Author Topic: Ancient candidates for socialism  (Read 532 times)

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Ancient candidates for socialism
« on: March 04, 2022, 09:54:28 pm »
Stemming from previous threads, I outlined 3 major aims in our study of socialism:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftist-ideological-camps-in-the-big-picture-socialism-marxism-true-leftism-etc/msg11336/#msg11336

Aim 1 is to explore candidates for socialism that existed prior to Marx and prior to the "Enlightenment". Since this is mostly a matter of historic and archaeological discussion, I have made a separate thread for this aim.

----

Our definition of socialism is: "the belief that state intervention is essential to realistically combatting social injustice, and that it is the moral duty of the state to so intervene."

With possible rare exceptions, the existence of the state itself only became possible after the Neolithic Revolution. I think we may be able to say the earliest examples of socialist-like practices could be seen in some basic practices that began in ancient state societies:


* Public building projects (e.g. irrigation canals, city walls, cities with planned layouts to facilitate transportation, other planned and maintained infrastructure like roads or sewage systems (which existed in the Harappan Civilization)). These would have been coordinated/organized by the state, generally funded by the state, and would obviously improve the welfare of society as a whole. I suppose that after a certain point in history, this was no longer an exclusively socialist-like practice, and something utilized by all sorts of governments to strengthen their economies.

* Redistribution of wealth to non-elite citizens. For example, Rome gave grain rations to the citizens of the city (Cura Annonae) and Julius Caesar ordered for a massive amount of his wealth to be distributed to Roman citizens upon his death. The concept of taxes paid in products (e.g. grain) could perhaps be included in this, as hording these items without redistributing them would not be very useful. It is probably too much of a stretch to try to claim all forms of taxes paid in currency are "socialist" (especially since currency can be horded, resulting in an increase in social injustice).

* Promotion of anti-tribalist social consciousness through state propaganda. For example, at some point spiritual practices shifted from general ancestor and nature worship of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers to "organized religion" as we now think of it. Certainly, many "organized religions" merely codified ancestor worship and many religions and spiritual traditions were very tribalist, but state cults centered around the lifestyle of a noble ruler and "universalist religions" (e.g. Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism) were able to enact a standard of social consciousness that pre-state societies likely would not have been able to do. As another example, the existence of a state itself would allow individuals to find meaning in a higher purpose than clan or ethnic identities--individuals of different clans, ethnicities, religions, etc. could all unite together in a single nation/state, allowing for the first time the development of a folk.

* Certain industries and resources being controlled or highly regulated by the state, to ensure they would be utilized for the public welfare, rather than merely enriching a handful of elites. However, state monopolies could also be used in an anti-populist manner to enrich the elites as well, so the mere existence of a state monopoly is not a socialist policy in and of itself.


Can you think of any other general practices like this? Perhaps we can say that, on their own, these traits are components or precursors to socialism, and ancient candidates for socialism would have to display most of these traits?

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2022, 09:57:44 pm »
When talking about "primitive communism", the aspects Marx and Engels seemed to care most about were (1) possessing the most important forms of material property in common and (2) individuals did not have significantly different levels of material possessions (suggesting there were no rich and poor "classes").

That seems more like anarchism than socialism as we have defined it. Indeed, it would make more sense to think of it as ancient examples of "communalism", rather than "communism" (with the statist connotations that word has today). ...Have statist interpretations of communism already diverged so far from orthodox Marxism that they've become distinct ideologies, considering Marx's vision of communist society was completely stateless? We'll have to come back to that thought later.

I think it would be too much of an academic tangent to get into the details of what Marx and Engels wrote about "primitive communism", but you can read more about it here. Apparently they didn't coin the term explicitly, but just talked about ancient economics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State

----

Later anthropologists and historians who became interested in the idea of ancient "pre-Marx socialism" have often used criteria like the ones I outlined at the beginning. By using these criteria, they are, in general, using criteria completely different than Marx/Engels. We can once again see the absurdity of trying lump these societies into "early Marxist-style communism" instead of simply categorizing them generally as socialism or something else entirely.

