{"id":1099,"date":"2019-03-11T22:38:44","date_gmt":"2019-03-11T22:38:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=1099"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:11:33","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T14:11:33","slug":"from-primitive-communism-to-class-society","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/from-primitive-communism-to-class-society\/","title":{"rendered":"From primitive communism to class society"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is a chapter from ‘Stop Supporting Capitalism – Start Building Socialism’ by Stan Parker, published by Bridge Books (2002).\nPublished by agreement with the author.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\nCompared with a lion, a gorilla, or even a horse, the human animal is \nweak, slow and defenceless. And yet homo sapiens has become the dominant\n species of the planet. Our species developed none of the specialised \nattributes that have fitted other creatures so well for their \nenvironments. Physiologically, we have hardly evolved at all since we \nbecame a distinct species. Whereas other species have evolved to fit \ntheir environments and the available food supplies, human beings have \nremained unspecialised, but very adaptable. Instead of their bodies \naltering to suit their environments, they have altered their \nenvironments to suit themselves.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nHuman beings spread across the surface of the planet, occupying tropical\n rain forests, deserts, temperate regions, and even polar ice. They \nlived on virtually every type of food possible, from seal fat to \ntropical fruits and desert insects. And from this variety of \nlife-pattems there arose wide differences in knowledge, beliefs, \nattitudes, feelings and behaviour. Almost every conceivable kind of \nbelief has been adopted by some humans at some time somewhere. Although \nwe are one species, from the jungle of New Guinea to the streets of New \nYork, the inhabitants of different places may think and act in quite \ndissimilar ways\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nAnd yet a baby, carried across the world from New Guinea to New York and\n brought up there, could become a complete New Yorker, with the accent, \nthe food preferences, the personal habits, the love of baseball, and the\n average tendency towards obesity, heart disease, divorce and crime. The\n basic animal is the same, but all behaviour patterns and ideas are \nshaped by the society in which the child is brought up.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nBut if societies mould individuals, different types of society are \nthemselves shaped by a number of external factors, as well as by the \nactivities of individuals and classes within them. The basic needs of \nthe human animal are, like those of any other mammal, food, drink, \nwarmth and sex. But these needs have not always been easily met .For \nmost of human existence, the lives of the great majority have been \ndominated by scarcity. The methods of making a living from the land and \nsea have therefore been the major influences on the sorts of lives \npeople have led, the types of society that have been formed, and the \nattitudes and behaviour of those societies\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nWe do not know exactly how long ago human beings evolved from other \nspecies. Modern man, according to many anthropologists, emerged in \nAfrica about 100,000 years ago, and gradually spread out from there to \nreplace all earlier species in the rest of the world (Snooks, 1996:50). \nFor most of that time people lived communally, through hunting and \ngathering. For many thousands of years there was no private property, no\n money, no working for wages, no stock exchange and no class divisions. \nPeople lived with and for one another. It was a system of primitive \ncommunism.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe comic cartoon idea of the cave man with his club displaying \naggression towards everyone is a fiction. Such an individual would not \nhave lasted a week in the world of prehistory. Human beings have \nsurvived and prospered because they are adaptable and they have \nco-operated with one another. Long before there were private property \nsocieties with their class divisions and exploitation, small \nhunter-gatherer communities relied for their existence on all members \nplaying their part. This co-operation lasted for many tens of thousands \nof years. The remnants of it can still be seen in surviving primitive \ncommunities such as of the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, the pygmies \nof the Congo rain forests, Australian aborigines and South American \nIndians.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe earliest human societies -as self-sufficient producer groups -would \nhave been composed of relatively small numbers whose members survived in\n nature as nomadic bands capturing and killing wild animals and \ngathering wild plants, fruits and insects. The particular character of \nthese material conditions of production demanded a certain division of \nlabour between hunters, gatherers and those engaged in making the tools \nused in these activities. They also demanded free access to nature, the \nmain means of production\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThus, in accordance with the material conditions of production in which \nhunter-gatherer societies operated, they were societies which did not \nknow private ownership of the means of production. There was no private \nownership of what was produced. What was produced -whether by hunting or\n gathering -was not the private property of the hunter or the hunting \nparty or of the gatherer(s) but was to be shared out among all the \nmembers of the group on an equitable basis. Hunting, gathering and \ntool-making were all regarded as essential activities entitling those \nwho performed them to be maintained by the whole group.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nIt used to be thought that living by hunting and gathering was a bad way\n to live. But recent evidence suggests that they lived in surprisingly \nabundant environments that provided all of the basic calories, nutrients\n and proteins they needed, and they worked relatively few hours to enjoy\n those things. This left them plenty of free time for visiting \nrelatives, playing games, or just relaxing (Sanderson, 1995:21).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nAnthropologists who live among the hunter-gatherers who survive today \ndescribe the ways in -which they are generally free from material \npressures. According to Sahlins:\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nIt is not that hunters and gatherers have curbed their materialistic \nimpulses; they simply never made an institution of them… We are \ninclined to think of hunters and gatherers as poor because they don\u2019t \nhave anything; perhaps better to think of them as free. A good case can \nbe made that hunters and gatherers work less than we do; and, rather \nthan a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure \nabundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per \ncapita per year than in any other condition of society (1972:14)\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Settled agriculture <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe practice of settled agriculture represented a major change in the \nmaterial conditions of production. It meant an end to nomadism and the \nestablishment of settled communities. It also meant an increase in the \namount of food available, so permitting an increase in the size of human\n communities. But it also involved a different division of labour which \npaved the way, as it developed, for the emergence of minority control \nover access to the means of production.