, without the class struggle.

Modern communists have come [to be] so loyal to Marx and the modern thinkers, that [they] cannot conceive of other models of communism (or communal living). The conclusion could easily made such loyalty illustrates, either consciously or subconsciously, a proclivity to the Eurocentric school of thought.

I don't think that conclusion could be "easily made"...except by those who want to introduce ethnic considerations into a scientific discussion.

Let's face it: there are still a lot of people who think "ethnicity rules".

It doesn't.

It can be made when you present something as science while disregarding a large section of study, such as Afrcocentric cultures, Asiatic cultures, Native American cultures etc. etc.

It speaks to the greater evil of the destruction of African culture and identity.

No, African culture was not "destroyed"...it exists today in Africa

Many African cultures were destoryed by the perversion of the Europeans. Thier religous traditions, famly structres, cities and townes, were desimated by the arrival of the white man. Such destrction has had horrible affects on the Africans. The most recent comes to mind of the Rwanda massacre. The segregation and classification of the Rwandans by the Belgians, which seemed to be completley random, is what caused the violent segregation and hatred and ultimatley the genocide of 800,000 people. African culture, if not destoryed has been radicaly perverted, and many African-American scholars would argue that it was destoryed, so much so that African identity is being shaped by Eurocentric scholars and not by Africans.

No one claims that Marx was "infallible".

But when you speak of "exploring other ideas of communism"...what exactly is there to explore? Who has come up with something "better" than the Marxist paradigm?

Even if the claim of African "communism" could be verified, what relevance would that have to the modern world?

Indeed, what relevance would it even have to modern Africa?

Maybe by studying the African cultures that have proven to act and hold certain communst-type of principles, we as a human race can discover new ways of bringing about change. Specificaly, in my view the African model presents a natural proclivity to community and to the basic ideals of all communist, the ideals of shared work, community protection, and the value of each person not as a dollar amount but as a unique life. By studying these ways of thinking and cultures, maybe we can better understand and change human action, and destory the very eurocentric mindset that has created, capitalism, imperialism, dogmatism, facism, Stalinism, all the things that have plagued the world with tyranny and oppression. By allowing ourselves to understand another point of view or culture, in the very least will create within us a better person, a more complete person, one that recgonizes and accepts all forms of oppression and adversity and one that is better equipped to destory them.

Severian

10th May 2005, 18:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:48 PM
The main argument again was not that Marx or Engles ( and other Socialist/Communist thinkers) claimed the origins of Communism, but ignored clear examples of a communistic society that thrived in Africa, it was not just another stage of societal evolution but a permamnet mind set, or culture.
Well, this does not seem to have anything to do with reality, since alongside communally owned land and communal labor, major elements of slavery and feudalism existed in large parts of Africa, apparently even before European influence became a major factor in African history. The more developed and "civilised" a society became, the bigger the elements of slavery and feudalism. So not so "permanent", this "communism."

In general, claims that any part of the world have a "permanent mind-set" rather than changing over time, have to be viewed with scepticism. They are certainly not supported by the available facts here, which show different parts of Africa, at different times and levels of economic development, having different social relations. Change was often slow, but that ain't the same thing as permanence.

From "how Europe underdeveloped Africa": (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/rodney-walter/how-europe/ch02.htm) one Marxist assessment of African society before the 15th century.

I might point out that Ethiopia, the only African country not to be subjected to direct colonialism, had a particularly well-developed system of serfdom, which was overthrown by a revolution in 1978. Not just a coup, a massive revolution in which peasants rose up and took the land, and the new military regime largely ratified what had already begun to take place....In this revolution, many Ethiopians seemed to find Marxism more useful than the ideas of those who decry Marxism as "Eurocentric"....

A lot of this goes back to the "African Socialism" of Julius Nyrere...Nyrere was from the Lake District, so he oughta known better than to claim there was no feudalism in Africa. Lemme suggest Nyrere's opposition to Marxism was not really based on any alleged "eurocentricity", but on the fact he presided over a capitalist regime, falsely claiming to be socialist.

To your own contention Europe (eurocentric thought) was the only place to develop capitalism.

Nonsense. Capitalism developed first in Europe, that doesn't mean it's the only place it coulda happened. It's a contingent fact of history, based on particular conditions and events. It has even been argued by some that that Japan experienced an independent development of capitalism.

The causes of capitalist development in Europe could be discussed at length, but it appears to have something to do with geography (divided into competing states, world trade), as well as Europe's position on the periphery of the historically more advanced Muslim civilizations. (One could make an analogy to Japan's position in relation to China.)

I can tell you one thing it wasn't caused by: "eurocentric thought." One, ideas don't cause social organization, rather the other way around. Two, all nations and tribes typically consider themselves the center of the universe, Europe was nothing special in this respect.

Also, the development of capitalism was a progressive accomplishment at the time, while you seem to imply it was a badge of Europe's unique awfulness.

In terms of primitive, in the context of the times the African cultures were not primitive, one could argue that europe was more primitive during that time in history.

Which cultures? At what time in history? You're always incredibly vague about this.

As far as sub-Saharan Africa, I'd argue this ain't the case, for any period of history I can think of...the very lack of written records is one measure of this. Cultures like Mali, Songhai, Ethiopia, Great Zimbabwe had real accomplishments which should be brought out...but they don't need to be overhyped into claiming that Africa had developed more than it did.

Being at an earlier stage of development doesn't mean people are inferior...they might have less to work with, or have less opportunity to learn from other cultures.

Incidentally, "primitive" ain't an insult as used by Marx and Engels...everything the modern world has, technologically and culturally, is built on the accomplishments of earlier, more primitive peoples.

The difference is that primitive communism precedes class society, while modern communism will come after it....primitive communism was based on scarcity, that there wasn't enough surplus production to support a ruling class. Modern communism will be based on abundance, that there's enough to meet everybody's needs so little basis for conflict over dividing it up.

That it is almost arrogance in saying that the only real contribution to society can be taken from the eurocentric mindset. The eurocentric mindset established capitalism, so only the eurocentric mindset (evolved) can destory it.

Excuse me, but all societies in history have advanced by taking ideas from other cultures. Many advances in human thought, culture, technology, have been produced by one particular culture and then spread elsewhere. So why shouldn't the working class in Europe produce a theory which is useful to working people all over the world?

A lot of "Afrocentrists" seem to regard this kind of cultural exchange as bad for some unexplained reason. For example, many "Afrocentrists" complain that the Greeks "stole" their culture from Egypt. Yes, many elements of culture came to the Greeks from Egypt, also the Phoenicians, etc. They built on those further. Earlier, the Egyptians got agriculture, seeds, livestock, the idea of writing, etc, from Mesopotamia, and built on these by domesticating cats and donkeys, inventing their own system of writing, etc. This is how humanity advances.

Guerillablack wrote:

Eurocentric mindset establishd captilism, so in that case it just be destroyed for communism to exist. Yet in Africa it is a different story. Stop being dogmatic.

Excuse me, but capitalism exists in Africa now - not as a result of any "mindset", but of material economic relations. So the task of socialist revolution is fundamentally similar to that elsewhere in the world....with particular features, based on the concrete situation, like anywhere else.

(And why just Africa? Everyplace on earth has a past of primitive communism/tribal communalism. Engels wrote about American Indian communalism, which was far more egalitarian than African slave-sellers.)

As for "dogmatic", that's usually means sticking to a fixed position, held on faith, regardless of facts. What facts are your views based on?

Neither you nor MKS have given any. You're even vague about which civilizations you're talking about, at what place and time, exactly. MKS says "the Nile valley", which could mean Egypt for all I know. Egypt definitely has not been in any way communist or communalist for several thousand years, it's one of the world's oldest class-divided civilizations. I'd suggest that if there were facts supporting these views...their advocates wouldn't have to resort to race-baiting Marx and Engels.

Anyway, MKS, what's the conclusion you draw from this alleged unique history of Africa? What should be different about socialist concepts based on the "example" of past African communalism?

You keep saying, that Africa's history should be taken into account. Nobody disagrees with that. If Marx and Engels didn't write about it, so what? The door's open for anybody else to gather the facts and apply the Marxist method of analysis to them. (You've done neither. Rodney, linked earlier in this post, and others have made a beginning.)

If that was all you were arguing, there'd be no need to label Marx and Engels as "Eurocentric". So it seems to me there must be something else here...but you keep refusing to state any conclusions or what should be different about Marxism. You keep saying that we refuse to accept a non-Eurocentric definition of communism, so what is that definition?

Severian

10th May 2005, 20:13

I did a bit of looking around for who this "John Henrik Clarke" guy is anyway. Haven't been able to find any text of his stuff online or reviews other than just "this is great" or "this sucks."

However, I did find out he wrote an introduction (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1879831007/ref=sib_rdr_toc/104-4871366-6664719?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00B#reader-page) for "The Iceman Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources of Western Man's Racism, Sexism and Aggression". Which quite accurately starts with the words: This book is racist." (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1879831007/ref=sib_rdr_ex/104-4871366-6664719?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00V#reader-page") The whole idea is that white people are biologically evil.

If Clarke comes out of that school of thought, or even has any sympathy for it, I don't see any need to put any special weight on his opinions, especially when no specific facts have been given in support of them.

guerillablack

10th May 2005, 20:26

So you deny situations in most parts of the world was worsened by the arrival of europeans?

You misinterpreted his first sentence. But i would expect you to.

Severian

10th May 2005, 21:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:26 PM
So you deny situations in most parts of the world was worsened by the arrival of europeans?
Where do you get that from, and what does it have to do with the discussion we've been having?

It's a long way from the reality that European imperialism has been damaging to many peoples in the world (although with some progressive effects in its early period) to the bizarre claim that white people are inherently violent and evil due to their prehistory.

You misinterpreted his first sentence. But i would expect you to.

No, I quoted it. No interpretation involved. When I said "The whole idea is that white people are biologically evil" it was a summation of the first pages given on that site, not just one sentence. An accurate summary. I'd be interested in hearing your attempted defense of those opening 2 pages.

Incidentally, DNA testing has shown that modern Europeans have no genes from Neanderthals, contrary to the pseudoscience about "Neanderthal-Caucasoids" put forward in that book. The "Out of Africa" replacement hypothesis has become stronger and stronger as the best theory of human origins.

STI

10th May 2005, 21:26

Originally posted by guerillablack
Yes you definatly not are a African historian. :-p

Eurocentric mindset establishd captilism, so in that case it just be destroyed for communism to exist. Yet in Africa it is a different story. Stop being dogmatic.

Why do you refuse to actually address anything that's said in response to your statements? Why do you rust resort to what are essentially baseless personal attacks? I mean, at least MKS is trying to have a discussion here.

Isnt that arguing semantics, communism is the creation of a classles society "ruled" by the masses (workers) for the good of masses.

