[ALB]

This article by the late John Crump that appeared in an international journal our movement brought out in 1969 is of relevance. It provoked a strong response from our US party which wanted to stick closely to Lewis Henry Morgan's account.Primitive communismMost workers are anti-socialist. They react with distrust or disbelief to the idea of a world community where the means of production will be democratically controlled because they are socially owned. So, in order to break the paralysing grip which capitalism has on working-class consciousness, socialists must be able to demonstrate that Socialism is both an efficient and highly practicable alternative to the capitalist method of organising society. We must be able to offer convincing proof from capitalism itself and also from previous social orders that it is quite within man's powers to run a system based on voluntary work and the free distribution of whatever people need and want.In order to do this the world socialist parties have traditionally leaned heavily on the concept of 'primitive communism' as it was expounded in Engels's The Origin of The Family, Private Property and the State and Morgan's Ancient Society. But if their proposals are to be taken seriously by informed workers, socialists must continually be assimilating the new information which science throws up—even if this entails overhauling comfortable and familiar arguments. Socialists cannot afford not to be constantly re-examining their arguments and sharpening their ideas. Hence this reappraisal of 'primitive communism'.In The Origin of the Family Engels outlined a primitive society ("the lower stage of barbarism") where individual ownership was confined to personal items such as tools and weapons.“Each owned the tools he or she made and used: the men, the weapons and the hunting and fishing tackle, the women, the household goods and utensils. The household was communistic, comprising several, and often many families. Whatever was produced and used in common was common property: the house, the garden, the long boat.“ (1)The evolution of this universal tribal communism towards systems based on private property was linked with the gradual refinement of primitive economies based on hunting and food gathering into agricultural and pastoral societies which permitted greater wealth accumulation. Parallel to this development went another, suggested Engels: the "world-historic defeat of the female sex" (2). In the earliest societies there had been a state of 'promiscuous intercourse'—"so that every woman belonged equally to every man and, similarly, every man to every woman"(3). The pairing family was only reached via a number of intermediary stages (the 'consanguine family' and 'punaluan family') and subsequently itself evolved from a matrilineal institution into a patrilineal one.“Thus, as wealth increased, it, on the one hand, gave the man a more important status in the family than the woman, and, on the other hand, created a stimulus to utilise this strengthened position in order to overthrow the traditional order of inheritance in favour of his children.The reckoning of descent through the female line and the right of inheritance through the mother were hereby overthrown and male lineage and right of inheritance from the father instituted.” (4)As early as the 1890s some scientific workers cast doubts on a number of these hypotheses (5) but the deficiencies in Morgan's theories only really started to be exposed some time later. Field-workers like Malinowski living among primitive peoples such as the Trobriand Islanders unearthed a great mass of detailed information which could not be fitted into the evolutionary patterns suggested by Morgan and Engels.In particular it was shown that many primitive societies diverged considerably from the property norms to which they were supposed to conform. Even among the North American Indians whom Morgan had studied closely this was the case, although it varied a great deal from tribe to tribe. For example, although the Shoshones owned the land and its resources communally, this principle did not extend to eagles' nests which were owned by individuals (6) On the other hand, among tribes like the Algonquins and others on the East Coast there were individual and family holdings of tracts of hunting and fishing land. (7) The Vedda of Ceylon were another primitive hunting people who held their hunting territory family by family. As Lowie has put it: "A man would not hunt even on his brother's land without permission ; and if game ran into an alien region the owner of the soil was entitled to a portion of its flesh." ( Among certain tribes it was even possible to combine attitudes of individual and common ownership towards the same objects. Thus among Arctic peoples, such as the Chuchki, if a whale drifted ashore the meat was shared out among the whole tribe, but the whalebone belonged exclusively to whoever made the first sighting. (9)Pastoral societiesEven more significant than these random examples was the fact that common ownership of the land was not restricted merely to those hunting tribes who were the most primitive, with individual ownership appearing among peoples at a higher economic level. For although the Plains Indians, the Californian Maidu, and the Thompson River Indians were all hunters and all held the land on a tribal basis, pastoral societies such as those of the Masai, Toda, and Hottentot did exactly the same. Other hunting tribes such as the Algonquins and Vedda whom we have already referred to, as well as the Kariera of Australia and various Queensland groups, were certainly more backward than the Masai and Hottentot—and yet broke up the tribal territory into holdings owned exclusively by individuals or small units (10). Basing themselves on evidence such as this, then, most 20th-century anthropologists have written off "such fantastic