Quote
There was little development in the research of "primitive communism" among Marxist scholars beyond Engels' study until the 20th and 21st centuries when Ernest Mandel, Rosa Luxemburg,[18] Ian Hodder, Marija Gimbutas and others took up and developed upon the theses.[19][20][21] Non-Marxist scholars of prehistory and early history did not take the term seriously, although it was occasionally engaged with and often dismissed.[22][23] The term primitive communism first appeared in Russian scholarship in the late 19th century, with references to primitive communism existing in ancient Crete.[24]
[...]
The belief of primitive communism as based on Morgan's work is flawed[8] due to Morgan's misunderstandings of Haudenosaunee society and his, since proven wrong, theory of social evolution.[26] Subsequent more accurate research has focused on hunter-gatherer societies and aspects of such societies in relation to land ownership, communal ownership and criminality and justice.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

Ok, since what late-20th-century and 21-century anthropologists have been calling "primitive communism" isn't actually "communism", and the phrase doesn't even mean the same thing as Marx/Engels originally used it to mean, that makes our work easier.


I guess the first step is making a list of the societies listed on various Wikipedia articles, and we can explore them in more depth. Some of these may not be worth calling ancient candidates for socialism, but I will list them here for the sake of discussion.

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2022, 10:05:21 pm »
Quote
The term primitive communism first appeared in Russian scholarship in the late 19th century, with references to primitive communism existing in ancient Crete.[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Development_of_the_idea

Quote
However, it was not researched in any depth until the 20th century, with work such as that of the ethnographer Dmitry Konstantinovich Zelenin who looked at non-hunter-gatherer societies within Soviet Union to identify remnants of primitive communism within their societies.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Development_of_the_idea

If I recall correctly, Çatalhöyük is sort of considered a transition stage in sedentary living--possibly spanning from sedentary hunting to the beginnings of Neolithic agriculturalism?
Quote
Due to the strong evidence of an egalitarian society, lack of hierarchy and lack of economic inequality historian Murray Bookchin has argued that Çatalhöyük was an early example of anarcho-communism, and so an example of primitive communism in a proto-city.[73] Though others use Çatalhöyük as an example that refutes the concept of primitive communism.[74]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies

The Indus Valley Civilization can still be considered a candidate for socialism even if the communist assertion that they  were "classless" is incorrect.
Quote
Similarly it has been argued that the Indus Valley Civilisation is an example of a primitive communist society due to its perceived lack of conflict and social hierarchies.[75] Daniel Miller and others argue that such an assessment of the Indus Valley civilisation is not correct.[76][77]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies

Quote
The Marxist archaeologist V. Gordon Childe carried out excavations in Scotland from the 1920s and concluded that there was a neolithic classless society that reached as far as the Orkney Islands.[78][79] This has been supported by Perry Anderson, who has argued that primitive communism was prevalent in pre-Roman western Europe.[80] Descriptions of such societies can also be gained through the works of classical authors.[81][44]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies

Quote
The Indian communist politician Shripad Amrit Dange considered ancient Indian society to be of a primitive communist nature.[85] Other communists within India have also labelled current indigenous groups, such as the Adivasi, as examples of primitive communism.[86]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies

Adivasi are considered to be pre-Vedic and pre-Dravidian peoples (the spread of the Dravidian languages may have coincided with the spread of the Indus Valley culture's influence), some of whom lived as subsistence farmers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adivasi

Quote
James Connolly believed that "Gaelic primitive communism" existed in remnants in Irish society after much of western Europe "had almost entirely disappeared".[95] The agrarian communes of the rundale system in Ireland have subsequently been assessed using a framework of primitive communism where the system fits Marx and Engels' definition.[96]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies

Quote
According to Harry W. Laidler, one of the first writers to espouse a belief in the primitive communism of the past was the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca who stated, "How happy was the primitive age when the bounties of nature lay in common...They held all nature in common which gave them secure possession of the public wealth."[9] Because of this he believed that such primitive societies were the richest as there was no poverty.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Pre-history

