The Smurfberry View of African History - How funny!

[Stormin Norman]

Since they won't let us into the history section to challenge their views, I thought I would have a little fun. The following was taken from the History forum and was authored by Draconian Drake.

"Everyone knows what communism is, right? Yeah. We all know what communism is. Wrapped up in one sentence, Communism is a classless, moneyless, society where the people share everything with each other, and work towards the common goal. Many people say that is has never existed. That statement is untrue. It has existed. It is dead now. Capitalism killed it.

Still don't know what I'm talking about? Well. Let's try something diffirent. You know this place?"

In the original post there exists a map of Africa here.

"Yeah. That's 'Africa'. It wasn't always a mass of land war torn by dictators. Communism existed there. Yes, Communism. A clasless and moneyless society. Each person in the tribe had some role that they would fufill. Gathering food, hunting, cooking, weaving; all examples of tasks that people would undergo. Everyone shared things with each other. They functioned as a collective, in a nearly peaceful society.

That was too good to last. While this was going on. Capitalism was at it's 'glorious' peak in Europe. Right. Apparently the leaders and rich kings of other nations decided that they needed a better way to 'expand' their work force, and production speed. What better place to visit than Africa? Well, they visited Africa. But they didn't exchange cultures there or learn. They enslaved them. The collective was broken up; and the workers of the collectives were sent back to Europe and America, which had also been stripped of it's recources and native people.

So there you have it....
Communism was murdured."

********************************************
-Would any capitalist care to take this on, or should I field this one?
-Let the games begin
********************************************

[Stormin Norman]

I guess since I am the only capitalist here it is up to me.

Many times I hear this idea proposed by ignorant, misguided communists. That is, the idea tribal people somehow followed communist edict. This is truly ridiculous since the culture of primitive peoples lacked many of the necessary ingredients for actual communism. A proposal of this kind only demonstrates the fact that the person propounding such ignorance knows very little regarding communist ideology. People who say this have an idea that communism is actually some pipe-dream that they themselves created.

In order for communism to exist certain measures must be taken, and certain conditions must already exist. One of the conditions is that of an industrial economy. In case some of you are unaware I will lay out the tens recomendations made by Marx for a communist society.
They follow:

1.)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.)A heavily progressive or graduated income tax.

3.)Abolition of all right to inheritance.

4.)Confiscation of property from all emigrants and rebels.

5.)Centralization of credit in banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.)Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7.)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.)Equal obligation for all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of all distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10.)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, ect...

As you can see complex economic, political, educational, agricultural, and industrial systems are a prerequisite for the implementation of communism. To claim the tribal culture followed Marxist doctorine simply because they did not have class or money systems in place is false.

Aside from that, there are a few other problems with this thinking, namely the fact that a system of trade and hierarchal structure did exist in primitive people. I believe many of the African peoples lived under chiefdoms. The most powerful men were those with the best hunting skills and held tremendous influence amongst the other tribal members. Evidence of trade networks and system of exchange have also been noted by anthropologists.

The way Drake tries to attribute a smurfberry culture free of the things he despises is laughable. War existed, and remains one of the reasons why the Europeans were able to tap Africa as a source for slaves. The fighting these people were engaged in with themselves gave slave traders an excellent way of exploiting such differences. Many of the slaves were brought to market by way of rivaling factions within the African people.

Another example of Drakes misconception about African people is the idea that the Europeans were the only ones guilty of conquest. It is well documented that the Moores did quite a bit of that themselves. If I remember right the Moores were African.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 6:34 am on Aug. 12, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Stay the fuck away from my ancestors history asshole...nah I'm just playin wit you.

Who the hell said Tribal societies were communist?

Thats some straight bullshit.

They had a class society. Not to mention most people grew food for themselves not toher people.

Also they did buy things with money.

It would have been tight if they were but we know they werent

[President Dick Nixon]

Early tribal societies and communism show a similar correlation. A general tendency to enslave your own kind.

[Capitalist Imperial]

SN, excellent

Nixon, hilarious

[Imperial Guardian]

tribal societies communist?
Hmmmm.
Funny. I thought communism was supposed to be 'revolution'. But if tribal societies were communist, wouldn't communism then be a 'devolution' rather than a 'revolution'? Bcos it's reverting back to tribal societies.