evolutionary schemes as those of Morgan, Bachofen, or Engels . . .", (11) even though they go too far in rejecting the whole concept of social evolution.But, if the blanket concept of 'primitive communism' existing always and everywhere at sufficiently low cultural levels has been severely weakened, this is nothing compared to the battering which Engels's theories on the family have taken. It is true that most relatively advanced peoples —such as the classical Romans and Chinese, and the pastoral tribes of eastern and southern Africa—live in patrilinear societies, while many more backward peoples (e.g. the Malayan and Indonesian aborigines, and certain American and Australian tribes) are matrilinear (12). But as soon as we start to look any closer than this, the evolutionary theory falls apart. In Australia, for example, there is no evidence at all that matrilineal peoples like the Dieri have a less highly developed culture than the patrilineal tribes such as the Arunta. On the contrary, in North America the tribes with mother sibs have been found to be at a generally higher level than those showing father sibs (13). A typical case are the Navajo of northern Arizona. When sheep were introduced into the southwest of the United States in the 17th century the Navajo became a relatively prosperous pastoral people. Yet "in spite of their thriving flocks, tended by the men, they have remained obstinately matrilineal"(14). So, if we are to be scientific, we must generally accept the verdict of researchers such as Claude Levi-Strauss:“The facts support no reconstruction tending, for example, to assert the historical priority of matrilineal over patrilineal institutions. All that can be said is that fragments of earlierhistorical stages are bound to exist and are found. While it is possible and even likely that the instability inherent in matrilineal institutions often leads to their transformation into patrilineal or bilateral institutions, it can by no means be concluded that, always and everywhere, matrilineal descent represents the primitive form.” (15)None of this should suggest, however, that the work of Morgan on this subject is completely without value today. In fact, what needs to be stressed is that it is those parts of his theories which are most peripheral to the socialist case which have been disproved. The rock bottom of his and Engels's arguments—that for thousands of years over vast areas large groups of men did live communally on a basis of voluntary work and free distribution—has been repeatedly confirmed by subsequent research. In fact, much of the data produced by modern anthropology reinforces this conclusion even more effectively than was possible in the 19th century. Thus Martin Fried has shown that leadership is superfluous with the sort of democratic organisation found in many primitive societies:“There are many societies in which leadership, the organised application of power to concrete situations, is so diffuse as to approach non-existence. The Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert exemplify this. Even hunting parties, the most crucial form of organisation among the Kung, frequently lack formal leadership. As Lorna Marshall says, ‘Often an informal leadership develops out of skill and judgment and the men fall in with the plans and suggestions of the best hunter or reach agreement among themselves somehow.’ In such a situation the forceful compulsion implicit in power is lacking; in its stead is consensus based on authority in the sense of favourable reputation.” (16)and Solomon Asch has indicated the extent to which social solidarity can assert itself in a society without class conflicts :“[Among the Hopi Indians] all individuals must be treated alike; no one must be superior and no one must be inferior. The person who is praised or who praises himself is automatically subject to resentment and to criticism. . . . Most Hopi men refuse to be foremen. . . . The play behaviour of children is equally instructive in this respect. From the same source I learned that the children, young and old, are never interested in keeping score during a game. They will play basket-ball by the hour without knowing who is winning or losing. They continue simply because they delight in the game itself. . . ." (17)Socialists, then, have no need to cling to chapter and verse of The Origin of the Family or to attempt to defend its schematism. In no way do we weaken our arguments by jettisoning theories concerned with the priority of mother-right and so on. Rather, we can afford to be confident —since capitalism is digging the ground from under its feet when it is forced to sponsor scientific research into fields such as anthropology. The mountain of evidence is growing daily that it is the capitalist system itself (and nothing in 'human nature') whichprevents men from living as brothers. Thanks to capitalism, socialists have all the ammunition they need!J.C.(Socialist Party of Great Britain).REFERENCES(1) The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Moscow, n.d. p. 261.(2) Ibid. p. 92.(3) Ibid. p. 48. The evidence now points to such a state being only a myth.(4) Ibid. pp. 90, 91.(5) Structural Anthropology. Claude Levi-Strauss. London, 1968. pp. 32, 51.(6) Man in the Primitive World. Hoebel.1958. p. 435.(7) Ibid. pp. 436-7.( Primitive Society. Lowie. London, 1960. p. 204.(9) Ibid. p. 200.(10) Human Society. Kingsley Davis. New York, 1967. p. 458.(11) A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Malinowski. 1944. p. 176.(12) An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Mair. London, 1968. p. 65.(13) Primitive Society, p. 171.(14) Ibid. p. 159.(15) Structural Athropology. p. 7.(16) Anthropology and the Study of Politics by Martin H. Fried in Horizons of Anthropology. Tax. 1965. p. 182.(17) Marxist Economic Theory. Mandel. London, 1968. pp. 31-32.(World Socialism 69) 