No. Communism is a classless, stateless society where the working class (the former-proletariat) collectively control the means of production.

The African cultures were communist, because they lived by this model.

All primitive societies go through a communalist stage, but it never lasts. It always develops into despotism. That's one of the main differences: development into despotism afterward. That happened in parts of North America, South America, and Africa, and the societies which weren't conquered by those despotisms would have gone to develop into despotisms themselves.

Your argument again is a clear example of the eurocentric mindset.

Uh, no. Anybody could come to my conclusions. Race has nothing to do with it. I'm wondering where you're getting that from?

Communism has to be this because this white man established it as such.

Uh, no. It's more like "Communism is, by definition, this. What you're talking about isn't communism, as it has serious objective differences with communism". I suppose you'd be happy if we could just let anything be labelled "communist" to avoid "Eurocentrism".

Again, race has nothing to do with it. Guerillablack was the first one to mention race in this discussion.

Did you ever think socialism/communism existed before the name of socialism/communism was ever invented

Nope, it didn't. Not as a society, at least. Again, there were communalist societies, but they have no bearing on the modern world (unless you're a primitivist). All "races" had them, everywhere. They existed in Europe.

Taking the ideals of community, sharing, etc and applying them to the material realities of modern europe is original, but the ideals that is was dervied from existed well before european eyes ever looked to them

I think this is where the fundamental difference lies. You look at communism as "the realization of the ideals of...", but that's not what Marxism is about. Ideals are immaterial. Marxism is materialist. Communist revolution is based in material interest (proletarians not wanting to be fucked over by capitalism anymore), not "the ideals of community, sharing, etc".

To examine capitalism maybe they only had Europe, but to examine other forms of communism (or communal socities) there was a wealth of examples from the African cultures.

And they saw those communalist societies, just as we can today, and say "well, it certainly is communalist... but what comes next?" Despotism (or conquest by nearby despotisms). Again, Europe had developed into capitalism, as the rest of the world eventually would (and will), while Africa had not, so what good would have come from "looking to the wealth of examples from African cultures"?

None!

To your own contention Europe (eurocentric thought) was the only place to develop capitalism.

Yes, but not "because it was Europe". Europe "just happened to be" the first place where the bourgeoisie had taken power. There is no reason other than chance regarding why it didn't happen first in Chine or North America. And, again, even if European imperialism had never existed, North America, Asia, Australia, and yes, even the "African communal cultures" would have eventually developed capitalism.

The same basic ideas of Marx and Engles did exist in Africa (the basic ideas of equality, shared work and responsibility etc.)

The basic ideas of Marx and Engles weren't airy-fairy things like "equality" and "shared work". The basic ideas were that of a material observation of capitalism and the conclusion that the proletariat would, out of material interest, overthrow it and form a classless society.

Nope, those ideas didn't exist in Africa.

In terms of primitive, in the context of the times the African cultures were not primitive, one could argue that europe was more primitive during that time in history.

Really? What technological developments did African societies develop which trumped Europe?

Im not setting Africa up as perfect model for communism, I am simply putting forth the idea that maybe, Henrik had some good points in pointing out the narrow scope of history and social evolution with the compete oversight of Africa, and relegating them simply to a primative continent.

Communalism didn't exist only if Africa. It existed all over the world, but had, in most places, developed further into despotisms, fuedalisms, capitalisms, and so on. To be completely blunt, they were a largely primitive continent. Not "because they're black" or "because they're from Africa" or "they aren't Europe", but because, objectively, they had not developed technologically to the same extent as had Europe, the Middle East or China.

Africa's history has been perverted by eurocentric historians.

That doesn't change the fact that they were not communist.

Moderm communists have come so loyal to Marx and the modern thinkers,

Maybe you missed that part where I disagreed with Marx on something. Go on, read it, it's there.

that cannot concieve of other models of communism (or communal living)

Or maybe it's just that, oh my lord, it isn't communism!

he conclusion could easily made such loyalty illustartes, either consiously or subconciously, a proclivity to the Eurocentric school of thought.

That's a pretty sketchy conclusion based on some pretty sketchy premises.

It speaks to the greater evil of the destruction of African culture and identity.

Uh, no it doesn't.

The assertion of the infallablity of Marx and modern communist theorists

You would be hard-pressed to find even one member of this board who would assert that "Marx was right about everything". We all know he's not the Pope.

seems to me to be an unwillingness to even explore other ideas of communism.

Blah. I've responded to this already.

We, as socialists, or even just as human beings must look to the whole of mankind for examples and models in order to create a truly equal society.

We've all "looked to" primitive examples, and they're not useful to our struggle.

but he was not the only person to do so, and the europeans not the only continent to harbour such sentiments and examples of true equality through community.

See my comment about "ideals".

bolshevik butcher

10th May 2005, 21:37

Most societiess actually had private propety, i mean like there own pasture and animals, and slaves. Slaves were all over africa. And waht about dictators like shaka Zulu?

MKS

10th May 2005, 23:23

I think this is where the fundamental difference lies. You look at communism as "the realization of the ideals of...", but that's not what Marxism is about. Ideals are immaterial. Marxism is materialist. Communist revolution is based in material interest (proletarians not wanting to be fucked over by capitalism anymore), not "the ideals of community, sharing, etc".

Material intrests, which translate to a society of sharing, co-operative work, law and defense. Ideals which were very prevelant before Marx, Marx just provided a scientific (sp) examination of the class struggle, but what he promoted was a society of classles, co-operative work for the common good.

No. Communism is a classless, stateless society where the working class (the former-proletariat) collectively control the means of production

Communalism or the communal way of life is a classles, stateless (organization by culture cannot be considered a state) society, where the people (since there are no classes how could there be a working class?) control the means of production, the means of distribution, the means of everything. How is that different from communism?

The African model, to me illustrates a merger of the material and the idealogical, The cultures that thrived and that were described by Henrik, were not perfect, but they acted as a whole, for the good of the people. "From each according to his means, to each according to his need" a basic tenet of modern communist theory.

I think it is at least worth examining, in order to gain a more widened perspective of social order and perhaps to create a new approach to revolution and organisation of society.

My argument against Eruocentric thought is evident in the inability to forgoe Marx when examing communism, and to look to other sources and examples of communist culture. The unwillingness to broaden the definition of communism again proves the proclitivty of only eurocentric thougt and theory.

Simply put: Modern communism has failed to take root, we owe it to ourselves to begin to look to other ways of bringing about change. The African model could be just one of those ways, the radical change of not the systems that oppress us, but the ideas that oppress us, of the basic ideals and mores that have guided civilization into the endless cycle of war, tyranny and violence.

viva le revolution

10th May 2005, 23:53

Africa today is divided between Capitalism and Absolute monarchies. For example, king Mswati of Swaziland, whose tiny little impoverished country has no real proper network of roads, still this absolute monarch continually digs into the state's miniscule budget to live in pomp and luxury. He pampers himself with a fleet of gold-coloured Mercedes', BMW's, and Rolls royce cars. His spending spree does not end there, palatial homes are continuously erected for relatives and close friends, meanwhile the vast majority of his people live below the poverty line!
Communism is desperately needed in Africa, the only legacies of Capitalism and colonialism there are rampant poverty and economic desperation. Due to this lack of infrastructure and decades of economic rape the people live despicably impoverished lives and no attention is paid by the imperialists and capitalists, why would they focus on this poor continent and source of cheap labour? Because it has nothing to offer them! Their coffers will not be shrunk by helping africans overcome malnutrtion and AIDS epidemics. Even in the face of genocide by rampant militias, the imperialists only calculate their own military and economic gains by providing assistance and leave the dirty work to the under-financed and poorly resourced african union.
Only with communism spread among the african nations can the people there live comfortably and with dignity!

RedStarOverChina

11th May 2005, 01:18

Shaka Zulu was first a hero who defended his people and then a dictator. I think the Zulu people perfer their own dictator before western ones. It IS imperialism to condemn Shaka Zulu before the invaders. By condemning Shaka, u've sided with the imperialists.

STI

11th May 2005, 03:37

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 10 2005, 08:37 PM
Most societiess actually had private propety, i mean like there own pasture and animals, and slaves. Slaves were all over africa. And waht about dictators like shaka Zulu?
Civ 3 is the best!

Material intrests, which translate to a society of sharing, co-operative work, law and defense.

Those methods would be applied because they are necessary for a society free of classes, not because they are "good ideals" that "are good" or "the key teachings of Marx".

Ideals which were very prevelant before Marx, Marx just provided a scientific (sp) examination of the class struggle, but what he promoted was a society of classles, co-operative work for the common good

What he provided was a framework for examining history and the thesis that the proletariat will create a classless society. The "common good" is an abstract, subjective concept. Again, Marxism is not in any way about "ideals". All the primitive communalist societies show is that people are able to work together (and boy howdy are we at a loss for examples of people working together).

Communalism or the communal way of life is a classles, stateless (organization by culture cannot be considered a state) society, where the people (since there are no classes how could there be a working class?) control the means of production, the means of distribution, the means of everything. How is that different from communism?

It is different in the level of technological advancement, how it is achieved, and what comes next (if anything, I really don't know either way if there will be something "after communism"). In communalism, it's despotism.

The African model, to me illustrates a merger of the material and the idealogical, The cultures that thrived and that were described by Henrik, were not perfect, but they acted as a whole, for the good of the people. "From each according to his means, to each according to his need" a basic tenet of modern communist theory.

Again, what bearing does that have on current communists? "Wow a bunch of people a couple millenia behind us technologically created a society based on "ideals" which don't materially exist, and their way of doing things inevitably culminates in the creation of a despotism". How is that supposed to help us at all?

I think it is at least worth examining, in order to gain a more widened perspective of social order and perhaps to create a new approach to revolution and organisation of society.

That's what you're not getting. Their societies are examined and fit perfectly well into the Marxist framework of the stages of societal progression. It won't help in creating "a more widened perspective" because they're already included in our perspective. Nobody is denying that there were (and are) primitive communalist societies which lived communally. Our point is that those societies have absolutely no bearing on anything we're doing today because, to be blunt, too much has changed.

My argument against Eruocentric thought is evident in the inability to forgoe Marx when examing communism, and to look to other sources and examples of communist culture

Heaven forbid that we take into account the two cents of the founder of modern scientific communism when looking at communism.

And primitive societies are not examples of "communist culture". Communism, by its definition, but be in advanced industrialized societies.

The unwillingness to broaden the definition of communism again proves the proclitivty of only eurocentric thougt and theory.

It has nothing to do with "Europe". It seems like you and GB are using the term "Eurocentric" to gain some kind of popular appeal. If anything, it's "moderncentric".

What good can come of "broadening the definition of communism" to include societies which we already have a term for, which inevitably develop into despotism, and which are so behind us technologically that the two societies are completely different from each other? A lot more confusion and more ideological crap, that's all.

