Does the fact that "primitive communism" never existed have any bearing on Marxist ideology...

does the fact that "primitive communism" never existed have any bearing on Marxist ideology? we have evidence of private property ownership dating back 20,000+ thousand years. Recent history (last couple thousand years, definitely attests to this as well).

Seems people are wired to appreciate and be motivated by private property, private family building, private ownership of the means of production, private land ownership, etc.. And even engaging willingly in selling their labor at a fair price.

Also the idea of an organized group having no hierarchy and power-differences seems absurd, considering people have different skills, intelligence levels and motivations in life. Some actually enjoy being followers and not worrying about maintaining land or businesses, while others like being leaders, owning land and toiling constantly.

Other urls found in this thread:

This entire ideology is based on Hegel, Christian idealism, and blank slateism. 19th century bullshit removed from actual facts.

It's an dumb meme. Embrace ethno fascism brother.

Please don't.

its not /fa/ enough


Even early republican Rome had communal adminstration of property, and hunter-gatherer societies and neolithic societies that exist today don't have private property.

Primitive communism exists today


Fascists literally ruin everything.

20,000+ years is when Marx speaks of slave societies. Did you even bother to read Marx on this matter?

wait I'm not sure what you mean. In primitive societies people owned MoP? Also
Are you new here?


Marxist dialectic was never founded on historical data or evidence, thus the whole concept falls apart with even the briefest examination of facts.

You are living a deluded dream of a 19th century Jewish NEET who lived off his rich industrialist friend.


North American indigenous people (at least some of them) literally didn't think it was possible to own a piece of land. What are you basing the claim that we have evidence of private property from 20,000 years ago?

Also pointing out differences in skills and such is meaningless. There is a difference between voluntary and institutionalized hierarchy.

Oh? Well in that case, please bring up some of your "evidence" that disproves it.
Genetic fallacy. Also he wasn't a NEET you tool, he attended university, he was a journalist, an author, a public speaker, and a worker's organizer.

Literally the opposite

That's false. They killed each other for their land , tribal warfare was common, property ownership was common. They got butthurt when whites stole their land and women too


The only people who appreciate communal living and having no private property are religious monks who do it for a higher calling since they renounce the world, family life etc.

Or vegan hippie "weed and ayahuasca lmao" types who basically do it because they are bums and 99% of their communities rely on handouts, charity or some sort of parasitism off regular society.

Basically left communal living is an anomaly and not something people care to experiment with.

I live in an apartment actually

But thanks, I am a Buddhist

White Nazis lost to colonial white Anglos and white Amerifats and cheeki breeki Slavs. Essentially variations of the same race.

Unlike the band organization of most foragers, food producers, either horticulturalists or pastoralists, are politically organized into either tribes, associated with big men, or chiefdoms, associated with chiefs. Both tribes and chiefdoms have the basic traits of horticulture (or pastoralists if herders); however the sociopolitical structure can be quite different. Below is a list of traits that tend to differentiate the two.


The earliest horticulturalists were tribal in organization, and tended to be relatively small in size, consisting in some cases of only two or three villages.
Tribes, like bands, tend to be egalitarian, that is, there is an equal distribution of resources, goods and authority with the same sex and age group.
Political leaders are called big men, after a literal translation of the term given these men among horticultural New Guinea tribes. Big Men act as redistributive leaders, with goods and resources flowing to them which are subsequently redistributed among the people. They have no true authority, and have no power to enforce any of their requests except by persuasion and the respect they gain from their followers. Hence they are often highly verbal and charismatic people.
Egalitarian redistributive exchange becomes important; however, reciprocal exchange usually remains the primary method by which resources and goods are distributed in the culture. In any type of redistribute exchange, goods/resources flow into a political center (in this case the big man) who redistributes the goods, as indicated in the diagram below. In egalitarian redistributive exchange, the result is to maintain a fairly egalitarian culture, and the big man had no more wealth than anyone else in the society.

Big men tend to work harder than others, and achieve prestige by giving away goods; they must lead by persuasion and example, since they have no formal authority. At the end, they may have fewer goods than others. The position is not inherited.
Big men function to intensify production, encouraging people to work longer and harder for the prestige of their group. The "group" in this case is either a kin group, such as lineage or clan, or the entire village or even tribe. Intensification thus produces more food, allowing the village to maintain its standard of living (for a time) in the face of rising population. From the point of view of tribal members, the payoff for working longer is prestige, and big men were probably the first people in the world to discover that people will work longer and harder for prestige.
Redistribution often takes place as part of feasts; feasts are often given for rival big men from rival clans or villages. Groups boast about how much they have given away at their feasts, and in this way gain prestige.
Contributions to the big man are voluntary, though supported by religious beliefs, desire for prestige, cultural ideas of appropriate behavior, fear of shame or ridicule from others, etc.

Not according to the Nazis :v)

Not sure what that even means. Is your apartment a commune? Lol

Nazi's lost to themselves.

Its my commune, my territorial division

Nazis considered Slavs to be subhumans which should be exterminated or enslaved.

You better not say that too loud, or Holla Forums won't take you backā€¦

Private property has existed since forever, duh, but there was a time before all land had been claimed. Everything outside the scattered human settlements wasn't anyone's property.

The seas, the forests, the mountains etc. could be hunted in and settled by anyone who wanted to