Also, a main excuse i've heard from communists about why their system failed, is ''capitalism didn't develop enough.'' .....If this were true, then how can they claim that tribal societies were communist? Unless they are caliming that capitalism existed before tribes.

Sorry if this sounds stupid, but i'm new here.
I'm here to learn, and give an opinion.

[vox]

Jesus, do I always have to spoon feed you guys?

From marxists.org:

Primitive communism: The most ancient socio-economic formation of human society which existed until the emergence of class society.

Primitive human families were the center of their economic, religious and other activities, while symbiotic with the community as a whole. Primitive communism attained its peak of organizational development in the clan system, where productive relations were based on collective ownership of the means of production, while existing alongside of personal property (weapons, household articles, clothing, etc.).

In the old communistic household, which comprised many couples and their children, the task entrusted to the women of managing the household was as much a public and socially necessary industry as the procuring of food by the men. With the patriarchal family [after primitive communism], and still more with the single monogamous family, a change came. Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production

[Imperial Guardian]

''With the patriarchal family [after primitive communism]''

What evidence is there that patriarchy came after this so-called 'prmitive communism'?
I would've thought patriarchy would have existed since pre-historic humans, simply because of the physical dominance man has over woman.
But i could be wrong.

[vox]

I think that the answer is in what I quoted: "In the old communistic household, which comprised many couples and their children, the task entrusted to the women of managing the household was as much a public and socially necessary industry as the procuring of food by the men." But then, "Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production."

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from vox on 2:10 am on Aug. 12, 2002
Jesus, do I always have to spoon feed you guys?

From marxists.org:

Primitive communism: The most ancient socio-economic formation of human society which existed until the emergence of class society.

Primitive human families were the center of their economic, religious and other activities, while symbiotic with the community as a whole. Primitive communism attained its peak of organizational development in the clan system, where productive relations were based on collective ownership of the means of production, while existing alongside of personal property (weapons, household articles, clothing, etc.).

In the old communistic household, which comprised many couples and their children, the task entrusted to the women of managing the household was as much a public and socially necessary industry as the procuring of food by the men. With the patriarchal family [after primitive communism], and still more with the single monogamous family, a change came. Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production



I find the label of "primitive communism" flawed even by that definition.

One cannot discuss the economic ideologies of either capitalism or communism until labor becomes a commodity. This does not occur until humanity moves from hunter-gatherer nomadic existence to agricultural sustinence. Any reference to capitalism or communism in hunter/gatherer tribes, primitive or not, is a misnomer, as the theory of labor as a commodity (the cornerstone of modern economics) has yet to evolve.

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 3:17 am on Aug. 12, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

Quote: from vox on 2:10 am on Aug. 12, 2002
Jesus, do I always have to spoon feed you guys?

From marxists.org:

Primitive communism: The most ancient socio-economic formation of human society which existed until the emergence of class society.

Primitive human families were the center of their economic, religious and other activities, while symbiotic with the community as a whole. Primitive communism attained its peak of organizational development in the clan system, where productive relations were based on collective ownership of the means of production, while existing alongside of personal property (weapons, household articles, clothing, etc.).

In the old communistic household, which comprised many couples and their children, the task entrusted to the women of managing the household was as much a public and socially necessary industry as the procuring of food by the men. With the patriarchal family [after primitive communism], and still more with the single monogamous family, a change came. Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production

Nice try. I know leftist love to make up terms and distort language to suite their purposes, but that explanation doesn't fly. I tend to see the world as it is, rather than the way it ought to be. This is yet another difference between communists and capitalists. However, I do look at the world and try to mold it to fit what I would call the ideal situation. In my pursuit I never make an attempt to redefine history or reality.

[vox]

"One cannot discuss the economic ideologies of either capitalism or communism until labor becomes a commodity."

But that's not what Marx and Engels said. I think CI may be placing far too much attachment on the word "communism" and, because of this, cannot see the very different definition of "primitive communism" that was presented here.

If one is going to argue against a philosophy, one should understand the philosophy and the terms it uses. Otherwise, one is rather left behind, isn't one?

vox

[vox]

SN's groundless response is, obviously, representative of a complete misunderstanding of Marx. I wonder why he bothers when it is so painfully clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

As Eleanor Burke wrote: Primitive communism "refers to the collective right to basic resources, the absence of hereditary status or authoritarian rule, and the egalitarian relationships that preceded exploitation and economic stratification in human history."