Unless you're trying to create a society like theirs, primitive communalist societies offer little to modern communists.

Simply put: Modern communism has failed to take root, we owe it to ourselves to begin to look to other ways of bringing about change

They didn't "bring about change" to create their societies. That's what societies are like at the dawn of civilization. The "change" you talk about was to despotism!

The African model could be just one of those ways

I find it Afrocentric that you only mention the communalist societies of Africa. They also existed in the Americas, Australia, Asia, Europe, and, uh, oh right, everywhere humans lived.

the radical change of not the systems that oppress us, but the ideas that oppress us

People aren't oppressed by ideas. Ideas are used to keep people docile and to inhibit change, but ideas can't actually oppress people. You're sounding more and more like some primitivist-lifestylist every post.

Tell me, what "ideas" are "oppressing" me?

of the basic ideals and mores that have guided civilization into the endless cycle of war, tyranny and violence.

Funny, it all started out as the same types of societies you're oohing and aaahhing over.

Shaka Zulu was first a hero who defended his people and then a dictator. I think the Zulu people perfer their own dictator before western ones. It IS imperialism to condemn Shaka Zulu before the invaders. By condemning Shaka, u've sided with the imperialists.

Sure, people "prefer" domestic tyrants to foreign ones, but that doesn't get Shaka "off the hook" for being a tyrant or for being a formidable foe on Civilization 3.

MKS

11th May 2005, 05:24

People aren't oppressed by ideas. Ideas are used to keep people docile and to inhibit change, but ideas can't actually oppress people. You're sounding more and more like some primitivist-lifestylist every post.

Tell me, what "ideas" are "oppressing" me?

The ideas that a free market system works to create equality, the ideas that a system that represents the few can rule the many, the ideas of capitalism, imperialism, materialism, which are the bedrock of western culture (or seem to be). These ideas and the practies that are constructed becasue of them creat tyranny and oppression.

the big question: Does the African model give any relevance to the modern struggle?

My opinion: I believe the African model does serve as a good example of a socialist/communist-type of society. Granted many on this post would argue that the African socities were not communist, simply prmiitve communal socities, which acted as most emerging civilizations do. However I assert that these civilizations although primitive compared to modern standards were able to thirve, creating complex farming and irrigation systems, codes of law and order and promoting the welfare of the community. The socities were classles, they were a group of equals who acted for the common good.
Some argue that these communal socities inevitably lead to despotism, well I urge someone to look at the modern examples of attempts at communism, which did arrive to despotism, or some other form of tyranny. (N. Korea, USSR, Cambodia, and China are a few examples). So it is obvious that neither Modern communism or primitve communalism has proved to create any lasting change or movement to true communism.
So, back to the point. The African model can act as a guide on how to construct true social change from the ground up, by instilling in people a sense of brotherhood and common intrests and welfare, then the very ideals of materialism and capitalism will begin to errode, and hopefully create a more lasting change, because the ideas instead of being dropped from the sky are planted in the ground. Change the mood of the people, and they will create change. That after all is why we even attempt change, for the people.
While it may seem that I have been bashing Marx and the modern theorists, this wasnt my intention, I was simply trying to put another viewpoint out into the spectrum. We need to broaden the definition of communism, so that the common man, the man who sees little intrest in capital and material reality will feel invested in the need for change. So it will not feel like some iron blanket of intellectualism and economic theory, but rather as a pure cause, a cause that is easy to fight for. Men fight from the heart and not from the mind, for the family and not for the ownership of the means of production, for a cause and not endless volumes of theory and rhetoric.
The African model, or the native american model or the pure utopian model, are things men can relate to, things men would fight and die for. Never has a battle cry been heard; "Let us reconize the material reality of the current economic system and begin the construction of the proletariat workers council" Instead we hear:
"Workers of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your chains" (Karl Marx)
"Give me Liberty or give me death" (Patrick Henry)

These phrases speak to what men hold most dear; family, country, and freedom.
The African model I think speaks more to that side of men, and would help create as Che called it "the new man".

Those are my humble thoughts on the matter of the relevance of the African model.

I am not interested in dry economic socialism. We are fighting against misery, but we are also fighting against alienation. One of the fundamental objectives of Marxism is to remove interest, the factor of individual interest, and gain, from people's psychological motivations. Marx was preoccupied both with economic factors and with their repercussions on the spirit. If communism isn't interested in this too, it may be a method of distributing goods, but it will never be a revolutionary way of life. - Ernesto Che Guevara

Severian

11th May 2005, 08:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:24 PM
The ideas that a free market system works to create equality, the ideas that a system that represents the few can rule the many, the ideas of capitalism, imperialism, materialism, which are the bedrock of western culture (or seem to be). These ideas and the practies that are constructed becasue of them creat tyranny and oppression.
No, tyranny and oppression generate ideas that justify them. And those ideas you list are not the "bedrock of western culture"; culture in Europe is a lot older than capitalism and its ideology. Past forms of exploitation generated very different ideas to justify them. The divine right of kings rather than the free market, etc.

the big question: Does the African model give any relevance to the modern struggle?

WTF is the "African model" anyway? The African continent is a big place and has been around for a long time. You still won't say which kingdoms you're talking about which makes it impossible to know how accurate your statements are.

However I assert that these civilizations although primitive compared to modern standards were able to thirve, creating complex farming and irrigation systems, codes of law and order and promoting the welfare of the community. The socities were classles, they were a group of equals who acted for the common good.

The only African society I can think of which had a complex irrigation system was Egypt; definitely not classless. Read the link I gave earlier; he discusses the issue of irrigation among others.

Also please read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by biologist Jared Diamond; he disposes of all this racist crap about there being something unique about Europe or "western culture" or whatever. Explains why the Spanish were able to conquer the Aztecs and not vice versa: not because of racial difference (which is what lies behind all this BS about "eurocentrism" and "western culture") but because they had a technological edge due to geographical advantages.

Some argue that these communal socities inevitably lead to despotism, well I urge someone to look at the modern examples of attempts at communism, which did arrive to despotism, or some other form of tyranny. (N. Korea, USSR, Cambodia, and China are a few examples). So it is obvious that neither Modern communism or primitve communalism has proved to create any lasting change or movement to true communism.

Apples and oranges. The modern communist movement is only 150 years old; the first workers state was set up less than 100 years ago. No workers' revolution has ever taken and held power in an advanced capitalist country. In contrast, we have thousands of years of history showing that class-divided civilization evolves out of tribal communalism....and that this was a progressive step forward historically.

History also shows that primitive communist societies cannot stand in the face of more advanced, class-divided civilizations....Africa was exploited and subjugated because it was less advanced socially and technologically. Its kings exported war-captives as slaves in part because the productivity of labor was too low to make it profitable to use them as slave labor at home (which woulda been much less brutal.) These socieities are not an example to follow unless you want to enjoy their fate of being enslaved or colonized.

because the ideas instead of being dropped from the sky are planted in the ground.

Ironic turn of phrase; what you consistently fail to understand is that all ideas grow from the ground not fall from the sky. Change the ground and the ideas will change. Not mostly vice versa.

["Workers of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your chains" (Karl Marx)
"Give me Liberty or give me death" (Patrick Henry)

These phrases speak to what men hold most dear; family, country, and freedom.

Uh..right. Marx was speaking to family and country. That's why he wrote the working class has no country, and the familiy is a patriarchal institution to guarantee the inheritance of private property. No.

I'll tell you who does always speak to family, faith and country: fascists.

Marxism has, in fact, inspired millions to fight for their rights. More importantly, it's guided them with an accurate understanding of what it takes to win their rights.

Frankly I can see something very different these "Afrocentrists" would add to Marxism: racism. Africans are said to have a "permanent mind-set" that is good; Europeans are said to have a "western culture" or "eurocentric idea" that is evil. That's how you put it, that is: your inspirers say that white people are biologically prone to racism and all bad things because we're descended from Neanderthals or some such BS.

I think Marxism can do without this.

redstar2000

11th May 2005, 14:51

Originally posted by MKS
The African cultures that worked around a communist-type model came about naturally, without the class struggle.--emphasis added.

I have a feeling that this is the real core of this discussion.

There's been a long tradition of academic "admiration" for Marxism...except for that class struggle stuff.

That stuff seems, for some reason, to particularly offend the academic mind.

It's...um, violent and disorderly, among other things.

Perhaps the prospect of their "social inferiors" running society is even more repugnant than the present-day running of society by their intellectual inferiors.

So maybe it's not so surprising that Afro-centric professors should join with their Euro-centric colleagues in finding class struggle to be "unnatural" if not downright "deplorable".

Why can't we just all get along?

Because that's not how things work...anywhere.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

OleMarxco

11th May 2005, 15:16

"Communism withouth Class-Struggle"...
Psssh! You kids and your burgeouise contraptions :redstar2000:
Africa was never primitive communistic, but had the potentional, 'tho.
Some tribes in Congo might've truely been a bit "Communistic", but,
however, where not doing so knowingly, just as a "society spirit", and Africa
as a whole were class-societies with feudalistic ranks etc. Despotism's, for the most
part. See: The Pharoah in Egypt, the Zulu's in South-Africa, etc. Same goes today,
just in a more westernly way.. Don't even GET me started about the anarchistic hell-hole of Somalia.

MKS

11th May 2005, 16:24

WTF is the "African model" anyway? The African continent is a big place and has been around for a long time. You still won't say which kingdoms you're talking about which makes it impossible to know how accurate your statements are

According to Henrik, tribes or civilizations that existed along the nile valley as well as southern and eastern arfica. He did go into too much depth of names of tribes etc. The info is there however to be researched. I say the African model simply as a means for expedency (sp).

Ironic turn of phrase; what you consistently fail to understand is that all ideas grow from the ground not fall from the sky. Change the ground and the ideas will change. Not mostly vice versa.

Some ideas "fall from the sky" meaning they are preached to people from high above some iron pulpit or wooden soapbox. Ideas that are taken by man not forced to man instill a greater strength and meaning.

I think you missed my point completley when giving my opinion on the relevance of the, well lets call it, communalist (since African model seems to create anger) model. My point was that the communalist model seems to me to be a better way at achiveing long lasting revolution. As I said before, men do not fight from the mind, but from the heart. What motivates them is not dry economic theory and socio-politcial rhetoric, what motivates them are things like family, country, and liberty. Through the communalist model the ideas are brought to men, of sharing, cooperation, common intrest and protection and ultimatley greater freedom. If we change the mindset and the mood of the people the institutions that oppress them will begin to crumble. The classes that once divided them will fade, and those that reamain be destoryed. The Communalist model in my view allows men to relate to the ideals of communism in an easier way and will create a permance never achived by other modern revolutions.

I'll tell you who does always speak to family, faith and country: fascists.

Marxism has, in fact, inspired millions to fight for their rights. More importantly, it's guided them with an accurate understanding of what it takes to win their rights.

