Native American Communism - Why it needs to be given less re

[Tkinter1]

It comes up time and time again. The 'Native American communism' attack. Yes they did have a form of communism. But look at their numbers and how simple their life was. Not only were there tribes small, but their jobs were limited as well. In all there must be hunters,gatherers,and craftsman. Now they are all willing to work for each other, because they all know each other in some way. They all dance together, they trust each other, they want to work with each other, becuase they are all a family. When you have several million people, and several thousand different cultures in a country, how can you expect communism to work?

And they had tribal wars as well. Do you think that a Cherokee would want to work with a Sechoya if they are constantly quarreling.



(Edited by Tkinter1 at 5:46 am on Nov. 9, 2002)

[KickMcCann]

good point.
The only way their form of communism would work is if the entire structure of human civilization were to collapse, leaving all people to go back to tribal living. I'm sure the Native Americans lived a good life, with the exception of all the wars they had, but I doubt the majority of people would be interested in reverting back to tribal life, or communism in general. People like electricity, cars, and airplanes. Tough luck I guess.

[Sol]

You're absolutely right about this one, I think. Native American culture is so far from modern day society that using it as evidence that communism can work is ludicrous.

Its like saying 'Look at Russia! Look at China! At Korea! Socialism is evil!'

[Stormin Norman]

The claim that Native Americans were communists is simply not true. Vast, intricate trade networks were established by them, as well as a medium of exchange. Let us not forget about the Hopewell, Incas, and Aztecs that had extensive empires. Chaco Canyon, New Mexico was a trade center existing for commerce between Indians in South America and North America. Their systems of trade was incredibly advanced. There are many historical documents written by explorers and conquerers who marvelled at its sophistication. By buying into the idea that the Natives were a bunch of simple minded fools with no economic prowess, you are buying into the same mentality that allowed for their extermination.

[canikickit]

you are buying into the same mentality that allowed for their extermination.

The mentality was one of racism.
Manifest Destiny; "We are the freest people in the world, we have to kill everyone on this continent".

I presume that is what you are getting at.

[Tkinter1]

Norm,

I was refering to the simple American natives, where tribes populations didn't exceed like 2,000.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 7:06 pm on Nov. 9, 2002)

[redstar2000]

TK1, you must know some really strange "communists". I've never heard ANYONE, communist or otherwise, argue that primitive hunter-gatherer communism "proves" that modern communism would "work".

Indeed, I don't think you can "prove" any social system works in advance. Did people in late antiquity argue whether or not feudalism would "work"?

[Tkinter1]

"TK1, you must know some really strange "communists". I've never heard ANYONE, communist or otherwise, argue that primitive hunter-gatherer communism "proves" that modern communism would "work"."

Ive seen it on this board.

"Indeed, I don't think you can "prove" any social system works in advance."

We can come damn close to proving it.

[Jaha]

one thing to note is the tribal mentality of the natives. the loyalties and beliefs were more appropriate than the mentality of a capitalist.

if i were to use native americans as proof of communism it would be to show that people can have a non-capitalist mentality. to show that people can choose whether they will be greedy or if they will help the common cause.

[Som]

I've used the native american arguement a few times, though never as proof that communism works.

I've always used it to show that human nature is at the very least a variable, and that they were a society of people that weren't inherently greedy and had no concept of land ownership.

It's not showing that it works, its merely an example that human nature is not inherently greedy, as in a capitalist society.

[Tkinter1]

"It's not showing that it works, its merely an example that human nature is not inherently greedy, as in a capitalist society."

Are you saying that everyone in a capitalist society is inherently greedy? I hate it when people say this.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 3:16 am on Nov. 10, 2002)

[Som]

no, i was just saying, or meant to say, that capitalism emphasizes greed.

Because of this a lot of people associate that greed with human nature, something i disagree with.

[peaccenicked]

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pen-l/jan98/0027.html

[Valkyrie]

ROARRRRRRRRRRRrrr! I am part Native American - Mohawk of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. There's less than a million of the native Inhabitants left in North America. Does it matter? The blood runs through many veins.

[Panamarisen]

Native Americans -if we are only refering to the ones in the U$- actually lived in a society that, TODAY, we could consider as communist: the individual, whatever his "purpose" or job within the community, was always considered inherently as part of it, and that he would help improve the welfare of that community. The individual was "protected" inside the community, was nourished by it, and he, at the same time contributed to its development.
The fact that they organised themselves in small human groups indeed was tactically very profitable for them, and is a proof of their social and political cleverness. Today we can be millions of people, but if we ever organize like they did, things could really improve for all.

And, of course, having economical tradings and practicing commerce doesn´t mean that Natives have anything to do with today´s -wild- Capitalism.

[Panamarisen]

Native Americans -if we are only refering to the ones in the U$- actually lived in a society that, TODAY, we could consider as communist: the individual, whatever his "purpose" or job within the community, was always considered inherently as part of it, and that he would help improve the welfare of that community. The individual was "protected" inside the community, was nourished by it, and he, at the same time contributed to its development.
The fact that they organised themselves in small human groups indeed was tactically very profitable for them, and is a proof of their social and political cleverness. Today we can be millions of people, but if we ever organize like they did, things could really improve for all.

