Talk:Primitive communism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Philosophy | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Still not factual
"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)
- 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)
[edit] Primitive commmunism
Marxism quizm: What was exactly described in Marx works: primitive communism or primitive socialism? Mikkalai 07:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Merge
I merged this page w Primitivism. See Talk:Primitivism. Cheers, Example (talk · contribs) 12:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I unmerged it, because these are two related but distinguishable concepts. Kev 00:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I filed an RfC, lets allow others to decide. I might agree w you about some aspects of primitivism, but anarcho-primitivism shoul;d redirect here. Example (talk · contribs) 08:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sam, primitivism and primative communism are two different things. One is an anti-modernist, anti-techonology critique held by some anarchists who advocate the abandonment of technological society, the other is a stage in the Marxist theory of historical development, a theory which is not anti-modernist or anti-technology and does not advocate a return to said historical stage. Conflating the two only causes confusion. There is no reason why they shouldn't be seperate articles given that they reflect different theories and have completely different uses. AndyL 08:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sam, primitivism and primative communism are two different things. One is an anti-modernist, anti-techonology critique held by some anarchists who advocate the abandonment of technological society, the other is a stage in the Marxist theory of historical development, a theory which is not anti-modernist or anti-technology and does not advocate a return to said historical stage. Conflating the two only causes confusion. There is no reason why they shouldn't be seperate articles given that they reflect different theories and have completely different uses. AndyL 08:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since you are the only person on either this talk page or the primitivism talk page who advocates merging the articles I suggest you desist from acting unilaterally and allow the articles to remain seperate until and unless you are able to form a consensus in favour of merging. At present the consensus is against it. AndyL 08:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merging primitivism and primative communism is a bit like merging agrarianism and agriculture. AndyL 08:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] not factual
"Life for the earliest humans was difficult and precarious, marked by a constant struggle to obtain food."
i doubt any other undomesticated animal would see their life as being difficult or full of struggle.
[edit] To the "not factual" whiners
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)
- 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)
[edit] Truth?
"Those groups that advocate a return to or are inspired by hunter-gatherer society are associated with the movement of anarcho-primitivism. However, Marxists believe that this would be an impossible task."
At first I was going to flat this as needing a citation, but I'm wondering if this is a matter of the Marxist dialectic, and seeing society as inevitably moving towards the end goal of communism, thus rendering any other political, social, and economic system as impossible. QFlux (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
And yet, wasn't one aspect of Hegel's dialectic that Marx criticized was it's so called deterministic goal?QFlux (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section. I think ultimately it is debatable, depending on your definition of Marxist, and your opinion on Marx's philosophy, which seems to be up in the air on what he truly means. Either way, it seems out of place and figured it be best to simply remove it. QFlux (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