Here we go, early statist socialism:
Quote
There are scholars who have traced communist ideas back to ancient times, particularly in the work of Pythagoras and Plato.[15] Followers of Pythagoras, for instance, lived in one building and held their property in common because the philosopher taught the absolute equality of property with all worldly possessions being brought into a common store.[16]

It is argued that Plato's Republic described in great detail a communist-dominated society wherein power is delegated in the hands of intelligent philosopher or military guardian class and rejected the concept of family and private property.[17][18] In a social order divided into warrior-kings and the Homeric demos of craftsmen and peasants, Plato conceived an ideal Greek city-state without any form of capitalism and commercialism with business enterprise, political plurality, and working-class unrest considered as evils that must be abolished.[19] While Plato's vision cannot be considered a precursor of communist thinking, his utopian speculations are shared by other utopian thinkers later on.[20] An important feature that distinguishes Plato's ideal society in the Republic is that the ban on private property applies only to the superior classes (rulers and warriors), not to the general public.[21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Classical_antiquity

Communists themselves acknowledging Jesus was a socialist?
Quote
The early Church Fathers, like their non-Abrahamic predecessors, maintained that human society had declined to its current state from a now lost egalitarian social order.[24] There are those who view that the early Christian Church, such as that one described in the Acts of the Apostles (specifically Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-45)[25][24][26] was an early form of communism.[27][28][29] The view is that communism was just Christianity in practice and Jesus Christ was himself a communist.[30] This link was highlighted in one of Marx's early writings which stated: "As Christ is the intermediary unto whom man unburdens all his divinity, all his religious bonds, so the state is the mediator unto which he transfers all his Godlessness, all his human liberty".[30] Furthermore, the Marxist ethos that aims for unity reflects the Christian universalist teaching that humankind is one and that there is only one god who does not discriminate among people.[31] Later historians have supported the reading of early church communities as communistic in structure.[32][33][34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Religious_communism_(Roman_imperial_period_to_late_antiquity)

Quote
Peter Kropotkin argued that the elements of mutual aid and mutual defense expressed in the medieval commune of the middle ages and its guild system were the same sentiments of collective self-defense apparent in modern anarchism, communism and socialism.[39]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Europe

Quote
From the High Middle Ages in Europe, various groups supporting Christian communist and communalist ideas were occasionally adopted by reformist Christian sects. An early 12th century proto-protestant group originating in Lyon known as the Waldensians held their property in common in accordance with the Book of Acts, but were persecuted by the Catholic Church and retreated to Piedmont.[40] Around 1300 the Apostolic Brethren in northern Italy were taken over by Fra Dolcino who formed a sect known as the Dulcinians which advocated ending feudalism, dissolving hierarchies in the church, and holding all property in common.[40]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Europe

Quote
The Peasants' Revolt in England has been an inspiration for "the medieval ideal of primitive communism", with the priest John Ball of the revolt being an inspirational figure to later revolutionaries[41] and having allegedly declared, "things cannot go well in England, nor ever will, until all goods are held in common."[42]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Europe

Getting further into the state era, it seems like many of these things are not necessarily "communalist" in the strict communist sense, but are authentically populist. Lack of evidence of an "elite" class of rulers does not mean no rulers existed. It could simply mean they were populists who did not live in a higher state of luxury than non-rulers.
Quote
The Chachapoya culture indicated an egalitarian non-hierarchical society through a lack of archaeological evidence and a lack of power expressing architecture that would be expected for societal leaders such as royalty or aristocracy.[43]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#South_America

Quote
Researchers have commented on the communistic nature of the society built by the Qarmatians[44] around Al-Ahsa from the 9th to 10th centuries.[45][46][47]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Asia

Quote
In the 16th century, English writer Sir Thomas More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property in his treatise Utopia, whose leaders administered it through the application of reason.[52] Several groupings in the English Civil War supported this idea, but especially the Diggers[53] who espoused communistic and agrarian ideals.[54][55][56][57] ... Engels considered the Levellers of the English Civil War as a group representing the proletariat fighting for a utopian socialist society.[59] Though later commentators have viewed the Levellers as a bourgeois group that did not seek a socialist society.[60][61]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Europe_2

