Talk:Primitive communism

message: The article currently states that primitive communism has been studied by Bronislaw Malinowski and Marcel Mauss. But Malinowski explicitly attacks the idea of primitive communism in Argonauts of the Western Pacific, just as he attacks "economic man". Marcel Mauss also seems inappropiate, since he primarily studied gift exchange, and his characterizations do not seem to fit the bill. I cannot comment on Mead, but this line seems misleading and innapropiate and I will remove it. Nik323 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent Studies

message: "Because society produced a surplus of food, there was the opportunity for private ownership and slavery, with the inequality that it entailed. In addition, since food production no longer required everyone's full-time attention, a portion of the population was freed up for other activities, such as manufacturing, culture, philosophy, and science. This stratification is said to lead to the development of social classes."
Or can anyone give a good and rellevant source for this? (I doubt that)
I will remove this part soon if noone can motivate it...
Is it factual anyway? It's likely that stone age societies had priests and chiefs who got more than an equal share of mammoth meat in exchange for talking to the Big Sky Fella or leading the charge against the tribe in the next valley. Primitive communism is a nice theory but unproven.Vortinax (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with those who say that whether it is factual or not is beside the point. It is a fact that Marx and Engels and other early communists embraced this idea, and thats the point. Presently, it is only the introductory quote that makes this clear, the rest of the article proceeds as if it were proven fact, and this should be changed. Then we can have a battleground section that discusses the factual accuracy, pro and con, highly referenced, of course. PAR (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Hunter gatherer societies do not, in fact, have hierarchies in the sense you are describing. It is one of the hallmarks of these groups worldwide. The only example of evidence for a priestly caste or hereditary rule in hunter gatherer societies has been found in the Amazon rainforest, among groups that we now know (from archaeological evidence) used to live in large agricultural societies before the devastations caused by European diseases. In those cases the current situation is a remnant from a former agricultural societal state.  --129.11.13.73 (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

text: If Vortinax had pondered the consequences of his proposal, he might already have seen the problem: What would a priest or chief do with his enlarged share of meat? The point is that in a primitive society like this, you can only consume as much as everyone else, and you cannot store food for very long, so accumulating possessions is impossible and pointless, and the "more than an equal share of mammoth meat" would be useless. Obviously he has no concept of how a truly primitive (hunter-gatherer) society works and therefore anachronistically conflates his attempted portrayal of one such society with non-primitive (non-hunter-gatherer) societies, employing concepts alien to the one but familiar from the other. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine - These are all statements that are unreferenced. With references, they could go into a section outlining possibly conflicting, published points of view on the subject. They should be published results from anthropological or sociological scientists, not propaganda tracts from one side or the other. PAR (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section Hunter-gatherer#Social and economic structure is referenced and does support the general idea. It is true that I was overgeneralising a bit. Hunter-gatherer societies are all different, and there are exceptions to seemingly almost every rule. For example, the Jomon of Japan were essentially hunter-gatherers, not agriculturists, but they were sedentary and even had pottery. The exceptional fertility of the Japanese archipelago is the reason why they could afford to be sedentary despite not practicing agriculture (or only in a rudimentary form). Conceivably, such a society need not be as egalitarian as a more typical foraging society. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "What would a priest or chief do with his enlarged share of meat?"  Eat it.  You are the one who is not pondering consequences.  People living in hunter gatherer societies were almost constantly impoverished, so if someone was able to acquire a greater share of food, they would use it.  You also seem to forget that some people are more skilled at hunting or tracking or foraging than others, so even if they didn't get more material possessions, they still had power over others, therefore indicating a hierarchy, by definition.  Their number one concern was survival, not egalitarianism.  Therefore The idea that hunter-gatherers were communistic and stateless is clearly false, based on simple logic.174.73.5.74 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Still not factual

message: Marxism quizm: What was exactly described in Marx works: primitive communism or primitive socialism? Mikkalai 07:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Primitive communism - because this system involved no social classes, no private property and no state, thus fitting the description of communism rather than socialism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Primitive commmunism

