I am not sure what you are refer to by "late 20th Century ideas about dramatic and irreconcilable "difference" between pre-modern and modern societies are also "appealing to the bourgeois mind"?". If this is some post-modernism you are referring to, the quasi-fascist cultural relativism which seems to have become so academically successful, then I am in full agreement. In the Benalong post the irreconcilable differences I was referring to were manifest in the tragic destruction aboriginal society in and around Sydney. Ironically both Phillip and Benalong seem to have been attempting a working reconcilation (which is itself unusual).
I would add to this that such supposed irreconcilable differences are resolved both in the destruction of kin society as a whole and the persistence of culture and kin relations despite this destruction - that would seem to be an obvious dictate of modern history.
And I agree wholeheartedly, especially in anthropological literature, timesless and static traditional societies are often reflected against the dynamic modern (this is an especially bourgeois thinking to my mind).
The Eddie Marbo situation is interesting - but here we have a tradition not of hunter-gathers but hordiculturalists. It is absolutely true that land bounderies were marked and that a form of shared property was in existence (inherited, unalienable and collective). But it is drawing a long string to see this as small capitalist-like farmers in embryo (I am not suggesting you are saying this). Diversity in kin societies is rich, but for historical reasons it is diversity along a theme, just as modern society shows somewhat less diversity and very much more obvious themes of development.
I think your problems with "Primitive Communism" or "Communlaism" results from niave attempts to pick up on aspects of kin social-life as pat criticisms of capitalism which occassionally crops up in left literature. The theoretical terms imply no such heaven brought to earth, but a profound difference between alienated social life and unalienated social existence. The facts are not impossible to establish, nor is the diversity without its own logic and if we abandon the theory of history which "prtimitive Communism" is a critical componant we have no means to recover this history.
Moreover, instead of the possiblity of seeing progress as an evolutionary by-product of social history, you suggest the very thing that takes the history out of the process - the idea that there are simple accumulative techniques which create the end product in which we live (ie the reference to fur trade as a tendency of globalisation) - there is a grain of truth in such views but they are so abstract that they suffer from trusims and lead us no-where.
"Primitive Communism" as a theoretical concept, though informed by "anthropological" observations actually derives from a deduction based on modern society. The existence of our modern society presuposses prior existence of very different social norms and the concept of primitive communism is first mentioned by Marx in 1845 and specifically at this abstract level. It would not be until the late 1870s that Marx would begin to explore the actual theoretical stages of social evolution (via Morgan who found in observation what Marx "predicted" earlier).
Deepening the historical knowledge of actual societies that abstractly belong to this stage of social evolution is never the case of simply imposing concepts, but rather being critically aware of what concepts (abstract economic categories) are appropriate to understand the material (here bourgeois academics anachronistically and haphazardly apply what ever seems to fit regardless of whether its logic is pressuposed by other developments obviously not present in the society being studied) - hence we end up with property where it does not exist, merchants where there can be no surplus, little bourgeois families operating where there are clan collectives.
Grant there is much more to all this than using a term which may have some political comfort - which I feel, you rightly use as the basis of your criticism (such comforts are childish and real societies will never be found to be ideal examples of them). The errror in this criticism is that it tumbles over what is a significant part of the intellectual armoury of Historical Materialism for fairly minor reasons (I do not think this was your intention).
Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: "Grant Lee" <grantlee at iinet.net.au> To: "LBO-Talk" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:40:55 +0800 Subject: Pre-historic human societies
Greg:
Wouldn't you agree that late 20th Century ideas about dramatic and irreconcilable "difference" between pre-modern and modern societies are also "appealing to the bourgeois mind"? Not to mention popular culture... Simply because these ideas are tied up with cliched notions of a timeless, static and ahistorical "traditional culture" (which seem eternally appealing to liberal anthropologists), that doesn't mean that is exactly the way that hunter-gatherers themselves saw it.
My own reading of historical sources has tended to dispel any notions of "primitive communism", or --- more importantly --- the ability to make meaningful generalisations about pre-modern people around the world. Or, in particular, about a notional group of people who happened to occupy a continent and who in 1788 spoke 200+ different languages and had thousands of moieties. That's why I said I wasn't sure.
As far as evidence for inegalitarian practices go, Tench is just one example. Another is Eddie Mabo's famous and successful case, which rested (in part) on the facts that everyone on Mer knew it was his land and it had clear boundaries marked by stones!
As someone else has pointed out, this discussion is likely to get tied up in ideological differences, since the facts (and any inherent meaning attached to them) are impossible to establish. In any case, the tendency of globalisation -- which perhaps had its origins when one tribe traded fish for another tribe's pelts --- is increasing homogenisation. So I think "primitive communism" is ultimately a moot point.
Regards,
Grant.