Well I never mentioned faith, but as for family and country it is what inspires men to fight; that is the reality. The Cuban Revolution, the Russian revolution, the Vietnamese war for Independence, the French Revolution, etc etc. All wars fought for country, family and freedom.

Apples and oranges. The modern communist movement is only 150 years old; the first workers state was set up less than 100 years ago. No workers' revolution has ever taken and held power in an advanced capitalist country. In contrast, we have thousands of years of history showing that class-divided civilization evolves out of tribal communalism....and that this was a progressive step forward historically.

Who is to say that despotism will not occur again, if history is any indicator it will. Why wouldnt class divided civilization evolve from a classless workers state? The only thing that is different between communal and communistic is the technology.
In fact one could argue from looking at both example a classles society will never work, will never sustain.

Frankly I can see something very different these "Afrocentrists" would add to Marxism: racism. Africans are said to have a "permanent mind-set" that is good; Europeans are said to have a "western culture" or "eurocentric idea" that is evil. That's how you put it, that is: your inspirers say that white people are biologically prone to racism and all bad things because we're descended from Neanderthals or some such BS.

I think Marxism can do without this.

I was never arguing to inroduce afrocentrism into communism, I simply trying to put another viewpoint out into the spectrum. However I still contend the eurocentric mindset, or western culture is bad or parts of it are bad, for the most part, as it has created capitalism, imperialism, materialism, slavery, the destruction entire nations of people. (and yes I know western culture was not the only one to do this) however Western culture seems to be the most dominant in todays world, or is at least trying to be thanks to the imperialists of the US and Western Europe.

My words fail to correctly express my opinions so I will again leave you with a quote from Che, which accuratley sums up my sentiments about Marxism and Communism.

I am not interested in dry economic socialism. We are fighting against misery, but we are also fighting against alienation. One of the fundamental objectives of Marxism is to remove interest, the factor of individual interest, and gain, from people's psychological motivations. Marx was preoccupied both with economic factors and with their repercussions on the spirit. If communism isn't interested in this too, it may be a method of distributing goods, but it will never be a revolutionary way of life. - Ernesto Che Guevara

bolshevik butcher

11th May 2005, 18:21

red star over china, i never said i wouldn't side with shaka zulu against the imperialists, my point is that he was a king/emperor type of thing and so the zulu civilization certainly wasn't communist. Oh yeh civ3 is a great game.

Severian

11th May 2005, 19:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:24 AM
According to Henrik, tribes or civilizations that existed along the nile valley as well as southern and eastern arfica. He did go into too much depth of names of tribes etc. The info is there however to be researched. I say the African model simply as a means for expedency (sp).
Yeah. You said that. And I said it was vague and meaningless. Does the Nile Valley mean Egypt? Nubia? Does eastern Africa mean Ethiopia? The Swahili city-states? They weren't all the same y'know. Most of those had definite class divisions.

To suggest every place and time in Africa was the same is.....a racial approach. (Esp since many Afrocentrists insist ancient Egypt was Black.)

Yes, the information is there to be researched....and the information says you're wrong. To the degree you can be pinned down as saying anything definite.

Check the sources I've given already.

I think you missed my point completley when giving my opinion on the relevance of the, well lets call it, communalist (since African model seems to create anger) model.

Oh, I understand; it just makes no sense. The existence of an early stage of communal social organization - worldwide, not just Africa - is important for just one reason. It shows that class society is not eternal or predetermined by human nature.

Tribal communalist societies were not really so wonderful. They were xenophobic, not even seeing other tribes as real human beings (that's why every tribe's name means "the People" in their own language.) Since the productivity of labor was so low, war captives were either killed, occasionally adopted into the tribe...or, in sub-Saharan Africa especially, sold into slavery in North Africa or later overseas. They were ignorant and superstitious - disease was rampant and blamed on witchcraft - fueling constant witch-hunts. And of course their economic and technological level was too low to defend themselves against more developed socieities. This "model" will not inspire any sane person to fight for it.

I was never arguing to inroduce afrocentrism into communism, I simply trying to put another viewpoint out into the spectrum

Then why are you taking their statements on faith? And where do you think this "eurocentrism" concept comes from?

However I still contend the eurocentric mindset, or western culture is bad or parts of it are bad, for the most part, as it has created capitalism, imperialism, materialism, slavery, the destruction entire nations of people. (and yes I know western culture was not the only one to do this)

Yeah, exactly. Only one new thing was created in Europe (and not by any "mindset" or "culture") - capitalism. Which was a progressive step forward for humanity. Better than older forms of exploitation. You keep avoiding this, but would you prefer to be a serf or slave than a wage-worker?

The only thing that is different between communal and communistic is the technology.

Some "only"! All social change in human history has been driven by technological change. This is ABC of Marxism stuff...now acknowledged by all serious bourgeois social "scientists" as well. Agriculture brought the rise of class society, industrialization brought the rise of captialism....and the fight for socialism. Further economic and technological progress will create the conditions for socialism and communism to be successfully established.

And stop trying to bodysnatch Guevara as if he agreed with your idealist approach. He's dead and can't defend himself.

***

BTW, "dictator" is probably ahistorical for Shaka Zulu...he was probably fine for the Zulus and those who joined 'em. Just a genocidal disaster for their neighbors.

MKS

11th May 2005, 20:03

And stop trying to bodysnatch Guevara as if he agreed with your idealist approach. He's dead and can't defend himself.

I wasnt "bodysnatching" Guevara, I was actually agreeing with him in refrence to that quote. The big point being that idealism is needed in the revolution. To speak to the spirit as Che said it. The quote I displayed showed my sentitments exactly.

Yeah, exactly. Only one new thing was created in Europe (and not by any "mindset" or "culture") - capitalism. Which was a progressive step forward for humanity. Better than older forms of exploitation. You keep avoiding this, but would you prefer to be a serf or slave than a wage-worker?

But it also the modern western mindset that allows Capitalism/Imperailism to remain, and become even more repressive, and one could argue could end up as a regression of liberty.

Yes, the information is there to be researched....and the information says you're wrong. To the degree you can be pinned down as saying anything definite.

I think Henrik would disagree as would other african-american intellectuals.

Who is to say that despotism will not occur again, if history is any indicator it will. Why wouldnt class divided civilization evolve from a classless workers state? The only thing that is different between communal and communistic is the technology.
In fact one could argue from looking at both example a classles society will never work, will never sustain.

Again I ask what evidence is there that a communist society(or attempt) would not again result in tyranny?

I dont see why there is such an opposition to idealism. It can be a great thing if balanced and used correctly.

Again I think Che said it best:

Marx was preoccupied both with economic factors and with their repercussions on the spirit. If communism isn't interested in this too, it may be a method of distributing goods, but it will never be a revolutionary way of life. - Ernesto Che Guevara

Severian

11th May 2005, 20:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:03 PM

And stop trying to bodysnatch Guevara as if he agreed with your idealist approach. He's dead and can't defend himself.

I wasnt "bodysnatching" Guevara, I was actually agreeing with him in refrence to that quote. The big point being that idealism is needed in the revolution. To speak to the spirit as Che said it. The quote I displayed showed my sentitments exactly.
Doy! The objection is not to "speaking to the spirit", it is to the idealist METHOD OF REASONING. Which says that ideas produce material reality, not the other way around. That's been your approach all along.

I think Henrik would disagree as would other african-american intellectuals.

What, you think all "african-american intellectuals" agree? More racialism.

I ignore six self-appointed crackpot experts every day before breakfast, and I don't see why I should make an exception for this guy just because he's Black.

The guy's clearly coming out of a racist, "everything Africans did was great", "everything Europeans did was either bad or stolen from Africa", approach. Why exactly should we pay any attention to him?

And stop hiding behind others and say what YOU think and what facts YOUR opinion is based on.

STI

11th May 2005, 21:51

The ideas that a free market system works to create equality, the ideas that a system that represents the few can rule the many, the ideas of capitalism, imperialism, materialism, which are the bedrock of western culture (or seem to be). These ideas and the practies that are constructed becasue of them creat tyranny and oppression

Er... no. Tyranny and oppression oppress me. Capitalism and imperialism oppress, not "the ideas of" capitalism and imperialism. Ideas don't physically exist, so it's impossible for them to oppress people.

I believe the African model does serve as a good example of a socialist/communist-type of society.

Stating something over and over and over again in spite of evidence to the contrary doesn't make it right. It doesn't serve as "a good example of a communist society" because it wasn't a communist society. Beyond the societies which had despots and slaves, the communal ones wouldn't have lasted. So, then, since we want to create something where technology is utilized and will not develop into a despotism within a few years, the primitive societies of Africa and elsewhere (still with the Afrocentrism, eh?) are not applicable to our struggle.

However I assert that these civilizations although primitive compared to modern standards were able to thirve, creating complex farming and irrigation systems, codes of law and order and promoting the welfare of the community

So did, say, the Iroquois/Haudenonsaunsee. What's your point? All primitive societies eventually do.

Just like they eventually develop into despotisms.

Your example is useless.

Some argue that these communal socities inevitably lead to despotism, well I urge someone to look at the modern examples of attempts at communism, which did arrive to despotism, or some other form of tyranny. (N. Korea, USSR, Cambodia, and China are a few examples).

You're joking, right? All that demonstrates is that the traditional Leninist approach of trying to create socialism in pre-capitalist societies is flawed. Yes, that's right, more evidence that communism must come out of advanced capitalist societies.

So it is obvious that neither Modern communism or primitve communalism has proved to create any lasting change or movement to true communism.

Er, no. It's just evidence that Leninism and primitive communalism have yet to create any kind of lasting communal society.

The African model can act as a guide on how to construct true social change from the ground up, by instilling in people a sense of brotherhood and common intrests and welfare, then the very ideals of materialism and capitalism will begin to errode, and hopefully create a more lasting change, because the ideas instead of being dropped from the sky are planted in the ground. Change the mood of the people, and they will create change.

A "change in mood" must come before social change. You can't "create a communal society" to "make people more willing to create change". That's just backward.

That after all is why we even attempt change, for the people.

Uh, no. I don't want communism because of some benevolent "love" for "the people". I don't like the condition of my life (and my future) in capitalism, and I want it to be changed. That's it.

While it may seem that I have been bashing Marx and the modern theorists, this wasnt my intention

I wouldn't disagree with you any more or less if you were

I was simply trying to put another viewpoint out into the spectrum

That's all well and good, as long as you can accept that the viewpoint you're trying to "bring into the spectrum" is totally useless to us if it is shown to be so. The "primitive African communalist" societies that you have a stiffy for have been shown to be as such.

We need to broaden the definition of communism, so that the common man, the man who sees little intrest in capital and material reality will feel invested in the need for change.

Actually, material reality and material interest are what will cause most people to want communism, not some pie-in-the-sky primitive example that has no bearing on our present situation.