[ALB]

Zeitgeist Peter Joseph's latest video is very good on this. In 30 minutes he says what we've been saying for ages about crime:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeswJY0o2uA

[ALB]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

Ed and Steve, I completely agree with both of you that we need to use the vote to then have a peaceful, democratic and socialist world.Though this doesn't need to be achieved via representative democracy, this can be achieved by direct democracy having a referendum.

We had a sympathiser in France (who died some years ago now) who used to argue this position, but while a referendum would show that a majority was in favour of socialism, it would not necessarily achieve the other aim of using the ballot box — to win control of political power from the pro-capitalists.  Having said this, the last capitalist government, faced with a majority vote for socialism, would be unlikely to be able to keep going. Also, of course, if socialism was likely to be carried in a referendum, there would already be many socialist local councillors and MPs.

[ALB]

For the record, the result of the election for a seat on Seaham Town Council can be found here.

[ALB]

Ed wrote:

Also I thought you wanted more free speech, do you want those on spintcom to be censored?

My understanding of what Steve said is that, though he might not like some of what was being said about him, he was prepared to let the discussion on spintcom take its course without trying to interfere. In that case, let's continue the discussion amongst ourselves there, as the members of any organisation have the right to discuss who joins and who doesn't, hopefully in an objective a way as possible.

[ALB]

zeitgeistworker wrote:

calling it waffle probably isnt the best way to win them over

Agreed. Hope you read through at least the opening pages of this thread where this point was made.Have you seen the videos of two debates we have had with them:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDMLqH2tjzwhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/discussion-zeitgeist-movementand also read this article on "Zeitgeist and Marxism".Incidentally, since there are comparatively few who call themselves "socialist" who see socialism as necessarily a moneyless as well as a classless and stateless society, what is your view on this?

[ALB]

Even if all the votes cannot be regarded as positive, conscious votes for socialism (rather than mere anti-Labour votes), past experience of our contesting local elections suggests that up to a quarter of the votes we get may be.  That would suggest that there could be up to 50 or so potential socialists in the area. What we have been doing in London as a follow to local elections is to distribute every few months a "News and Views" leaflet putting the Socialist case on local as well as general issues. These can be found in the files section of spopen (by those who are members of that forum) under Leaflets/Local Lambeth Leaflets,  including the latest currently being distributed (in fact today in Clapham High St).

[ALB]

We should of course be present at this event with leaflets and Standards, but it's going to be Old Labour stuff (with the Trotskyist and Maoist sects battling it out amongst themselves on the sidelines). Here's the "People's Budget" proposed by the Communist Party of Britain (the Mourning Star mob) on a leaflet they handed out at the Mayday rally in London last Wednesday:

Quote:

Invest in health, education, housing, public transport and the environment.Halt all PFI and privatisation schemes to hand over public services to big business.Boost state pension and benefit levels in real terms, restoring the link with the retail price index.Increase the national minimum wage in real terms and retain the Agricultural Wages Board.Extend statutory equal pay audits into the private sector.Freeze gas, electricity and water prices and prepare to take all the utilities back into public ownership.Nationalise the banks and direct funds into manufacturing, small businesses, cooperatives and housing.Take the railways back into public ownership and subsidise fares and investment not shareholder dividends.Launch a massive public sector housebuilding programme. Where would the money come from?Introduce a 2 per cent Wealth Tax on the super-rich, raising £90 billion a year – almost twice this year's public spending cuts.Reverse the recent cuts in corporation tax for the biggest companies.Restore the top rate of income tax (at 60 per cent not 50).Slap a windfall tax on energy, retail and banking monopoly profits.Impose a financial transaction tax on the City bankers and speculators.Divert Bank of England funds from QE and the impotent Funding for Lending Scheme into infrastructure bonds issued by local, devolved and other public authorities.End the tax haven status of all territories under British jurisdiction.

