Results 1 to 10 of 10
Primitive Communism
Capitalists like to say Communism was an idea of Karl Marx but Communism did exist before Marx in the form of Primitive Communism Classless Societies ?
From what I remember from my high school world history class, most of the first societies had something akin to monarchies, and before then it was probably whoever was the strongest who was in charge, and before communities developed it was Anarchy, but not intentional Anarchy.
Last edited by Johnny Kerosene; 26th April 2011 at 03:01. Reason: fixing a typo
the economic process goes like this (from a marxist point of view): primitive socialism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism
Don't ask: What would Jesus do? Ask: What would Zizek do?
I'm pretty sure our old friend Engels popularised this one.
Primitive communism just describes a phase of of human history. Marx and Engels believed that as soon as man started changing nature (Engels saying that as soon as man made tools), then wham! Humanity!. Anyway, primitive communism just means that the means of production were all held in common because population density and technology didn't allow for a division of labour etc etc etc. These people, nor did any one until Marx and Engels, actually said "Hey, we're primitive communist!".
And I think that causal "primitive socialism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism" is rather crude.
Since when was "society" something that emerged only with a well-established agricultural system?
Anyway, monarchy was an institution that emerged out of an existing class structure, not something which emerged ex nihilo. To the extent that it can be defined consistently, it was the emerging tribute-harvesting class formally constituting itself as something approximating a state. (Feel free to correct me on this one, though, because I could well be wrong!)
Actually, primitive hunter-gatherer societies tend to revolve around what is called an "adhocracy", with the group deferring to the most able member in any given situation, e.g. the best hunter while hunting. "Might makes right" only emerges later, with the production of a significant enough surplus to form the basis of a primitive tributary society, something which usually- although not necessarily- demands the emergence of a more stable lifestyle based in agriculture or pastoralism.
Communities pre-date humanity. All apes are social creatures, and there's no reason to think that we're descended from some exception.
Not really. Even at its most simple, it goes Primitive Communism, Antique OR Asiatic OR Germanic (OR Slavonic, when Marx remembers it), Feudal, Capitalist, [Socialist/Lower Communist,] Communist, and that is still very far from ideal (in particular, the "Asiatic" mode has been notoriously controversial). The only universal system of "stages" that can really be suggested is Primitive Communist, Simple Commodity Production, Generalised Commodity Production, Communism, and the middle two allow a variety of modes of production within their terms.
(Edit: Actually, I'm going to have to ask if some of the more educated posters here can help me: what exactly is the "Slavonic mode of production"? What I've read of Marx only ever seems to mention it in passing, and to the extent that I've seen it elaborated up, it seems to be a tribute-based mode like Marx's original description of the Asiatic mode, but without an urbanised ruling class? Is that anywhere close to the mark?)
Last edited by Tim Finnegan; 26th April 2011 at 04:19.
There were many different systems before feudalism, some very democratic, some not.
Hopefully this doesn't begin to derail the thread, but what exactly is meant by the generalization of commodity production (as opposed to "simple" commodity production)? Does it mean that all (or at least the vast majority) of goods are produced with the intention of selling them on the market (as opposed to e.g. as you mentioned earlier in your post, for tribute/tax [for monarchs, lords and whateverthefuck]) or have I got the complete wrong idea?
That's about it, yeah.
Generalized commodity production is when an organized group of people produce goods as in a factory, mill, or plant. Simple commodity production is when a single craftsmen produces goods, such as in medieval days.
No it isn't. It is, as Autonómia said, when society progresses from commodity production being a minority-time occupation of the majority and a majority-time occupation of a minority (i.e. a situation in which most people produce commodities only as a surplus, and in which only a minority produce them professionally as craftsmen), to one in which commodity production becomes the majority-time occupation of the majority of people (even if the production in question will, under capitalism, simply take the form of surviving in such a manner as to be able to continue selling one's labour power). It's a characteristic of a mode of production, and therefore society-wide, not a characteristic of any given centre of production. They had factories in the Medieval period, after all, and they were a millenia-old concept even by then.