So it will not feel like some iron blanket of intellectualism and economic theory

Why do you always use language like that?

What do we need? A fuzzy quilt of useless ideals and irrelivant examples?

but rather as a pure cause, a cause that is easy to fight for.

That's just silly moralistic jibber-jabber.

Men fight from the heart and not from the mind, for the family and not for the ownership of the means of production, for a cause and not endless volumes of theory and rhetoric.

Really? The bourgeois revolutions were "for family" and "from the heart"?

Try again. They were the usurption of the nobility by the bourgeoisie for material interests. That's what all revolutions are. The usurption of one class by another for material interests.

Another thing about your "African model". No revolution was necessary to creast those societies. They developed out of nomadism. That's not our situation. We have something to overthrow before we can create communism. They didn't.

Oh, there's me, being "Eurocentric" again.

The African model, or the native american model or the pure utopian model, are things men can relate to, things men would fight and die for

Not in revolutions they don't.

Never has a battle cry been heard; "Let us reconize the material reality of the current economic system and begin the construction of the proletariat workers council"

What I would say is "Emancipation from wage-slavery!". It's that simple. Material interest. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, well, if *****CHE***** said it, it's true.

I am not interested in dry economic socialism. We are fighting against misery, but we are also fighting against alienation. One of the fundamental objectives of Marxism is to remove interest, the factor of individual interest, and gain, from people's psychological motivations. Marx was preoccupied both with economic factors and with their repercussions on the spirit. If communism isn't interested in this too, it may be a method of distributing goods, but it will never be a revolutionary way of life. - Ernesto Che Guevara

Che's revolutions were in third-world countries dominated by foreign imperialists. They weren't even communist revolutions. Most of them failed.

Appeal to authority, and a shitty one at that.

Raisa

11th May 2005, 22:37

We collectively DO need to study African history. Most of us are from European countries or countries that were serverely influenced by europe and we study european things and people and history alot more then we will ever hear shit about africa.

But Europe today is nothing without all they got from Africa. I know that, and so that is the next thing Im going to have to look into more is African history.

Raisa

11th May 2005, 22:54

I dont know which one to reply to cause so many posts seem to say the same kind of thing.

STI did make a good point...god i loved your name when it was Socialist Tiger but anway.....WE in our societies have something to over throw. The Africans alot of times had those socieities because that was a cultural thing, as MKS said in his reasoning about how some of the people in Africa living communally did not even have a word for opression or poverty or jail.

I disagree with Marx that only first world nations can have socialism because those are the most ingnorant ones with their false "middle classes" I think socialism can be for everyone that is working in a society where the workers are making all the wealth and not getting shit of it.

Those African societies were smaller societies. Here is the issue about Communism now.......

As STI said our communism comes from overthrowing capitalism. It is capitalism's nature to spread all around the world. It is all around the world. This is why workers of the world need to unite because they are all down under the class system.

What was going on in Africa before the colonials came and killed it was a different kind of communism with a smaller amount of people that was culturally based. Our communism is a revolutionary world wide struggle.

MKS

12th May 2005, 00:50

What was going on in Africa before the colonials came and killed it was a different kind of communism with a smaller amount of people that was culturally based. Our communism is a revolutionary world wide struggle

Exactly, I am purposing a "new" kind of approach to revolution by changin the culture or mindset which would in turn destroy the class systems that oppress us.

Er... no. Tyranny and oppression oppress me. Capitalism and imperialism oppress, not "the ideas of" capitalism and imperialism. Ideas don't physically exist, so it's impossible for them to oppress people.

The sytems are manifests of the ideas. Or are the ideas manifests of the systems. Which came first the chicken or the egg? I think the ideas grow and materialize into systems. Someone thought of a new way to gain wealth, and then built or began to build a capitalist system. Someone thought to exploit the wealth of other nations and began an imperial conquest.

A "change in mood" must come before social change. You can't "create a communal society" to "make people more willing to create change". That's just backward.

How is that backwards. Enstill in men a greater appreciation for cooperation and brotherhood and the revolution that comes afterward will be better able to withstand attacks from capitalist perversions. Ho Chi Mhin (spelled wrong) and the forces of north vietnam set up education camps, because they knew that they would have to change the attidutes and moods of the people to think more communaly, to show them the benefits of communism.

Doy! The objection is not to "speaking to the spirit", it is to the idealist METHOD OF REASONING. Which says that ideas produce material reality, not the other way around. That's been your approach all along

Maybe I confused people, ideas dont change material reality, ideas create a better way to combat or overcome the material reality, to motivate men to act, to create a new man. Who thinks not of himself, but of the whole community or people. (thats what I have been trying to say this whole time)

Again I look to Che, because to me he exemplified the correct belnd of idealism and intellecualism, theory and practice. (however some do say Che's ecnomic policies in Cuba failed because they were created more out of idealogy then practical economics)

Uh, no. I don't want communism because of some benevolent "love" for "the people". I don't like the condition of my life (and my future) in capitalism, and I want it to be changed. That's it.

Than why are you a communist? Since communism wiill probably not come along in your life time, and you want a better life for yourself, why dont you work really hard, get a good job, save some money and live comfortably? Such an attitude of invidualism is what creates weak revolutions.

Really? The bourgeois revolutions were "for family" and "from the heart"?

Try again. They were the usurption of the nobility by the bourgeoisie for material interests. That's what all revolutions are. The usurption of one class by another for material interests

Most men fight in order to provide better lives for their nation, thier family and the future. If you wanted to be mechanical about it, you could simply say what you did, but there is much more to life and what motvates men than simple economics. Sure economics is at the base of most of it but it is only a means to achieve.

As for the Afrocentrisim (sp) I am not afrocentric, never have been. In fact when it comes to the perfect model for society I like to look at the Iroquois Confederations of the northeastern united states. However what Henrik was trying to communicate, more than the idea of communism in Africa, was the idea that all African history or most of it is written by white people, eurocentric thought, such a perception clouds the true history of Africa. Do I have a skeptisim of Western thought or eurocentrism, yes I do, because it was the western world that destroyed (or completley perverted) the cultures of three continents (N. America, S. Americ and Africa) now they're working on the middle east and Asia. The Western ideals of manifest destiny, imperialism, the slave triangle, etc have created such destruction that all their motives sholud be questioned.

STI

12th May 2005, 03:56

The sytems are manifests of the ideas. Or are the ideas manifests of the systems. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

As was mentioned earlier, this is where you go wrong. Ideas do not "manifest themselves" in material reality. Material reality causes ideas to come into existence. It's not a matter of "chicken or the egg" (actually, we know now that it was the proto-chicken that came before the egg which hatched a chicken).

I think the ideas grow and materialize into systems. Someone thought of a new way to gain wealth, and then built or began to build a capitalist system.

Somebody looked at material reality and asaid "Hey, what the fuck!?!? Us merchant class folks are fit to rule! Why are we letting the nobility rule us when we don't need them?". Material reality (the bourgeoisie getting screwed) caused ideas (John Locke, Thomas Payne, etc) to come into existence. Fuedalism caused those ideas, because the seeds of fuedalism's overthrow existed within fuedalism, not the other way around.

Someone thought to exploit the wealth of other nations and began an imperial conquest.

Actually, it is in the direct material interest of the ruling class to extend their power wherever it can go. Imperialism isn't an "idea", it's a set of actions.

How is that backwards. Enstill in men a greater appreciation for cooperation and brotherhood and the revolution that comes afterward will be better able to withstand attacks from capitalist perversions.

The only way "capitalist perversions" will be a problem is if we let them saw a damn thing after the revolution.

And if we do things the way you would have them done (The "African Model"), we'd just go to despotism.

Nevermind that, even. We simply would not be able to live in societies like primitive Africa. We have developed technologically. Different technology creates different material conditions, which create different ideas and different people.

Ho Chi Mhin (spelled wrong) and the forces of north vietnam set up education camps, because they knew that they would have to change the attidutes and moods of the people to think more communaly, to show them the benefits of communism.

Really? That's interesting.

Too bad Ho Chi Minh's revolution wasn't a communist one. It was in a pre-industrial country with a peasant majority which was dominated by foreign imperialists. Hardly a good place to develop communism.

Not that the revolution was a "communist" one anyway. It was a socialist revolution.

But sure, let's ignore all that stuff. Look at Vietnam today! What have they done? Where are they now? Capitalism! Material conditions prevailed over their "education centres" and "airy-fairy ideals".

Than why are you a communist?

I'm a communist out of material interest. I'm part of the working class and I can see the material benefits of living in a classless, stateless society (freedom from wage-slavery and dehumanization come to mind).

Since communism wiill probably not come along in your life time

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. We'll see. I'll fight like hell for it, though. It's more likely to come along if I'm out there fighting for it than if I'm not.

why dont you work really hard, get a good job, save some money and live comfortably?

The same reason most of the working class "doesn't do that stuff". It isn't possible! Capitalism isn't set up to let workers into the ruling class. The ruling class doesn't seek as much company as possible.

And I'm going to be working hard my whole life. That's part of why I don't like capitalism. Pretty much every member of the working class "works hard". Where does it get most of them? Into a live full of stress, interpersonal tensions, health problems, and, all too often, early graves.

Such an attitude of invidualism is what creates weak revolutions.

Since when is communism incompatable with individualism?

Most men fight in order to provide better lives for their nation

Only if they've been duped by nonsense spouted by the ruling class.

thier family and the future.

Yes, in terms of material conditions. Not "Ideals".

f you wanted to be mechanical about it, you could simply say what you did, but there is much more to life and what motvates men than simple economics.

True, but in the grand sweep of history, material interest prevails over all else.

Sure economics is at the base of most of it but it is only a means to achieve.

Not a "means to achieve", the reason for wanting to achieve

As for the Afrocentrisim (sp) I am not afrocentric, never have been. In fact when it comes to the perfect model for society I like to look at the Iroquois Confederations of the northeastern united states.

Well, you hadn't mentioned them until after I did, you just went on about Africa, Africa, Africa (even though I mentioned North American Aboriginal societies several times).

However what Henrik was trying to communicate, more than the idea of communism in Africa, was the idea that all African history or most of it is written by white people, eurocentric thought, such a perception clouds the true history of Africa

Well this is certainly the first time you've said anything like that. Up until now, you've just gone on about how we should "broaden the definition of communism" to "convince people of the ideals of blah blah blah".

The Western ideals of manifest destiny, imperialism, the slave triangle, etc have created such destruction that all their motives sholud be questioned.

Slavery and imperialism existed before western society. They aren't "western ideals". You'e being Europhobic.

god i loved your name when it was Socialist Tiger but anway

Ya, fuck you Raisa :lol:

I disagree with Marx that only first world nations can have socialism because those are the most ingnorant ones with their false "middle classes" I think socialism can be for everyone that is working in a society where the workers are making all the wealth and not getting shit of it.