The chance of this being adopted is nil, so they are setting themselves up to fail while at the same time fuelling illusions that capitalism could be made to work in the interest of the wage and salary earning majority and their dependants.Looks as if we're going to have to be the party poopers again.

[ALB]

Here is the result in the two-member Deneside ward in the Durham County Council elections yesterday:

Quote:

BELL, Edward  (Labour) 972BELL, Jennifer (Labour) 920COLBORN, Steven   263Electorate: 5893Turnout: 20.57%

That means that of the 1212 who voted, about 21% cast one of their votes for Steve Colborn.

[ALB]

I just noticed that at yesterday's by-election in South Shields there was a candidate standing for "The Independent Socialist Party" which was only registered on 17 April. It seems to be a one-man show. But, in view of the arguments over registering "The Socialist Party" which resulted in a ruling that nobody could, I wonder whether the Electoral Commission would have agreed to register him as "The Independent Labour Party" or, for that matter, anyone as "The Independent Conservative Party". I doubt it, especially as representatives of the parties with MPs are now on the board of the Commission (which they weren't originally).Incidentally, looking through the list of registered parties, I noticed that freelance Trotskyist, Andrew Burgin, registered, on 26 March this year, a "Left Party". Could this be a precursor of the "United Left" party that Ken Loach has called for?

[ALB]

According to Glasgow members who went there, nobody else turned up. A case of the IWW trying to be a union but not succeeding (because to be an effective union you have to a minimum of members which they haven't got). Which is why I've always joined a proper union. Nice slogan they've got, though.

[ALB]

Interesting, and relevant, news item today about the police using so-called "restorative justice" instead of the law (and getting a bollocking for it from the flog-em-and-hang-em brigade represented by Ed Miliband out vote-catching):http://mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/300410237-manchester-police-chief-defends-10000-apologies-and-community-resolutions-dished-o

[ALB]

Yes, one of the aims of QE was to avoid a fall in "asset prices", i.e to inflate them but without causing a rise in the prices of ordinary consumer goods and services. In other words, its aim was to cause "inflation" (in the sense of a rising prices) but  in only one part of the economy.It does seem to have achieved the aim of avoiding a fall/ensuring a rise in the "assets" traded on the stock exchange. The government and the Bank of England believed that this would help stimulate the economy or at least prevent it getting worse. They don't seem to have achieved thisOn the other hand, general inflation has more or less been avoided. True, "inflation" has risen above the 2% target, but the problem here is one of definition. Strictly speaking, inflation is a rise in the general price level due to an over-issue of the currency, but prices rise for other reasons which will also be recorded as "inflation". For instance, increases in the price of imports, which does in fact seem to a major explanation for "inflation" rising above 2%. According to this:

Quote:

The Bank of England has consistently said that it believes inflation will fall back to its 2% target. It is pinning its hopes on lower oil prices and import prices.

If all the extra "base money" created by QE had been created as notes and coins (rather than as banks's "reserve balances") inflation would have been many times higher than the 3-4% you mention. In fact, it would have been like in Zimbabwe.

[ALB]

Here's the view of an actual Professor of Anthropology:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/marx-anthropologistGood stuff.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Quote:

  "That the 2010 Conference resolution that 'Socialism is both  scientific and ethical' be rescinded on the basis that 'the case for socialism  is one of class interest not one of morality.' Are you in favour? Yes / No"

Anyone else noticed that the two resolutions ask different questions. The second is a carefully worded piece of political manipulation. How likely would it be that the SPGB  membership would vote against the case being one of class interests, in favour of morality? Whoever worded that one knew what they were doing.

You shouldn't be so suspicious! The 2010 Conference resolution changed what up till then had been the Party's policy (which in fact is why a Party Poll was called on the matter, as one usually is when this happens). The wording of the Party Poll question aimed to restore the pre-2010 Conference position, as expressed in a Resolution carried by Conference in 1964, which stated:

Quote:

That this Conference re-affirms that Socialism is a class issue, not a moral issue.

That socialism is a class issue was not contested by either side. The issue at stake was whether or not it was, in addition to this, also an "ethical" or "moral" issue. As you can see, the membership split two-thirds/one third on the issue. But this hasn't stopped the one-third's position from continuing to be argued (as this thread shows). Maybe, when the matter comes up again, they will have convinced enough of the rest of the membership to become the majority. That's how democracy works..Incidentally, on your logic of trying to interpret double negations, you could argue that the SPGB membership voted that the case for socialism wasn't a scientific one! But this wasn't at issue either.

[Author]

Posts