How is this difficult to understand? SN wrote exactly NOTHING to contradict this.

vox

[Stormin Norman]

"I think CI may be placing far too much attachment on the word "communism" and, because of this, cannot see the very different definition of "primitive communism" that was presented here."

-Playing with language again Vox?

[vox]

"Playing with language again Vox?"

Nope, I just understand language. That's not a claim you can make.

SN, do you really not know that Marx talked about something he called primitive communism? Seriously, don't you know that?

vox

[Stormin Norman]

Yes, Vox, I have heard of this word before. I suppose what I should have said is that Marx took a pre-existing condition that he liked, and attributed it with his own label. He is the man who originally defined the language to suit his needs, and Vox was all too quick to follow him in his obvious folly. Is that better?

[vox]

"He is the man who originally defined the language to suit his needs, and Vox was all too quick to follow him in his obvious folly."

Okay, how would SN describe it?

More importantly, would SN change any of Marx's conclusions or would he simply change the nomenclature?

The idiocy of the right seems to know no bounds.

vox

[Stormin Norman]

Are you calling me an idiot Vox?

Regardless, I will have to get back to you with my answer to this question. It is a fair question. This will have to be lefft till tomorrow, since my girlfriend is complaining about how she needs to use the computer.

Its been fun.

[prozak]

The distinctions of "communism" and "capitalism" are a political joke.

[Stormin Norman]

Vox,

Indigenous cultures are far too diverse to lump them into one category. All of them have developed a mode of living that best suits their needs. Some tribes own everything collectively, others believe individual ownership is the best method. If you are looking at ancient cultures you will find evidence of primitive empires like that of the Incas or Mayans, or you will find groups small enough to use a system of shared resources. In some cases the culture of the tribe was dominated by a matriarch, some were dominated by a patriarch. The methods of deriving resources for countless cultures all have very distinct differences. This goes for their primitive economies as well. To me it seems ridiculous to use macroscopic economic principles to describe primitive cultures. When Marx thought up the term primitive culture it was apparent that he did not study these groups independently, as he tried to simply lump them into one category, the one he needed to promote his ideals. Claiming these cultures all used the same methods of living and socializing is an ignorant notion. I feel that is what Marx tried to do when he labeled them with his "primitive communist" classification.

However, probably the only thing I will ever agree with Marx about is the notion that the global economy has a way of rendering these diverse and primitive cultures extinct. As technology and products spread to the far reaches of the globe, many times the long standing cultures that have existed prior to the introduction of certain ideas suffer as a result. Hunter gathering cultures are forced to take on a system of pastueralization, as well as being banned from hunting on lands that have provided them with food for generations.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 3:30 am on Aug. 14, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from President Dick Nixon on 11:26 pm on Aug. 11, 2002
Early tribal societies and communism show a similar correlation. A general tendency to enslave your own kind.


shut the fuck up.

First of all alot of teh slaves of individual ordinary people became part of the family and married into it.

Not to mention they weren't degraded the same way this country did to them.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from vox on 2:10 am on Aug. 12, 2002
Jesus, do I always have to spoon feed you guys?

From marxists.org:

Primitive communism: The most ancient socio-economic formation of human society which existed until the emergence of class society.

Primitive human families were the center of their economic, religious and other activities, while symbiotic with the community as a whole. Primitive communism attained its peak of organizational development in the clan system, where productive relations were based on collective ownership of the means of production, while existing alongside of personal property (weapons, household articles, clothing, etc.).

In the old communistic household, which comprised many couples and their children, the task entrusted to the women of managing the household was as much a public and socially necessary industry as the procuring of food by the men. With the patriarchal family [after primitive communism], and still more with the single monogamous family, a change came. Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production



It is just as SN has indicated above. The historical evolution of man has seen countless hierarchael and economic distribution systems, and no one theory can define their nature, as this theory of "primitive communism" proposes to do.

While I don't doubtthat some primitive cultures practiced rthis type of system, one can hardly accept that this was an all-encompasing cultural phenomenon.

Spoon-feed, vox? Hardly. Try force feed. Fortunately, the rightists as well as anyone with an iota of common sense are not hungry.

[vox]

"The historical evolution of man has seen countless hierarchael and economic distribution systems, and no one theory can define their nature, as this theory of "primitive communism" proposes to do."