I don't know if Marx said that specifically, but he could have. I agree, thogh, that socialism - socialism, not communism - can be established in third-world nations, but it will only ever create capitalism down the road

MKS

12th May 2005, 05:07

Somebody looked at material reality and asaid "Hey, what the fuck!?!? Us merchant class folks are fit to rule! Why are we letting the nobility rule us when we don't need them?". Material reality (the bourgeoisie getting screwed) caused ideas (John Locke, Thomas Payne, etc) to come into existence. Fuedalism caused those ideas, because the seeds of fuedalism's overthrow existed within fuedalism, not the other way around.

Exactly, someone had the idea which changed the material reality. Ideas do change reality. since all material reality is a manifestation of ideas, men now, more than ever have the ability to change the reality, if the ideas are there, if the mood is there, the reality can change.

And if we do things the way you would have them done (The "African Model"), we'd just go to despotism

How? I dont see how a communal society automatcialy progresses to despotism. Explain it.

Since when is communism incompatable with individualism?

a degree of indivdualism is benefical but usually such sentitments develop into a lack of cooperation.. If everyone does what they wanted to just for themselves nothing would get accomplished for the group. Individualism fits better with capitalism.

Too bad Ho Chi Minh's revolution wasn't a communist one. It was in a pre-industrial country with a peasant majority which was dominated by foreign imperialists. Hardly a good place to develop communism

Weren't all "commuist" revolutions started in such conditions or conditions that were very similar? I used Vietnam as an example to illustarte the point that ideas are used to change (or to try to change) the material reality, or circumstance.

Slavery and imperialism existed before western society. They aren't "western ideals". You'e being Europhobic

I know, but never has it been so wide spread and damaging than by the westerners. Western Europe destoryed (or perverted) three continents. How could one not recgonize that the mindset of the rulers and people of Europe was one of destruction, comsumption and exploitation.

The African model (yes I used that phrase) to me shows a legitamte way to achieve a birth of ideals that could not only spark revolution, but sustain it. The material reality may not be ripe for, but the ideals and principles of Communism, communlaism, shared life can change that, can create sentiment strong enough to turn the tide against the capitalist/imperialist powers.

Raisa

12th May 2005, 05:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:50 PM

What was going on in Africa before the colonials came and killed it was a different kind of communism with a smaller amount of people that was culturally based. Our communism is a revolutionary world wide struggle

Er... no. Tyranny and oppression oppress me. Capitalism and imperialism oppress, not "the ideas of" capitalism and imperialism. Ideas don't physically exist, so it's impossible for them to oppress people.

The sytems are manifests of the ideas. Or are the ideas manifests of the systems. Which came first the chicken or the egg? I think the ideas grow and materialize into systems. Someone thought of a new way to gain wealth, and then built or began to build a capitalist system. Someone thought to exploit the wealth of other nations and began an imperial conquest.

A "change in mood" must come before social change. You can't "create a communal society" to "make people more willing to create change". That's just backward.

How is that backwards. Enstill in men a greater appreciation for cooperation and brotherhood and the revolution that comes afterward will be better able to withstand attacks from capitalist perversions. Ho Chi Mhin (spelled wrong) and the forces of north vietnam set up education camps, because they knew that they would have to change the attidutes and moods of the people to think more communaly, to show them the benefits of communism.

Doy! The objection is not to "speaking to the spirit", it is to the idealist METHOD OF REASONING. Which says that ideas produce material reality, not the other way around. That's been your approach all along

Maybe I confused people, ideas dont change material reality, ideas create a better way to combat or overcome the material reality, to motivate men to act, to create a new man. Who thinks not of himself, but of the whole community or people. (thats what I have been trying to say this whole time)

Again I look to Che, because to me he exemplified the correct belnd of idealism and intellecualism, theory and practice. (however some do say Che's ecnomic policies in Cuba failed because they were created more out of idealogy then practical economics)

Uh, no. I don't want communism because of some benevolent "love" for "the people". I don't like the condition of my life (and my future) in capitalism, and I want it to be changed. That's it.

Than why are you a communist? Since communism wiill probably not come along in your life time, and you want a better life for yourself, why dont you work really hard, get a good job, save some money and live comfortably? Such an attitude of invidualism is what creates weak revolutions.

Really? The bourgeois revolutions were "for family" and "from the heart"?

Try again. They were the usurption of the nobility by the bourgeoisie for material interests. That's what all revolutions are. The usurption of one class by another for material interests

Most men fight in order to provide better lives for their nation, thier family and the future. If you wanted to be mechanical about it, you could simply say what you did, but there is much more to life and what motvates men than simple economics. Sure economics is at the base of most of it but it is only a means to achieve.

As for the Afrocentrisim (sp) I am not afrocentric, never have been. In fact when it comes to the perfect model for society I like to look at the Iroquois Confederations of the northeastern united states. However what Henrik was trying to communicate, more than the idea of communism in Africa, was the idea that all African history or most of it is written by white people, eurocentric thought, such a perception clouds the true history of Africa. Do I have a skeptisim of Western thought or eurocentrism, yes I do, because it was the western world that destroyed (or completley perverted) the cultures of three continents (N. America, S. Americ and Africa) now they're working on the middle east and Asia. The Western ideals of manifest destiny, imperialism, the slave triangle, etc have created such destruction that all their motives sholud be questioned.

'Exactly, I am purposing a "new" kind of approach to revolution by changin the culture or mindset which would in turn destroy the class systems that oppress us."

See now, this shut me up for a good minute!

But for real.....economics is what determines culture..even in Africa. Econonmics is money, and in our societies money is survival. And our cultures will adapt with the system so we can live. Any time the system makes a change then our culture makes a change. Just look through history. The cultures and the mindsets are all results just results...and we shouldnt mess with results, we can contfront and analyze them but we need to be buisy fighting with the causes.

STI

12th May 2005, 19:56

Exactly, someone had the idea which changed the material reality. Ideas do change reality. since all material reality is a manifestation of ideas, men now, more than ever have the ability to change the reality, if the ideas are there, if the mood is there, the reality can change.

Material reality is what created those ideas. That's the part you ignored.

How? I dont see how a communal society automatcialy progresses to despotism. Explain it.

It doesn't "automatically" happen. It takes time.

Every primitive communalist society progresses to despotism. Consider the Zulu or the Mayans or the Mesopotamians. Those are all despotisms that were despotisms when Europeans discovered them and which used to be communalist. It's no secret.

a degree of indivdualism is benefical but usually such sentitments develop into a lack of cooperation

"Usually"? Like when?

If everyone does what they wanted to just for themselves nothing would get accomplished for the group. Individualism fits better with capitalism.

Individualism for the ruling class fits well with capitalism. For the working class, well, we get to be drones. Capitalism is anti-individualist.

And individualism doesn't necessarily entail "doing stuff just for yourself". Individualism isn't contrary to collectivism or co-operation. That's just a bourgeois myth.

Weren't all "commuist" revolutions started in such conditions or conditions that were very similar?

Yes, they were all like that, and that's one of the key reasons they all failed. Other stuff played a role in that, but one of the main reasons was that there was no class-conscious proletariat.

I used Vietnam as an example to illustarte the point that ideas are used to change (or to try to change) the material reality, or circumstance.

And they failed! Why? Material reality always wins out.

I know, but never has it been so wide spread and damaging than by the westerners.

That just ain't true. Every society had a slave period (if it progressed that far). All of them. More Europhobia.

Western Europe destoryed (or perverted) three continents. How could one not recgonize that the mindset of the rulers and people of Europe was one of destruction, comsumption and exploitation.

That's the mindset of all rulers, not just the rulers of Europe. This is where your Europhobic bias really shines through.

The African model (yes I used that phrase) to me shows a legitamte way to achieve a birth of ideals that could not only spark revolution, but sustain it

How does "The African Model" have a friggin' thing to do with revolution? It doesn't.

The material reality may not be ripe for, but the ideals and principles of Communism, communlaism, shared life can change that, can create sentiment strong enough to turn the tide against the capitalist/imperialist powers.

There is no material foundation for the whole communalist set of ideals to take root. Why? Material conditions are far too different. That's what you keep ignoring.

MKS

12th May 2005, 20:12

There is no material foundation for the whole communalist set of ideals to take root. Why? Material conditions are far too different. That's what you keep ignoring.

Sure there is, plenty of food, mechanization, people, technology I think communalism would work well now, or in the near future. The mood however is not there, it has to be enstilled to the people, taken by the people, so that they feel invested in the cause of communalism/communism. Of course a revolution would have to take place,a revolution of ideas that motivates action and change.

one of the main reasons was that there was no class-conscious proletariat

Exactly, the mood wasnt there. The ideals needed to be instilled in the people. Individualism, and other cultural factors do not allow for people to forgoe their feelings of individual presrvation and many times promotion, in order to act for the group.

How does "The African Model" have a friggin' thing to do with revolution? It doesn't

Just in terms of ideals, such as copperation, shared work, responsibility, the ideals every communist shold hold. The African Model (or communal model) is a great example of such ideals and culture derived from such ideals. Even if they were primitive, the ideals and practices can be translated into modern utilization.

The Material is this: it sparks the idea of a new system and thefore creates a new material reality. All material realities are products of man, hence it totaly within mans grasp to change the material reality. All they need is a reason.

Severian

12th May 2005, 20:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 01:12 PM
Sure there is, plenty of food, mechanization, people, technology I think communalism would work well now, or in the near future.
That's exactly why it wouldn't work. The material basis for tribal communalism was scarcity - not enough surplus to support an idle ruling class. And low productivity of labor - slaves, serfs, other exploited laborers only produced enough to feed themselves, not enough to support a ruling class, overseers and cops, etc. As they become richer, a ruling elite begins to emerge, as can be seen by the facts (as opposed to fantasies) about civilizations in Africa as elsewhere.

STI

12th May 2005, 21:03

Sure there is, plenty of food, mechanization, people, technology I think communalism would work well now, or in the near future. The mood however is not there, it has to be enstilled to the people, taken by the people, so that they feel invested in the cause of communalism/communism. Of course a revolution would have to take place,a revolution of ideas that motivates action and change.

Communalism requires low levels of technological development. That's one of the differences between communism and communalism.

That and all the stuff Severian just said.

Exactly, the mood wasnt there.

Nice try. It wasn't that the mood wasn't there, it's that none of those societies had proletarian majorities. Material conditions.

The ideals needed to be instilled in the people

The people needed to be in different material conditions (they needed to be proletarians instead of peasants in order to create communism).

Individualism, and other cultural factors do not allow for people to forgoe their feelings of individual presrvation and many times promotion, in order to act for the group.

Hah. No, that wasn't the case at all. See above.

Just in terms of ideals, such as copperation, shared work, responsibility, the ideals every communist shold hold.

