Were Hunter-Gatherers first communists?

In principia and roughly, idea of communism applies to equal sharing of production of goods among group members and equally owning resources. By these standards H-G hunter-gatherers were communist by nature of their socio-economic settings (system). They went hunting together on land or forest belonged to the whole group. I believe (helped by documentaries about small Amazon tribes) that they must have shared the spoils of their hunt equally amongst all hunters, or all families. Also in very small tribes their "political system" resembled democracy where every voice is heard and compromise have to be find to satisfy all without anyone being a leader, although leader might be appointed by community or become one by age and experience. I know that democracy never happened in so called communist countries of recent times, but if I'm not mistaken, democracy was predicted to happen in higher stages of communism.


In my opinion, this state of communism of H-G tribes must have existed for long hundred thousand of years, most likely from done of humankind. I'm observing very strong tendencies of our modern societies in field of economics and politics, which mirror exactly the ones of hunter-gatherer. In spite of last millennium of strong feudal and bondage to land environment, and also last 500 years of birth and dominance of capitalism, giving a chance of choice, we are reversing and changing socio-political systems to resemble communism.
Feudalism is completely gone; capitalism has lost its rampant exploitation too. Today's societies of the west are mostly democratic, and sharing wealth with poorest, regardless of their input in production. Capitalism is here, because it works the best so far in production of goods, but surprisingly, population sentiment is not so favorable for it. We demand as equal sharing as possible, we call people with more money greedy, system unfair and complain about income inequality. Even though capitalism made our societies rich and powerful, we don't like its nature.
Logically, capitalism works the best, and case should be closed. But it is not, because deep down there in our DNA, in our nature, we feel that sharing is good (even giving presents gives us pleasure), inequality in distribution of wealth feels bad and unjust, splitting all equally feels the best and just.
By these hard wired emotions of equality and justice that we feel so strongly, we can deduct what life our ancestors was like in department of economics. The history of their life is in our genes. I mean their genes that we are made of, so no wonder we feel same as they did.

In my opinion it is misleading to use terms like communist, anarchist or monarchist for a tribal nomadic society with no political organisation.

Besides, communism is one of the most recent form of government in history, one that cannot exist in pre-industrial societies since its whole ideology is founded on the struggle of the classes, the rule of proletariat and a stronger emphasis on the industrial sector than on services (we could also add a police state and espionage culture).

HG were not communal they were kinship ordered and were the first cells of tribes. Level of their complexity was low. But you are (LeBrok) into something...

Found in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

Maciamo said:

In my opinion it is misleading to use terms like communist, anarchist or monarchist for a tribal nomadic society with no political organisation.

Besides, communism is one of the most recent form of government in history, one that cannot exist in pre-industrial societies since its whole ideology is founded on the struggle of the classes, the rule of proletariat and a stronger emphasis on the industrial sector than on services (we could also add a police state and espionage culture).

Click to expand...

I totally agree

Maciamo said:

... (we could also add a police state and espionage culture).

Click to expand...

True, but this isn't limited to Communist societies. I know of a rather famous and powerful nation known for it's capitalistic orientation (or at least it's history of capitalism) that has entered the realm of police state policies. I won't mention any names...

nordicquarreler said:

True, but this isn't limited to Communist societies. I know of a rather famous and powerful nation known for it's capitalistic orientation (or at least it's history of capitalism) that has entered the realm of police state policies. I won't mention any names...

Click to expand...

United States of America

There are still hunter gathers today do they live the way Lebrok says?


Like Andamanese people The Genetic Origins of the Andaman Islanders(click here). I iwsh there was info on their Austomal DNA I think they are apart of the Oceania Mongliod family. Ancestors of Australian aboriginals, black looking people in Asia, and Mongliods ancestors probably migrated east while they stayed I don't know just a guess.