And, of course, having economical tradings and practicing commerce doesn´t mean that Natives have anything to do with today´s -wild- Capitalism.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[wittyleftistnamehere]

okay. Native American communism is used as a reference often, as are other hunter gatherer tribes (there are ones all over the world, the Kung is used often). A gift economy of sorts was in place. Those able to secure food did, those who were to young or old did not. Also, there was no concept of absolute ownership; goods were constantly being exchanged back and forth, so much that ownership itself was communal. For example, joe would trade johnny a pair of mocassins for water bag, johnny would trade jimmy a water bag for a bow and arrow, etc. I could go on about how they exmplified communism.

Now concerning wars and the viability of such a system: People are animals, and the laws that apply to animals apply to people as well.

Some of these ideas are borrowed from the ISHMAEL series by Daniel quinn, 3 incredibly good books i would very highly recommend.

All animals are territorial. Each animal claims as much territory as it needs (which is based upon food and mates, not upon acreage). An animal will defend this territory as to ensure it is well represented in the breeding pool.

It is very well known that those infringing upon a territory tend to defend, those guarding territory tend to attack. Not always, but it is the rule.

Native Americans were embroiled in a constant state of low level warfare. A random attack here, an unprovoked raid here. Many times the confrontations were non violent. For example, among the navajo and other tribes, "attacks" were little more than games of tag. The winner was the one who could touch an opposing tribesmen and then get all the way back home without being touched back. There were "real" wars, but never full-scale warfare as seen in civilization. The point was not to gain land or slaves, each tribe behaved like a wild animal, taking in a territory large enough to support its inhabitants. The point was one of tribal identity.

Each tribes customs were its cultural identity. It is what seperated it from all other tribes. If all tribes assimilated and became one homogenous omni tribe, everyone would be left without any sense of identity. By engaging in light skirmishes with the enemy, each tribe kept its identity. All animals fight. Human beings are no different.

Those living in tribal "communist" communities are notably more content than those constrained by any kind of non autonomous government. Communal living is a human archtype. Jung elaborated on this greatly in his last book.

Why do you think there are so many gangs and cults and subcultures and other artificial constructions that promise to be provide family? Why are there so many people willing to give up part of thier individuality to be accepted and loved and cared for? Because this is what people have always been doing.

Up until a few thousand years ago, all people lived tribally. Or lived in "communism" if you want to be technical about it. It is ridiculous to assume it couldn't happen when the real truth is it has to happen. We broke from a pattern that lasted a million years, and we could barely last 4,000 years. We should all realize what we are doing isn't working, and we should go back to what worked since the beginning of human history.

I don't think we could immediately go into such a state of being, such an idea is absurd. However, to acknowledge that such a thing is possible is the first step we need in getting there.

[Guest]

who really cares? Lifes just going to go on and we're all going to die. Shouldn't we look out for ourselves now? You commies are a little too preachy for me, I mean whos to say whats virtuous anyway. Whos to say greed's bad, if no cultures are superior to another one doesn't that contradict your idea that american capitalism is inferior to whatever socialism?

Relativism just confuses everything. It sucks.

[Tkinter1]

Until the world can become united WILLINGLY as one big family, I dont think we'll see communism working properly. even if we do retrovert to tribal practices.

[Guest]

You all talk about a "working system", but none of you have actually given a definition of what that is. Just what kind of attributes must a system have in order to be classified a "working system" as opposed to one that doesn't work?

Also, the example of the Native American tribes is only used to thwart the argument that communism can't work because people are inherently "greedy". It simply proves that people aren't in fact born greedy. Greed is an acquired attribute, not an inherent one.

[Panamarisen]

The Native Americans´communism was a system that worked because it cared for ALL its individuals in a similar way, indeed the best way, as it guaranteed nourishment, protection, time for leisure and time for working, etc.
Besides, we have to remember that their idea of "working" got nothing to do with ours: it was for them as "natural" as eating, sleeping, hunting or playing, it was just another part or dimension of everyday living, not worse or better than any other, not more or less important.
Gredd, selfishness, solidarity, anger, etc., are all characters that define the human being. Most -if not all- of them are necessary for the individual´s survival. Only that we must evaluate in which proportion we are standing on each one of them, because it could have negative consequences for us and/or the community if not managed properly.
There are cultural/social systems that are actually superior to others if we are considering that what makes it superior is the guarantee that the people enjoy a level of welfare good enough and proportionally equal for all their individuals when living under that kind of system.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Tkinter1]

"You all talk about a "working system", but none of you have actually given a definition of what that is. Just what kind of attributes must a system have in order to be classified a "working system" as opposed to one that doesn't work?"

I can't sit here and define what a working system is. But the ideas of Communism would not be implemented properly with the large diverse culture of today. The world can not yet recognize itself as 'one', and thus can not work as 'one'. It will be quite some time before we can, and by that time you won't need a revolution.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 10:08 pm on Nov. 12, 2002)

[Jaha]

Quote: from Guest on 8:44 am on Nov. 12, 2002
You all talk about a "working system", but none of you have actually given a definition of what that is. Just what kind of attributes must a system have in order to be classified a "working system" as opposed to one that doesn't work?

mr. anonymous, i'll give you this one. generally, speaking, a "working" system is one that can sustain itself. it works. capitalism works. feudalism works. but, those systems let people die. the political leaders of these systems say, "life is important, except yours." people die, and the rest dont care.

yeah, it works, but do you really want it?


Also, the example of the Native American tribes is only used to thwart the argument that communism can't work because people are inherently "greedy". It simply proves that people aren't in fact born greedy. Greed is an acquired attribute, not an inherent one.


greed is the single biggest reason communism hasnt worked yet. therefore, eliminate the greed, and communism is practically up and running.