On the deductive nature of "primitive communism", such a logic can only go so far without good observations - I think Marx did this pretty well in The German Ideology, but he was well aware of the limitations of such deductions, and they remained quite properly within the philosophical realm. In defence of such deductions, they are a logical necessity in exploring present social arrangements as historical phenomenon, no matter what is looked on it pressupposes some other form from which it is derived, following this logic backwards is the essence of deductive reasoning. Thus the market pressuposes non-market exchanges, class societies pressuppose something else from which they derive, alienated labour pressuposes unalianted "natural" labour ect.
However, he knew that there was an important gap that must be filled and kept a weather-eye on developments. I believe it was in the mid-1870s that he began a serious study and compiled his "Ethnological Notebooks", he read quite extensively amongst the emergant social evolutionists, but only when he read Morgan's then recent book Ancient Society did he find what he as after.
Almost directly after Marx's death Engels' found the notebooks and used them for his "Origin", no-doubt Marx had told him of the importance (Engels calls it a bequest) and Engels had previously been feeding him information on Celtic ancient laws and some other diverse athropological/historical sources then being published for the first time. It is worth reading Krader's edition of the Ethnological notebooks hand in hand with Engels (Marx's notetaking style leaves a lot to be desired). There are differences but not very great ones despite Krader's emphasis. Moreover they follow closely Morgan's discoveries to the extent that we are entitle to include Ancient Societies into the body of Historical Materialist works.
It should be noted that the Communist Manifesto qualification made by Engels is much within the spirit of Marx's commentary in the Ethnological Notebooks - I do not think it is valid to use this as a distinguishing difference. Nor has the Origin been pentrated by the "Roussean" noble savage as might be suspected in isolation (Morgan's thorough study and intimate knowledge of Native American cultures is too large a body of work for such flimsy influences and as I said Engels' follows this closely).
In short, the differences between Engels and Marx have I think been greatly exaggerated.
In terms of Engels factual references (the Mark and communal villages ect) has had an interesting history. Throughout much of the 20th century anthropology has adopted anarchronistic concepts for analysing their material, the result is they tend to taint everything in light of assumptions of hierarchy and exploitation and dismiss evidence to the contrary, however, having studied ancient Irish society where I found minor errors (the sept was a lineage not a clan as Engels thought, the clan was in tautha and since the fifth century the tribe had been discarded) on the whole the evidence very much supported Engels.
Please be very suspicious of quotes which attribute such errors to Engels, I found several hundred (1980) but these resolved into just 4 charges of error all of which reached back directly to Boas (early 20th century) in this Boas was factually incorrect in 3 and the fourth one seemed inconsequential (for instance everything Boas said on the Aztec was wrong and there would barely be an archaeologist who would agree with his view - which was simply taken from Spanish records). Boas it must be remembered was the first Chair of Anthropology and gained it by attacking the Morganists.
Now in terms of Historical Materialism as a whole, the periodization of history of which Primitive Communism has an important part in historical understanding. Moreover, the whole project of a theory of history falls rather flat once the theory of social evolution is scissored out. Marx from the Philosophical Manuscripts onwards, amongst his many other concerns kept pushing in this area, concretetising the rather abstract categories he had first created. It has to be remembered he put aside finalising capital to pursue this evidence and that rather than having simply picked up Morgan and thought it would be useful, had been dealing with the question as a major one when he found Morgan, his comments and notes are very clear, unexpectantly he had been given an entire system almost completely worked out (unfortunately niether Morgan, Marx or Engels could see some of the real problems inherent, but these I would argue are entirely internal to it).
Grant, I mean the above as no personal criticism, this vital area has been virtually neglected for too long and very few people share my viewpoint on this. Looked at from the life of Marx it has clear importance, rescuing Engels from some of the undeserved "errors" is not too difficult, placing this in regard to Historical Materialism as a whole is much more dificult, in fact to do justice to it means a lengthy discussion but an important one.
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 11:32:42 +0800 Subject: Pre-historic human societies
Greg:
No offence taken.
You say that "Primitive Communism as a theoretical concept, though informed by "anthropological" observations actually derives from a deduction based on modern society." Why should we think that modern society can tell us _anything_ about prehistoric societies? And what difference would it make?
This suggests to me the positivism that seeped into the thought of some historical materialists after Marx's death, resulting in at least one grievous burden: mechanistic models of historical development, without a regard for logic or evidence. The positivist influence on Engels has been alleged, although I don't know of any conclusive evidence for this. I do know that Marx held Comte in low regard. I doubt also that Marx would have been enthusiastic about Engels' *Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State* (1886), had he lived to read it.
What is clear is that Engels was far more enthusiastic about primitive communism than was Marx: the 1st ed of the *Communist Manifesto* (1848) opens with: "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles". Note that "all". This was footnoted by Engels in 1888 with the words "That is all _written_ history". He then goes on to discuss "primitive communistic" land ownership in agricultural societies, apparently assuming "village communities" to be the original form of society in Russia, Germany, India and Ireland --- an idea which I don't believe is borne out by later anthropology, let alone by logic. Engels was still operating in the post Rousseau intellectual milieu of "noble savages" etc; his sources were flawed, especially since --- like most of his peers in anthropology --- he rarely did field work.
"The error in this criticism is that it tumbles over what is a significant part of the intellectual armoury of Historical Materialism..." Sorry, but I simply don't see "primitive communism" as being in any way "significant", or a useful weapon for historical materialists --- among whom I count myself -- - especially since it has not been shown conclusively to have existed. I don't think that's "a minor reason".
Regards,
Grant.