It's easy to say one is right when one lies about a theory, as CI does above. I suggest that CI does not understand the context of this theory in history, nor in the works of Marx.

*yawn*

vox

[Stormin Norman]

Since I was digging around in the archives, I thought I would bring this back up just to say this; "Ah, the good old days."

Whatever happened to Vox? Does anyone know? Do you know dyermaker?

[Anonymous]

I here she left. But wether it was for good I don't know.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 11:37 pm on Jan. 3, 2003)

[Umoja]

If Communism is the source of the verbal problems then use the word "Socialism" it's not generally accepted as one general philosophy laid out by one person. Many indigenious people practiced a form of watered down Socialism. Not all African peoples did. Songhai, Mali, Moorish (Berber), and numerous other peoples didn't practice Socialism though. But it was generally common for most indigenious peoples not to have such a strong sense of greed in their mindset.

[Xvall]

Many tribal societies were communistic. And I still believe that. I see nothing to debate. Of course they weren't actually communist societies, as Marx wasn't born until way after those societies were enslaved so they can work for royal kings and rich people.

[Panamarisen]

I think it´s at least DISGUSTING how some cappies talk about African people as being "primitive", which they also too usually make it extensive to any indigenous people all over the world. Seems they just don´t understand there are a lot of scales in the human perception of what should it be their goals. They pretend THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE should struggle for the capitalistic (=foolish) idea of having material goods, the more, the better..., instead of trying to understand A LOT OF PEOPLE, YESTERDAY AND TODAY aim for different -and much more valuable- goals.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[synthesis]

Er, do I know?

I'm not sure exactly how I figure into this equation :confused:

[Umoja]

I just figured that America has made them racist, so I won't hold it against them to much, as long as they aren't part of the "Original Boyz in da 'hood" in the KKK, then I don't care.

[RedComrade]

In place of what I'm sure you see as Marx's verbal footisie im sur ud rather wed remove the words from the vocabulary. Itd be great just like 1984 ! since all those dumb terms like socialism and equality are bringing negative attention to our system of profit over ppl lets claim ther innefficeint and remove them from evry1s vocab newspeak for every1! Yippy commies are so dumb they use all those big words and it confuses me damn them!

[j]

I think the use of "primitive" is not racist in the context of something like primitive communism used in reference to the first type of societies on earth. Primitive communism was not a theory nor was it something that people thoughtfully put into place. It is generally accepted that many cultures used primitive communism because it was what was needed to survive.

People need to realize that the idea of communes and community living is not the brainchild of Marx. Marx merely took into account historical information before formulating his philosophy and calling it "communism." Now when we speak of communism it is in relation to Marx. However, we need to understand that communistic living was not the invention of Marx. Marx labeled it and defined it but did not create it. Therefore, trying to apply Marx's principles to primitive communism is a faulty interpretation.

I also feel that we can not romanticize the hunter gatherer society. I hate when I see posters that proclaim "The Ten Indian Commandments" as if all American Indians taught and believed the same things. This is the mistake many leftists make in romanticizing Native American and pre-colonial Africa. The cultures were very different and had different values and mores. Although this is not to say that there were not universal values across the world. I recently taught a unit about folk tales from around the world and had my students comapre and contrast the morals learned and had them search for universal values. There ARE universal values but we can not assume that all cultures were fair,equitable, and just. In fact, many primitive cultures were NOT.

The quote was that capitalism killed communism. That is not wholly correct. The chiefdom and the creation of a paramount chief killed primitive communism. Fedual society eventually killed the chiefdom. Capitalism eventually killed feudelism. And if you believe in cycles, primitve communism will kill capitalism. That is because the US is going to ruin modern society and we will once again have to become hunter gatherers.

j

[Panamarisen]

In my last post I was not talking about primitive communism, but about the too usual expression "primitive cultures": this idea is the one that I don´t agree with (except if we are regarding to the first ages of Homo sapiens). What Western civilization considers primitive when talking about indigenous/aboriginal people of today is a wrong idea, including the supposed superiority that it carries along. And they still consider those indigenous people as primitive because they just don´t share their same goals and purposes of life on Earth. If they are not technologically advanced enough, then they are "primitive" (!!!).

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Umoja]

"Things Fall Apart" is a good look at an Ebo tribe just before the British arrived, and it isn't perfect, and it has it's problems, but it seems better then the actual colonization.