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe first settled agricultural communities would have been established \nby societies which had previously practised hunting and gathering and so\n had a communistic economic structure. This was characterised by the \nabsence of private ownership of the means of production and by the \nsharing of products according to need. After the adoption of \nagriculture, these communistic economic arrangements survived for a \nwhile, but tended to break down in the long run as they no longer \ncorresponded to the material conditions of production.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe social arrangement for meeting the material requirements of early \nagriculture is most likely to have been the allocation to family units \nof plots of land to cultivate. This was not yet the establishment of \nprivate ownership, but it meant the end of free access to the means of \nproduction that had obtained in hunter-gatherer societies. It ruled out \nany member of society simply helping themselves to the products of any \nplot of land. Normally they would only have free access to the products \nof the plot cultivated by the family unit to which they belonged.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nNevertheless, such a limitation is not incompatible with the \ncontinuation of some communistic practices. The actual cultivators could\n still be regarded by the community as performing a function on its \nbehalf and be required by social custom to contribute any surplus \nproduct to a common store on which any member in need could draw. This \ncould happen, for instance, as a result of their crops having failed or \nbeen destroyed by a storm. Such social arrangements have been discovered\n in societies at this stage of development which have survived into \nmodern times.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe existence of a common store becomes another aspect of the society\u2019s \nmaterial conditions of production and requires a social arrangement for \nmanaging this store -collecting and distributing the surpluses. The \nusual arrangement seems to have been to confer this responsibility on a \nparticular family. Arguments can go on as to whether being given this \nresponsibility was conferred on a family whose head had already acquired\n this status for other reasons -perhaps military or religious. But the \nfact remains that this role of collecting and redistributing surpluses \nhad to be filled if all the members of the community were able to meet \ntheir basic needs as of right.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Emergence of Class Society <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nIt is easy to imagine how over time the co-ordinating role in \ndistribution could become a source of privileged consumption for the \nchief and his family. The duty to contribute any surplus products to the\n common storehouse could become a duty to contribute this to the chief, \nand the chief and his family could come to consume an excessive amount \nof the stores at the expense of distributing them to those in need.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe tendency for what was originally a necessary technical function to \nevolve into a social privilege would have been even more pronounced when\n the co-ordinating role concerned production rather than simply \ndistribution. It was the case when large-scale irrigation works had to \nbe managed so that agriculture could be practised. For instance, this \nhappened with agriculture in the Nile, Euphrates and other river \nvalleys. It was the main material condition of production which gave \nrise to an economic structure in which the cultivators were exploited by\n a class of priests who collectively controlled the key means of \nproduction which the irrigation works represented.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe emergence of control over means of production by a section of \nsociety, or social class, was a radical departure in human social \narrangements. Production was no longer controlled by society as a whole.\n Such societies ceased to be communities with a common interest and \nbecame divided, with one class, on the basis of its control over access \nto and use of the material forces of production, exploiting the \nproductive work of the other class and allocating itself a privileged \nconsumption.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe emergence of class and property meant that some humans acquired the \npower to exclude others from access to the material forces of \nproduction, including nature, except on their terms. In these \ncircumstances, humans ceased to be a united community seeking to satisfy\n the needs of all its members. Instead they became members of a \nclass-divided society in which there is internal conflict over how the \nmaterial forces of production and distribution should be used: to \nsatisfy the needs of all or to accumulate wealth for the few.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThroughout history this conflict has nearly always been settled in \nfavour of the class that has controlled the means of production. There \nare two main reasons for this. First, the power of this class was based \non a real functional role within the division of labour, at least \noriginally. Secondly, this class controlled armed bodies to enforce its \nwill, thus enabling it to hold on to power, at least for a while, even \nafter its original function in organising production had disappeared and\n been taken over by some other group as a result of technological change\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe discovery and utilisation of metals, and the development of more and\n more complex tools and machines have usually gone hand in hand with \nprogress in methods of making a living, increasing the amount of wealth \nproduced per capita many times over. But the benefits of these \nimprovements have not been shared by all members of society. After the \nrise of settled townships on an agricultural base in Mesopotamia, trade \nbetween localities developed. For the first time the products of hands \nand brains took on an alien life as commodities to be bartered, and then\n bought and sold with the abstract commodity of money. Property, \nrealised at the boundary between tribes, began to impinge within them. \nThe first property society came to be developed when people were bought \nand sold as slaves.