Taino natives, communism?

[Dominicana_1965]

I've been researching on the Tainos of the Caribbean. The indigenous Arawakan-speaking people who inhabited the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Cuba and other countries of the region (who the Spanish conquistadors virtually wiped out). As I was reading various sources I noticed that much of the agriculture (which is where they made advances on) was pretty much held in common. This was the similar situation with the means of productions, from trees to construct canoes to cotton and onwards...

There was certainly a hierarchical organization...which consisted of a provincial leader who was called a cacique. The cacique, from what I know didn't own the means of production but certainly had social privileges so this wouldn't identify class relations. Some of these privileges were having more wives, bigger house and receiving taxes for overlooking their provinces.

So if the Tainos didn't have classes (in the sense of owning the means of production) and a instrumental state would this be considered a communist society?

[PRC-UTE]

That corresponds roughly to what Marx called "Oriental Despotism". Peasant communes were taxed by a state in this system. The term fell out of favour for a time (it was seen as Eurocentric, borderline racist- but not nearly as offensive as Marx's articles on India for a New York journal), but was revived during the sixites: the anti-colonial struggles having made it relevant; it also helped to escape the parochial Stalinist stagist conception of history (which to give you fair warning, is broadly accepted by many of the posters on this forum).

However (just speculating here) I'd imagine their society was still closer to "primitive communism".

[Dros]

I don't know much about the people in question, but many if not most or all pre-irrigation societies had a lot of features of collective ownership. These modes of production are often referred to as either "Communalism" or "Primitive Communism" in the literature. This is because, as you say, there is a lot of collective ownership.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think that the migration of humans away from their geographic origins helped play a role in the development of isolated socioeconomic systems (European slave relations and feudalism, Asiatic MOP, etc.). Only capitalism has managed to become global.

[PRC-UTE]

I think that the migration of humans away from their geographic origins helped play a role in the development of isolated socioeconomic systems (European slave relations and feudalism, Asiatic MOP, etc.). Only capitalism has managed to become global.

But what do you think of the OP's question?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, I'm not at all familiar with pre-capitalist modes of production besides the Europe-slave mode and the "Asiatic" mode(s). :(

[RedStarOverChina]

That corresponds roughly to what Marx called "Oriental Despotism". Peasant communes were taxed by a state in this system. The term fell out of favour for a time (it was seen as Eurocentric, borderline racist- but not nearly as offensive as Marx's articles on India for a New York journal), but was revived during the sixites: the anti-colonial struggles having made it relevant; it also helped to escape the parochial Stalinist stagist conception of history (which to give you fair warning, is broadly accepted by many of the posters on this forum).



Hmm, no.

This is not Oriental Despotism because the state was not formed in these Carribean communities.

Indeed you were right to speculate that this is closer to "primitive communism" which Marx and Engels described.

We know that class and the state are products of the material conditions we live in, i.e., material wealth, environment, etc. Farming communities usually have developed or will eventually develope class and state apparatus. However, in the cases discovered in the Americas (Carribean, Amazon forest, ect), where there are a abundance of forests and unoccupied land, people tend to fail to develope class and the state apparatus for reasons associated with their environment.

[RedStarOverChina]

Just to add something, this is not the case of "collective ownership". The idea of property has not even been invented.

For example, the North American natives simply did not understand how people could "own" land. For them, it is the land that "owns" them, if anything.

[Niccolò Rossi]

To answer the OP's question, the mode of production of the Tainos is probably, due to a lack of more extensive information, one of Primitive Communism. The reason being that in such a society as the one described, surplus labour is appropriated collectively with no social divisions of labour between a class of labours and non-labours present.

The existence of a heirarchy is however one point that should be looked at more closely. Could the OP give more specific details on the role of the "cacique". Such a leader may indicate the existence of a state apparatus and a political sphere, thus invalidating it's claim to that of a primitive communist mode of production. It is however possible though that such a leader may not indicate as such and may only be a product of the ideology of such a people.


That corresponds roughly to what Marx called "Oriental Despotism".

Actually, "Oriental" or "Asiatic" Despotism is actually debatable as a mode of production. For example Barry Hindess and Paul Hirst argued in their Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production that such a mode of production is not compatible with Marxism at all.


Comrade, I'm not at all familiar with pre-capitalist modes of production besides the Europe-slave mode and the "Asiatic" mode(s).

You should pick up a copy of Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production by Barry Hindess and Paul Q. Hirst. I'm currently reading it and can say it is very informative as a purely theoretical work.

[PRC-UTE]

Actually, "Oriental" or "Asiatic" Despotism is actually debatable as a mode of production. For example Barry Hindess and Paul Hirst argued in their Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production that such a mode of production is not compatible with Marxism at all.

Yeah, I mentioned that- it was completely rejected from Marxist theory for some time even. Thanks, I'll check out that book if I ever have the time.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Taino society was divided into commoners (who did the agricultural labor) and nobles (who made objects, tools, and art). The Taino developed agriculture and grew many fruits and vegetables, but also hunted, fished, and gathered to supplement their harvests. The caciques were differently-ranking chiefs that presided over chiefdoms. They took advice from priests and the 'top' nobles, but they decided pretty much everything from whether to go to war to how much food to grow, how food was to be collected and distributed, etc. Around 1200 CE, the strongest chiefdoms began to be consolidated into political states.

So we can conclude that the Tainos lived in a form of "ancient society," which was born out of earlier primitive communism (which came to an end when the Tainos developed the ability to produce surplus, thus ushering in social stratification as some came to control more than others, etc.). There were some vestiges of primitive communism remaining, but every new society brings with it some things from the previous society.