You're back to this again? Havn't we been down this road? Don't we know where it leads? Communism is and should be about material interests and material reality, not "ideals".

The African Model (or communal model) is a great example of such ideals and culture derived from such ideals. Even if they were primitive, the ideals and practices can be translated into modern utilization.

Let's play "what if" for a minute.

Even if "the ideals" that "they had" and all that other stuff I've already addressed and you didn't respond to turn out in your favour, it wouldn't matter. The fact that they were primitive makes them irrelivant to our struggle for two reasons:

1)Material conditions are too different than now

2)They didn't need to have a revolution to create their societies. We do.

Why do you keep repeating the same refuted points over and over again?

The Material is this: it sparks the idea of a new system and thefore creates a new material reality. All material realities are products of man, hence it totaly within mans grasp to change the material reality. All they need is a reason.

Again, those "ideals" won't take root here. Even the primitive communalist societies, as Severian pointed out, didn't exist because of "ideals". They existed because they had to exist that way. Material.

Just like we need to use. Material.

MKS

13th May 2005, 03:26

The African Model or Commual Model: Why it is relevant in modern revolutionary theory.

The communal model (or African model) illustrates a classless society either by nessecisty or material reality or by cultural idelalogy or social conditions. It exemplifies, even though primitveley, how a classles society should be shaped.; a community lead by the people, for the well being of the people. Is there governement of hirearchcal system? Sometimes, but such a system is not so much a centralization of power, but more of a pure leadership which guides the community from expeirence and shared wisdom. The relevance for modern revolutionaries should only be as a guide to how a post-revoltuionary society be established. The question of material conditions is a good one, one I have been dodging in order to organize my thoughts and form my own opinion. Material conditions of this modern age greatly different from the times of the african and communal societies. However the abundance of the material, the advances of technology should only benefit the model not disspell it. If we strip modern Communism of all technolongy all material conditions, the goal is a communal society, not unlike the africans. The material reality of the present day should only allow man to achive a greater method of distribution and production within a communal society. However there is more to Communism; at least in my opinion than dry economics, it is based on ideals, derived from an examination of the present material conditions (the oppressive nature of capitalism), the ideals of cooperation, and equality. Ideals which were evident in past african cultures and still resound today in some modern african cultures.
When examining communism and Marxism one has to ultimaltley ask the question why. Why study human history? Why examine class sturggle, why propose the creation of a workers state, a classless society? Why did Marx even bother to study communism or create what he did? The answer is always, to create a better world, a better existence for the worker, a greater equality.
Another arguemt I have heard is that Commualism leads to despotism, which may be true. However why wouldnt communism lead to despotisim, what makes communism so different? If the only differnece between communalism and communism is technology and material reality. The chain is always presented as this. from primitve nomadism-communalism-depsotism-feudalism-capitalism (i may have skipped a few smaller progressions). Always presented as a "natrual" change, coerced only by material conditions, but I contend that starting as early as communalism, if not than feudalism, material conditions are controlled by man. Ideals and principles can drive change, can shift material conditions, it is completely within the power of man to be masters in every sense of the word of thier world. That being said, the communal model, the ideals that drove it, or more perciseley define it, can be used to change the mood of the people, the mindset of the masses, and from this, the systems that oppress, and the material conditions that allow such oppression can be destoryed.
Another question was brought to my attention: the african communal societies did not need revolution to achive their society, therofre it makes the entire model irrevlavant. I couldnt disagree more; the socities that were created from the nomadic progresion did not to fight a revolution, that is true. However it does negate any contribution they could make. the communal model or african model is more suited for the post-revolutionary society (structurally), the ideals derived from the model howver can be very useful as for inciting the revolution, as fore-mentioned in the above paragraph.
In conclusion I assert that the African or Communal model can be useful to the modern communist struggle. If one can see past the strict adherence to Marx and scientic examinations of the human condition.

STI

13th May 2005, 21:37

Alarms go off in my head when people decide to make "blanket responses" rather than respond to the actual points brought up by everyone else. From what I've found, it shows a lack of confidence in what the person is saying.

The communal model (or African model) illustrates a classless society either by nessecisty or material reality

Those are the same thing.

or by cultural idelalogy or social conditions

Cultural ideology? No. Social conditions? How is that different than material conditions? Material conditions dictate social conditions.

It exemplifies, even though primitveley, how a classles society should be shaped.

No it doesn't. You can't change the fact that it is irrelivant by saying "even though primitively". The fact that it is primitive is what makes it irrelivant to us.

a community lead by the people, for the well being of the people.

Yep. That's all we'll have to figure out for communism. Couldn't've told you that without Africa, though. Wow. Good thing we had you to bring this up and babble on about idealist nonsense.

Let's not forget how great vague statements with no real meaning are.

Is there governement of hirearchcal system?

In either case, we don't need to dig up corpses and use silly idealism to reach a conclusion regarding whether or not we need a state.

Sometimes, but such a system is not so much a centralization of power, but more of a pure leadership which guides the community from expeirence and shared wisdom.

That's just a romanticized distortion of what probably happened.

The relevance for modern revolutionaries should only be as a guide to how a post-revoltuionary society be established.

How on Earth could it possibly be a guide to how to establish a post-revolutionary society? They didn't have to do the same things we do to establish one. They weren't in the same material conditions as we are.

The question of material conditions is a good one, one I have been dodging in order to organize my thoughts and form my own opinion

For future reference, you would have saved face and came out looking a lot better if you'd just said that from the beginning.

Material conditions of this modern age greatly different from the times of the african and communal societies. However the abundance of the material, the advances of technology should only benefit the model not disspell it.

Not really. Their society was set up in such a way that surplus caused a ruling class to come into existence. Since we'll probably end up with a surplus at some point, we have to set our society up in a way which is fundamentally different than "The African Model". Waving a magic wand and saying "ideals of co-operation, family, and freedom" isn't good enough in this case.

If we strip modern Communism of all technolongy all material conditions, the goal is a communal society, not unlike the africans.

I want everybody to stop for a second and let the implications of that statement really sink in. "If we strip modern communism of all technology all material conditions".

Then what is there!?!?. Modern communism can't exist in a society which is pre-industrial. The idea didn't exist. It's not coincidence that modern communism hadn't developed until after the industrial revolution.

If you take a modern communist, take away technology and change material conditions, what kind of person you end up with depends entirely on those material conditions.

The material reality of the present day should only allow man to achive a greater method of distribution and production within a communal society.

Their society was set up in such a way that surplus caused a ruling class to come into existence. Since we'll probably end up with a surplus at some point, we have to set our society up in a way which is fundamentally different than "The African Model". Waving a magic wand and saying "ideals of co-operation, family, and freedom" isn't good enough in this case.

So then, things are simply different, and we must take a totally different approach.

However there is more to Communism; at least in my opinion than dry economics

Why do you keep calling them "dry economics"? Economics, or rather material conditions, are the driving force behind history.

t is based on ideals, derived from an examination of the present material conditions (the oppressive nature of capitalism), the ideals of cooperation, and equality.

How many times have I addressed this thusfar? How many times have you responded to them?

Ideals which were evident in past african cultures and still resound today in some modern african cultures.

As Severian pointed out, it wasn't 'the ideals of' anything that made those societies the way they were. It was material necessity.

When examining communism and Marxism one has to ultimaltley ask the question why. Why study human history?

Because it is necessary if we hope to put together a coherent theory for overthrowing capitalism and establishing a classless society.

why propose the creation of a workers state, a classless society?

To the former, I don't. To the latter, I already told you. Material interest.

Why ask questions you already know the answers to?

Why did Marx even bother to study communism or create what he did?

Well, I wasn't ever him, so I can't be sure, but a safe bet would be that he wanted freedom from capitalism.

The answer is always, to create a better world, a better existence for the worker, a greater equality.

You couldn't possibly know that and neither could I. So, then, the question of "why Marx did..." is not worth bothering with.

Another arguemt I have heard is that Commualism leads to despotism, which may be true. [/QUOTE

How so?

Ideals and principles can drive change, can shift material conditions, it is completely within the power of man to be masters in every sense of the word of thier world.

When has a revolution been motivated by anything but material interest? When has a society ever been driven by anything but material conditions? Find me even one example.

Ideals and principles can drive change, can shift material conditions

No they can't. Ideals don't physically exist.

That being said, the communal model, the ideals that drove it, or more perciseley define it, can be used to change the mood of the people, the mindset of the masses, and from this, the systems that oppress, and the material conditions that allow such oppression can be destoryed.

The responses to those same stale old crappy points are found all throughout this post. I won't bother again.

However it does negate any contribution they could make. the communal model or african model is more suited for the post-revolutionary society (structurally)

No it doesn't. African model societies + surplus = despotism. We shouldn't go and do it again.

he ideals derived from the model howver can be very useful as for inciting the revolution, as fore-mentioned in the above paragraph.

Ideals never incite revolution. Material conditions do. Why did the merchant class overthrow the nobility? Material interest, not the ideals of "freedom blah blah blah". If you believe that crap, you've been duped.

In conclusion I assert that the African or Communal model can be useful to the modern communist struggle. If one can see past the strict adherence to Marx and scientic examinations of the human condition.

Don't try to paint us as dogmatic adherents to Marx.

Scientific examinations of the human condition are the only ones which produce any reliable results.

Severian

14th May 2005, 07:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:26 PM
The relevance for modern revolutionaries should only be as a guide to how a post-revoltuionary society be established.
It this were true logically it would mean..a post-revolutionary society should be established by smashing all modern technology, industry, and more productive agriculture.

There was a thread on Primitivism a while back. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34052)

Included a link to this article by an anarchist explaining why going back to primitive society is not the answer (http://struggle.ws/andrew/primitivism.html)

Which has the advantage, that its author cannot be accused of being a "dogmatic Marxist".

MKS

15th May 2005, 01:39

Scientific examinations of the human condition are the only ones which produce any reliable results.