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Slavery <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nSlavery differs fundamentally from wage labour. With the wage system the\n labour power of the worker becomes one of the main commodities in the \nmarketplace. With slavery the workers themselves become commodities, \nthey have no rights and are legally the property of the person who \ncontrols them. Slaves were fundamental to the economy of ancient Greece \nand Rome during their classical periods -the fifth to third centuries BC\n for Greece and the first century BC to the second century AD for Rome \n(Applebaum, 1992:170).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nAnyone might have become a slave through capture in war, piracy, or \nbreaking the law. They could be bought or sold through the slave trade \non the open market. Slaves in theory had no rights. They were property \nand might be disposed of as their masters wished. In practice, slaves \ndid have some protection under the law -the owner could not maltreat \nslaves or put them to death with impunity.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nAccess to political power was unthinkable for slaves. The only form of \naction they could take was running away when a favourable opportunity \narose. However, it cannot be assumed that all slaves occupied a low \nstatus in Greek and Roman society, although undoubtedly most of them \ndid. Slaves worked on farms, in workshops and in mines, mostly under \nharsh conditions. But there were slaves employed as managers and \nadministrators, especially during the Roman Empire. Slaves were also \nemployed as professionals, teachers, doctors, and household servants. \nSome slaves who were engaged in commerce even engaged their own slaves.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nBetween 1500 and 1870 plantations in the southern USA, the Caribbean and\n Brazil contained 10 million slaves (Wallace, 1990:71). Although it is \nmainly an institution of the past, slavery or slave-like practices are \nstill common around the world (Levinson and Christensen, 1996:291). The \nthree main forms are child labour, debt bondage and forced labour. \nAround 100 million children world-wide are forced to work long hours in \nunhealthy conditions and are paid little or nothing for their labour. In\n India alone an estimated 6.5 million people have pledged their labour \nagainst debts. Often the debt bondage (illegal since 1976) remains so \nfor life.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Feudalism <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nIn the feudal system absolute ownership of the land is vested in the \nfeudal lord but, unlike the slave owner, his title to the worker (serf) \nis not absolute. The lord owns him merely by title to a share of his \nlabour. In return he is obligated to grant the worker use of some land, \nsome ownership of tools and some of the products of his own labour. \nSlavery thus gave way to serfdom. In both cases the majority was \nexploited by the minority. The slave owned none of the products of his \nlabour but was fed and clothed by his owner. The serf had enough to keep\n himself and his family alive, but the rest was appropriated by the \nlord, a non-producer (Venable, 1945:100). \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nFeudalism evolved as a hierarchical system of personal relationships in \nwhich land and military power \u2013 and of course the labour of the serfs \u2013 \nwere the principal commodities exchanged. (Singman 1999:4). The system \nwas strengthened and expanded in Britain with the eleventh-century \nNorman Conquest. In feudal times the king nominally owned all the land. \nHe granted lands to his tenants-in-chief, the aristocracy, and they in \nreturn had to give military service to him and pay customary dues which \ncomprised a percentage of their wealth. Not only did the feudal \naristocracy and the church own most of the land, but they controlled the\n men and women who lived and worked on it. The landlords had their own \ncourts, they levied taxes and exacted services from their serfs and, in \ntimes of war, they ordered their subjects to fight their battles.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe power of the feudal lord depended on the amount of land he owned and\n the number of peasants he could control. Peasants had feudal \nobligations to their landlord. They either had to work on his land for a\n certain length of time each week or else they had to give him a portion\n of their produce in return for living on his land. Either way, the \nlandlord received his wealth without having to work.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nEvery family had access to a piece of land for cultivation and to the \ncommons for pasturing their animals. Their rights were recognised by \nall. The behaviour which regulated society was not backed by sanctions \n-law, police or army -but by custom which was a condition of existence: \nexpulsion from the community could mean death from hunger or exposure \n(Smith, 1994:58).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nCapitalist social relations emerged with the expropriation of common \nland by the aristocracy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The \nlands were enclosed to be used for sheep farming rather than arable \ncultivation. One reason for this was that the new Flemish woollen \nindustry made sheep more profitable tenants than peasants. Enclosure \ndestroyed the lives of thousands of peasant families, turning them into \npropertyless vagabonds. In dealing with the primitive accumulation of \ncapital, Marx wrote:\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nThe fathers of the present working class were chastised for their \nenforced transformation into vagabonds and paupers. Legislation treated \nthem as voluntary criminals and assumed that it depended on their own \ngood will to go on working under the old conditions that no longer \nexisted (1954, vol. 1 :686).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\nDeprived of their land, their homes, their traditional surroundings and \nthe protection of the law, the expropriated peasantry were left to sell \nthe one thing they possessed -their ability to work. The introduction of\n wage labour was the starting point of capitalism.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Back to the History index<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Back to the World Socialist Movement home page<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is a chapter from ‘Stop Supporting Capitalism – Start Building Socialism’ by Stan Parker, published by Bridge Books (2002). Published by agreement with the author. Compared with a lion, a gorilla, or even a horse, the human animal is weak, slow and defenceless. And yet homo sapiens has become the dominant species of the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2667,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"magazine_newspaper_sidebar_layout":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1099","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1099","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1099"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1099\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2666,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1099\/revisions\/2666"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2667"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}