message: I merged this page w Primitivism. See Talk:Primitivism. Cheers,  12:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I unmerged it, because these are two related but distinguishable concepts.  Kev 00:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Sam's antics are nothing if not amusing.  He has a history of attempts to delete content and skew articles written about anarchism, the anarchism, libertarian socialism, and anarcho-capitalism talk pages speak for themselves.  He then comes to the primitivism page and attempts to conflate it with another page that is related in subject matter but conceptually distinct.  He offers -no- arguments for this, asks no questions, simply makes the delcaration that he has done this.  Then, when he finds his attempts reverted, he instantly cries foul, "No one gave a reason for this!" and lists the page on request for comment.  Did he try to discuss this beforehand, did he try to discuss it after his newest crusade was reverted and before creating a request for comment page?  No and nope, but he found plenty of time to complain when his unilateral behavior didn't net the results he sought.  Very consistent with Sam's history of trying to represent himself as following wikipedia form while doing his very best to undermine its process.  Kev 14:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This article is not (nor is Wikipedia as a whole) necessarily about determining what is true. This particular article is about Marx & Engels' views of what they called "primitive communism." Whether such a state of being ever existed, or whether they accurately described it, if it did exist, is immaterial. The Almagest article doesn't argue with Ptolemy's conclusions, it merely describes them. That's the proper role of an encyclopedia regarding historical subjects.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you that Wikipedia is not about determining what is true but rather present ideas, concepts, events, etcetera in a true manner. However this particular article is at the moment completely wrong. The Almagest article you yourself point to is a very good article because it is very clear from start to finish that it is a book and it presents the contents of that book. In this article the introduction is good, because the citation from the reference hits the nail on the head (e.g. it's an idea by this person and this is what he believes by it). However it then goes on to say that "The model of primitive communism applies to early human societies" which to me (and anyone) sounds like a fact statement that the concept dreamed up by this man actually is a historic fact. Reality is that we don't have any real idea about how life and society was in these very, very early human groups. Andersrask1977 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the "not factual" whiners 

message: "Moreover, any sharing of food, clothes, etc. is likely to have been voluntary in pre-agrarian societies which is also in conflict with communism's mandated sharing."
Interpretations of this line range from factually inaccurate to completely meaningless (What is "mandated sharing"?). It seems to be a poor depiction of (non-primitive) communism, and has no citation on it. Enigmocracy (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Voluntary" v "Mandated" sharing 

message: *Do not merge - Article is sufficiently sourced to provide a reasonably detailed stand-alone article for this notable concept. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the articles should remain separate.  I've seen the term even outside of Marxist literature, which shows that proper coverage of the topic would require going beyond Marxism. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge (2012) 

message: The german Wikipedia-article about "Urkommunismus" is a real mess..... because the German Wikipedia is controlled by counterrevolutionaries bourgeois capitalist Wikipedia administrators which try to block each guy which is not in their own opinion, they want to deny the Urcommunism and don't even know the excavations about Chatal Hüyük by Prof. James Mellaart, Naomi Hamilton, Mehmet Özdogan and Prof. Ian Hodder. Is there someone here which will take care of this little problem and someone who speak german?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.151.14.153 (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The german article about "Urkommunismus" is a real mess..... 

message: No comment about the fact Iroquois Nation was/is not of hunter gatherers?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.9.132.192 (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iroquois 

message: I just wanted to mention a possible criticism of the idea in that both Chimpanzees (our closest ancestor) and Gorillas have a hierarchical society and that they have this even though they lack farming or husbandry. For that matter all social animals, even insects have hierarchy. Sources as follows: https://news.janegoodall.org/2018/07/10/top-bottom-chimpanzee-social-hierarchy-amazing/  https://www.gorillas-world.com/gorilla-social-structure/   https://www.britannica.com/animal/social-insect  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:680:6D80:1C13:9D76:3C68:4DFC (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchy among Chimpanzees and Gorillas