Weren't Sami and maybe other Uralic tribes in far northern and eastern Europe the last European hunter gathers. I don't know how long they have farmed they have had contact with Germanic people for probably over 3,000 years and are mentioned by Tacitus a Roman writer about 2,000 years ago. Today and I would guess for at least 1,000 years have been totally modernized but I think they have kept only being hunter gathers some even today. Austomally they are the closest to Mesloithic and Neolithic European hunter gather samples. I know nothing about how Austomal DNA actually woks but the tests I have seen with specifically European groups their disturbed the same way and are usually called North Euro so who ever has the most I guess is closest to the hunter gathers and Finnish and Sami have the most.

Indigenous peoples of Siberia I am pretty sure there are many hunter gathers in northern asia. and some in Canada, Alaska, and New Greenland Na Dene languages.

Maciamo said:

In my opinion it is misleading to use terms like communist, anarchist or monarchist for a tribal nomadic society with no political organisation.

Click to expand...

Surely not in modern sense, but in analogy their socio-economic structure resembled communism the most, like sharing the wealth equally or by needs of families, land belonging to the group, and owning only personal possessions. Pretty much principia of communism, don't you think?

Besides, communism is one of the most recent form of government in history, one that cannot exist in pre-industrial societies since its whole ideology is founded on the struggle of the classes, the rule of proletariat and a stronger emphasis on the industrial sector than on services

Click to expand...

Elements you mentioned were only the tools getting to the goal which was communism and communist society. When the goal is achieved there is no more struggle of classes or proletariat being more important than politicians, doctors of farmers. Everybody is equal and makes same money. Exactly what we can see in hunter-gatherer tribes, but instead of money they divide meat equally of according to needs of families. I think a form of Primitive Communism was natural for small, few families, tribes.
Thanks to ElHorsto, I can see that not only I had this idea. (thanks for the link)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism


In bigger H-Gs groups (like big American Indians tribes) centralized decision making was needed, in form of chieftains. If it was hereditary, then it is analogues to monarchy (beginning of classes).


By anarchists, I mean a situation when H-Gs lived together for protection, but hunted separately and didn't share the spoils, and where free to do whatever they wanted, and go away whenever they wanted.
I consider this option most unlikely, because is not making a group strongest.

I saw a new documentary which stated that hunter gathers moved into Hamburg area following dear and the ice receded. They came from the Balkans. They found centuries of different goods associated with this "hunting trip" into northern Germany

I believe human societies very soon took different forms, according to life conditions and number -
equality of rights does not imply NO technical/skills hyerarchy - surely hunters-gatherers had some kind of chiefs - the basiic deportment was sharing at first and WE KNOW very early HUmans (Neanderthal) had already "socialist" deportment with the weak of physically handicaped persons - that when everybody was dependant on everybody but I think that when life became more easy or more assured differences of statute appeared among individuals - yet the famous "matriarcal" and "no-class" societies of Neolithic had a sort of hierarchy -

capitalism the better organization of society??? what a beautiful dream (or nightmare): it keeps the bad concept of internal and external competition pushed at the extremes -
communism failed because it was turned into a bad mix of individual diversity denying associated with a state administrative elite capitalism!!! blind egalitarism withoutany liberty; but capitlaism is showing us its true visage: no law for the rich (worst than feudalism), no pity, no limit (but Nature is going to show us our limits, I don't know when, but every technical progress sends new problems: the creation equilibrum?), NEVER TRUE SATISFACTION (SATIETY) -
to go back to old societies, I think that things became variated very soon, according to the quality of the men involved

LeBrok said:

Surely not in modern sense, but in analogy their socio-economic structure resembled communism the most, like sharing the wealth equally or by needs of families, land belonging to the group, and owning only personal possessions. Pretty much principia of communism, don't you think?

Elements you mentioned were only the tools getting to the goal which was communism and communist society. When the goal is achieved there is no more struggle of classes or proletariat being more important than politicians, doctors of farmers. Everybody is equal and makes same money. Exactly what we can see in hunter-gatherer tribes, but instead of money they divide meat equally of according to needs of families. I think a form of Primitive Communism was natural for small, few families, tribes.
Thanks to ElHorsto, I can see that not only I had this idea. (thanks for the link)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism


In bigger H-Gs groups (like big American Indians tribes) centralized decision making was needed, in form of chieftains. If it was hereditary, then it is analogues to monarchy (beginning of classes).


