Talk:Primitive communism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy Related task forces (major traditions): Marxism

Contents 1 Still not factual 2 Primitive commmunism 3 Merge 4 not factual

[edit] Still not factual

"Because society produced a surplus of food, there was the opportunity for private ownership and slavery, with the inequality that it entailed. In addition, since food production no longer required everyone's full-time attention, a portion of the population was freed up for other activities, such as manufacturing, culture, philosophy, and science. This stratification is said to lead to the development of social classes."

Or can anyone give a good and rellevant source for this? (I doubt that) I will remove this part soon if noone can motivate it...

[edit] Primitive commmunism

Marxism quizm: What was exactly described in Marx works: primitive communism or primitive socialism? Mikkalai 07:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Primitive communism - because this system involved no social classes, no private property and no state, thus fitting the description of communism rather than socialism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I merged this page w Primitivism. See Talk:Primitivism. Cheers, Example (talk · contribs) 12:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I unmerged it, because these are two related but distinguishable concepts. Kev 00:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I filed an RfC, lets allow others to decide. I might agree w you about some aspects of primitivism, but anarcho-primitivism shoul;d redirect here. Example (talk · contribs) 08:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, primitivism and primative communism are two different things. One is an anti-modernist, anti-techonology critique held by some anarchists who advocate the abandonment of technological society, the other is a stage in the Marxist theory of historical development, a theory which is not anti-modernist or anti-technology and does not advocate a return to said historical stage. Conflating the two only causes confusion. There is no reason why they shouldn't be seperate articles given that they reflect different theories and have completely different uses. AndyL 08:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, primitivism and primative communism are two different things. One is an anti-modernist, anti-techonology critique held by some anarchists who advocate the abandonment of technological society, the other is a stage in the Marxist theory of historical development, a theory which is not anti-modernist or anti-technology and does not advocate a return to said historical stage. Conflating the two only causes confusion. There is no reason why they shouldn't be seperate articles given that they reflect different theories and have completely different uses. AndyL 08:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since you are the only person on either this talk page or the primitivism talk page who advocates merging the articles I suggest you desist from acting unilaterally and allow the articles to remain seperate until and unless you are able to form a consensus in favour of merging. At present the consensus is against it. AndyL 08:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merging primitivism and primative communism is a bit like merging agrarianism and agriculture. AndyL 08:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam's antics are nothing if not amusing. He has a history of attempts to delete content and skew articles written about anarchism, the anarchism, libertarian socialism, and anarcho-capitalism talk pages speak for themselves. He then comes to the primitivism page and attempts to conflate it with another page that is related in subject matter but conceptually distinct. He offers -no- arguments for this, asks no questions, simply makes the delcaration that he has done this. Then, when he finds his attempts reverted, he instantly cries foul, "No one gave a reason for this!" and lists the page on request for comment. Did he try to discuss this beforehand, did he try to discuss it after his newest crusade was reverted and before creating a request for comment page? No and nope, but he found plenty of time to complain when his unilateral behavior didn't net the results he sought. Very consistent with Sam's history of trying to represent himself as following wikipedia form while doing his very best to undermine its process. Kev 14:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] not factual

"Life for the earliest humans was difficult and precarious, marked by a constant struggle to obtain food."

i doubt any other undomesticated animal would see their life as being difficult or full of struggle.