Marxism is a theory and hasnt been proven to be true, no matter how many times you assert that Marxs' study of history as driven by material condtions is fact and not theory, it dosent make it true. That being said I am not putting forth my ideas as pure truth either, they are just another theory. The reason I dont dont dispute point by point with arguements, is because I like to examine the statement and then respond in one paragraph or whatever the length may be. Hopefully within the body of the argument one could see my main thesis or point. If that had been done past examinations of my statements it would have been clear that;
1. I dont take Marxism as absolute fact, I do contend that the Material reality, especially in this modern age is a product of man, therfore man controls his own future completley, that might not have been true in past times, but today I think it is. Technology, science and politcal idealogy has reached a point that the only thing holding humanity back is its desire to ahdere to antiquated principales and practices. The contention has been, that material conditions dictate social conditions, which is true only to a point in time, because man, his ideals and principles have allowed a coercion of the material reality. For example if I am a king in Europe and I have at my disposable power to distribute land, to take land, to halt trade or to increase trade, I am affecting the material reality of my kingdom. If this king was not driven by ideals of divine rights of leadership and power and the hierarchical structre of society, than the society would be more equal. His ideals affect the material reality, and thus affect society. Now obviously there was a time when man was alone dictated by the material reality, from primitivism up to feudalism or the later stages of the renisance (later for some cultures, eariler for others). However through a study of history I belive man (western man) was able to control the material reality (by the later stages of the renisance) thus was only driven by ideas, theories and religious dogmas. Simply said if I have everything I need, what is left to create are ways to control what I have. The western man had everything they needed and looked at ways to centralize the power. From that time on, the material conditions stopped being the driving force of history, at least for Western Europe. That is why I contend that now we need to instill the ideals of communal life, of cooperation and shared intrest, because at this present time the material conditions are being driven by man. Furthermore the Marxist idea that material conditons will become as such that the proletariat will have no choice but to revolt, to rise up and fight, that assertion alone denotes a recgonition that man must reach a certain moral truth in order to act, without that moral compulsion, especially in todays modern world, and in the western world there would be no reason to fight. Capitalists have created a world of ideals to blind the people from the truth, if you work hard enough youll make a better life, a free market means a free existence, etc etc. these ideals and assertions by capitalists need to be countered with the same type of idealism from socialists and communists. Such ideals can be seen in primitive models. The capitalists, thesists, and imperialists have instilled in man a mindset that communism is "evil", how else are to fight that? How can we sway man to fight for liberation? Someone once said on this post that the reason they want communism is because they dont like their life under capitalism, since you have come to the conclusion that no true liberty or freedom is to be gained in a capitalist society, why cant others be told the same thing? Why cant ideals drive change? Why cant principles dictate the reality? I belive they can, the material reality is pliable to the will of man.

Are my statements scattrered with idealism? Sure they are. But why is that bad?

For future reference, you would have saved face and came out looking a lot better if you'd just said that from the beginning.

If i was intrested in how people thought of me I would have never attempted this argument with such adamant Marxists. Obviously I know that about 90% (probably more) of people in RL disagree with me about this. And Im fine with that. But I think we as socialists/communists must be open to new ideas and theories, if we are serious about our cause.

STI

15th May 2005, 05:56

If i was intrested in how people thought of me I would have never attempted this argument with such adamant Marxists. Obviously I know that about 90% (probably more) of people in RL disagree with me about this. And Im fine with that. But I think we as socialists/communists must be open to new ideas and theories, if we are serious about our cause.

Now that's just silly. There's a difference between disagreeing with a given theory and not being open to it.

And it's not a matter of "adamant Marxism". Severian and I are very different from each other, and neither of us thinks exactly what Marx did.

Marxism is a theory and hasnt been proven to be true, no matter how many times you assert that Marxs' study of history as driven by material condtions is fact and not theory, it dosent make it true

If there's anybody who knows all about simply re-stating things, it's you.

More seriously, though, that same statement could apply to absolutely everything accepted as "fact" in any field. Sodium reacts with Chlorine? Well, that hasn't been proven beyond all doubt ever. To do that, you'd have to test that hypothesis in every possible situation.

But the evidence available allows us to act as though we're totally sure.

So, then, let's look at this with regards to Marxism. Of course, Marx didn't get absolutely everything right. That's a given. But what did he get right? What kind of evidence is there to support Marx's scientific materialist examination of history?

Well, let's quickly run through a simple example. If you think ideals are the driving force behind history, you'd look at the bourgeois revolutions in terms of "life, liberty, and property" or "liberty, fraternity, equality" - the ideals of which the revolutions' proponents spoke.

So, then, if ideals were what drove the new capitalist societies, why are those really only available to the ruling class? Why, in a system founded and driven by these ideals, does the working class get shafted every single day?

Or we could look at it materially. The merchant class in the fuedalist system, out of material interest, overthrew the nobility. The merchant class then became the new ruling class and established a system which would benefit them. No other outcome should be expected other than what we have now. Of course they're going to act like that, because it was never about ideals. It was always about material interest.

So, in this case, the material examination offers a much better explaination than "idelas".

I dont take Marxism as absolute fact

Neither do I. Neither does Severian. "Taking Marxism as absolute fact" has nothing to do with this discussion.

I do contend that the Material reality, especially in this modern age is a product of man, therfore man controls his own future completley, that might not have been true in past times, but today I think it is.

If material reality is a product of man, what would happen if man were wiped off the face of the planet? Would material reality simply cease to exist? Of course not. Material reality exists independant of mankind.

When we speak of "material conditions" with regards to societies, we're referring to the methods of prodution (technology), the relations of production (class), amd the secondary factors which result from those two.

So, then, in a sense, mankind does have an effect on material reality (overthrowing the nobility changed the relations of production, for example), but man is still subject to the effects of material conditions. The time you spend at work exploits and dehumanizes you, regardless of what "ideals" you espouse.

Technology, science and politcal idealogy has reached a point that the only thing holding humanity back is its desire to ahdere to antiquated principales and practices.

Maybe, maybe not. There are some who would argue that technological change must occur before a major change in history, while others would argue that the social change occurs first, and the technological change happens a little while afterward. If the former are right, then we might just be edging up on the beginning of that technological change (open-source technology, the internet, etc). If the latter are right, then your statement probably works.

But, either way, if tomorrow morning the entire working class suddenly decided they were sick of capitalism, there wouldn't be much reason why a revolution wouldn't occur in the very near future.

The contention has been, that material conditions dictate social conditions, which is true only to a point in time, because man, his ideals and principles have allowed a coercion of the material reality

Social conditions are part of material reality.

Do you have any examples of when man's ideals and principles allowed a coercion of material reality?

For example if I am a king in Europe and I have at my disposable power to distribute land, to take land, to halt trade or to increase trade, I am affecting the material reality of my kingdom

But why would you do any of those things? There would be a material reason. Kings don't just distribute land because they're nice. Trade isn't halted because of "ideals". There's always a material reason.

If this king was not driven by ideals of divine rights of leadership and power and the hierarchical structre of society, than the society would be more equal.

I seriously doubt any King truly thought he had the divine right to rule, just like I seriously doubt many members of the ruling class are there "because they worked hard". In both cases, it's just a lie to dupe the underlings.

His ideals affect the material reality, and thus affect society.

Again, the material conditions in which the King was immersed would have a huge effect on his consciousness. When you treat him like a King, he'll think like a King and act like a King - unless material reality makes it impossible. A King is a King, regardless of his "ideals".

Hey, notice how all the Kings generally had the same ideals? Ya. I wonder why.

However through a study of history I belive man (western man) was able to control the material reality (by the later stages of the renisance) thus was only driven by ideas, theories and religious dogmas.

The fact that people believe in certain ideas, theories, and dogmas are caused by material conditions and are part of material reality.

For example, when you grow up in a home where the material reality is one where Christianity is constantly in the forefront, you will be more prone to believing that nonsense.

Simply said if I have everything I need, what is left to create are ways to control what I have.

All that statement really boils down to is that people develop technology.

The western man had everything they needed and looked at ways to centralize the power.

That's right. The whole civilization looked for ways to centralize power, but Africans didn't.

What is it with whites, then. Are they genetically predisposed to centralizing power? I sure hope not!

And why didn't (all) African societies centralize power? Again, let's look at Severian's explaination: they couldn't afford to!

In societies where a ruling class could be supported, it existed. Shaka, for example. His Impi warriors have cost me many a battle.

From that time on, the material conditions stopped being the driving force of history, at least for Western Europe.

So then it was ideals and not industrialization that created modern capitalism? Hmm.

That is why I contend that now we need to instill the ideals of communal life, of cooperation and shared intrest, because at this present time the material conditions are being driven by man.

You've still missed the big point. What causes people to be more likely to "like" certain ideals? What causes people to come up with certain ideas? Material reality.

Co-operation is a noun, not an ideal. Co-operation only requires people to have a common material interest. It happens every day. "Shared inerest"? How is that anything BUT material? Communal life isn't an ideal either. It's a set of experiences.

Furthermore the Marxist idea that material conditons will become as such that the proletariat will have no choice but to revolt, to rise up and fight, that assertion alone denotes a recgonition that man must reach a certain moral truth in order to act

The general idea behind that assertion is that things will deteriorate (materially, of course) to such a point that it will compell people, out of self-interest, to overthrow capitalism. I don't know what morality has to do with it.

without that moral compulsion, especially in todays modern world, and in the western world there would be no reason to fight.

I'll bet you my whole lousy paycheck that there is.

Material interst.

What other reason is there? I don't want to spend my whole life living as a wage-slave because it really sucks. Morality doesn't play a role in it.

If you happen to object to capitalism on moral grounds, I've gotta ask you, who defines what is and is not moral?

Capitalists have created a world of ideals to blind the people from the truth

Rest assured, people have been tricked by ideals long before capitalism. Take "divine right", for example.

if you work hard enough youll make a better life, a free market means a free existence, etc etc.

More and more, people aren't buying that crap. So, then, if most people don't want to life as wage-slaves forever (which most don't), they have two serious options: revolution or the lottery.

these ideals and assertions by capitalists need to be countered with the same type of idealism from socialists and communists.

Err.... I don't think so. We should show how those myths are definately not true. We should also make sure there is enough communist literature out there so people are aware of the communist option when they come to realize the truth about capitalism.

The capitalists, thesists, and imperialists have instilled in man a mindset that communism is "evil", how else are to fight that?

Well, there are a few responses to that.

The quickest one is that we should get a new name.

Another is a bit cooler, though. Tell me, why don't you see communism as "evil". Odds are, you looked at what communism actually was (either on your own or because somebody showed you, I know of both occurring), then used your powers of reasoning to come to the conclusion that communism is not, in fact, "evil" (if such a thing even exists).

So then, why are other people unable to come to the same conclusion given the same information? Are they somehow less capable of "reasoning" than you? Do you think they actually need to be decieved by "ideals" (which, by the way, were not the driving force behind Africa's communal lifestyle, as Severian explained) to become communists? I sure hope not.

How can we sway man to fight for liberation?

Explain the material benefits of living in a communist society (not being exploited and dehumanized, for example).

Someone once said on this post that the reason they want communism is because they dont like their life under capitalism

That was me ;)

since you have come to the conclusion that no true liberty or freedom is to be gained in a capitalist society, why cant others be told the same thing?

Those are totally material things. The working class doesn't have freedom in capitalism. They would in communism. Being part of the working class, that's one of the reasons I want to live in a communist society. Others can come to the same conclusions, and they don't need "ideals" to get there.

Why cant ideals drive change?

I really don't know, but history has shown us time and time again that they don't, so that's what we have to work with. Like it or not, it's reality.

Are my statements scattrered with idealism? Sure they are. But why is that bad?

Because it's impotent as a means of creating significant social change.