By anarchists, I mean a situation when H-Gs lived together for protection, but hunted separately and didn't share the spoils, and where free to do whatever they wanted, and go away whenever they wanted.
I consider this option most unlikely, because is not making a group strongest.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the Mbuti (Pygmies) are the most primitive hunter gatherer society left? The closest to the ancient model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbuti_people

Certainly egalitarian within their band of 50-70 people.

Angela said:

Perhaps the Mbuti (Pygmies) are the most primitive hunter gatherer society left? The closest to the ancient model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbuti_people

Certainly egalitarian within their band of 50-70 people.

Click to expand...

Right on, a great example how things were in H-G groups.
From the link:

[h=2]Political structure[edit][/h]Bambuti societies have no ruling group or lineage, no overlying political organization, and little social structure. The Bambuti are an egalitarian society in which the band is the highest form of social organization.^[20] Leadership may be displayed for example on hunting treks.^[21] Men and women basically have equal power. Issues are discussed and decisions are made by consensus at fire camps; men and women engage in the conversations equivalently.^[22] If there is a disagreement, misdemeanor, or offense, then the offender may be banished, beaten or scorned.(in more recent times the practice is to remove the offender from the forest and have them work for private landowners for little to no pay.^[23]

Click to expand...

I just don't agree with statement that they don't have political organization. Even this author mentioned their "parliament" called camp fire, where they gather to discuss social matters of the tribe, and to find solutions and compromises. That is politics, a primitive one by our standards but still politics, and very primal. Other way of looking at their political structure is as meetings of one party caucus or one family representing one party.

I wish they've mentioned how they share spoils of hunting and gathering, or if they have one kitchen/food preparation and eating area for all.

No Mbuti are high in hg B. The A's are in southern Africa's Khoisan people, the Shilluk, Dinka people have most hg A.

MOESAN said:

I believe human societies very soon took different forms, according to life conditions and number -

to go back to old societies, I think that things became variated very soon, according to the quality of the men involved

Click to expand...

I think it is just statistical matter. More precisely how many people can compromise without need for leadership or dictatorship of some sort.
For example smaller tribes, up to 10 families or 100 people (pygmy's example above) can work out compromises and decide on action or direction just sitting and talking by the fire, the original democratic system. Obviously there are always few smart or experienced individuals which the rest will listen to and follow, but even they need to compromise with each other.

For bigger groups of hundreds or thousands people this negotiating and compromising process won't work. There are too many people to satisfy and compromise with, and even not enough time to listen to all. Just for that reason one leader the chieftain is really needed. It just works better for large group of people.
Having said that, I imagine that in most of cases, even chieftain needs to compromise with many influential members or families in the tribe. At least there is this one person to make a final decision.

It is not a matter of evolution of people from primitive society to more advanced, it is more of a matter what leadership is needed according to population size.
The chieftain is an expensive function and creates inequalities in a group, as it gives power and wealth to one person or family, therefore it is avoided as long as possible. Once the size of a group is in hundreds of members, the chieftain is a better/more efficient form of running the tribe, and also it is less expensive for bigger demographics.
I guess the size kills this primitive communism.



In the west, we have the best production system called capitalism to give us all the stuff we want. Ordinary citizen have 100 times better living conditions than in any pre-industrial era. So why do we care so much about equality, inclusiveness and democracy? It shouldn't really matter, because we all have much more than people could dream of; we live much longer, healthier, even the poorest of us. We fly around the globe, watch movies, eat foods from around the planet, and we have all the freedoms. So why the heck inequality bothers us?
Maybe 2 million or more years of tribal life as Homo Erectus and Sapiens in primitive communes made it's mark in our DNA code? We are born with pre-wired brain for tribal justice, tribal sharing, tribal politics, all about equality and inclusiveness. This genetic predisposition makes us understand these things easily, it makes us to crave these things, it makes us to react emotionally to them. It is so deep in us, it has to be encoded in our DNA.