Quote
Lewis Henry Morgan's descriptions of "communism in living" as practiced by the Haudenosaunee of North America, through research enabled by and coauthored with Ely S. Parker, were viewed as a form of pre-marxist communism.[69] Morgan's works were a primary inspiration for Marx and Engel's description of primitive communism ... Though the belief of primitive communism as based on Morgan's work is flawed[71] due to Morgan's misunderstandings of Haudenosaunee society and his, since proven wrong, theory of social evolution.[72][73][74][75][76][77] This, and subsequent more accurate research, has led to the society of the Haudenosaunee to be of interest in communist and anarchist analysis.[78][77]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#North_America

Quote
Historian Barry Pritzker lists the Acoma, Cochiti and Isleta Puebloans as living in socialist-like societies.[84] It is assumed modern egalitarianism seen in Pueblo communities stems from this historic socio-economic structure.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#North_America

Quote
The Shakers of the 18th century under Joseph Meacham developed and practiced their own form of communalism, as a sort of religious communism, where property had been made a "consecrated whole" in each Shaker community.[86]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Age_of_Revolution

Quote
In Ancient Greece, while private property was an acknowledged part of society with the basic element of Greek economic and social life being the privately owned estate or oikos, it was still understood that the needs of the city or polis always came before those of the individual property owner and his family.[9] Ancient Greeks were also encouraged by their custom of koinonia to voluntarily share their wealth and property with other citizens, forgive the debts of debtors, serve in roles as public servants without pay, and participate in other pro-social actions.[9] This idea of koinonia could express itself it different ways throughout Ancient Greece from the communal oligarchy of Sparta[10] to Tarentum where the poor could access any property held in common.[9] Another Ancient Greek custom, the leitourgia resulted in the richest members of the community directly financing the state. By the late fifth century BC, more radical concepts of communal ownership became expounded in Greece.[11] Possibly in reply to this, Aristophanes wrote his early 4th-century play, Ecclesiazusae, which parodies communist, egalitarian, and gynocratic concepts that were already familiar in Classical Athens.[12] In the play, Athenian women are depicted as seizing control of the Athenian government and banning all private property. As the character Praxagora puts it "I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all."[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#In_antiquity

Quote
In Iran, Mazdak (died c. 524 or 528 CE), a priest and political refomer, preached and instituted a religiously based socialist or proto-socialist system in the Zoroastrian context of Sassanian Persia.[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#In_antiquity

Quote
According to Richard Pipes,[54] the idea of a classless, egalitarian society first emerged in Ancient Greece; since the 20th century, Ancient Rome has also been discussed, among them thinkers such as Aristotele, Cicero, Demosthenes, Plato, and Tacitus, with Plato in particular being discussed as a possible communist or socialist theorist,[55] or as the first author to give communism a serious consideration.[56] The 5th-century Mazdak movement in Persia (modern-day Iran) has been described as communistic for challenging the enormous privileges of the noble classes and the clergy, criticizing the institution of private property, and striving to create an egalitarian society.[57][58] At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of Scripture.[59] In the Medieval Christian Church, some monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and their other property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Early_communism
« Last Edit: March 04, 2022, 11:02:24 pm by Zea_mays »

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2022, 10:07:49 pm »
Based off of the information from these Wikipedia articles (which are probably not exhaustive, of course), it seems Plato's Republic was the first compelling ideology which could be classified as socialist, and the reign of Emperor Chandragupta of the Mauryan Empire could be called the first truly socialist state.

Quote
The economy of the 3rd century BCE Mauryan Empire of India, under the rulership of its first emperor Chandragupta, who was assisted by his economic and political advisor Kautilya, has been described as," a socialized monarchy", "a sort of state socialism", and the world's first welfare state.[15] Under the Mauryan system there was no private ownership of land as all land was owned by the king to whom tribute was paid by the Shudras, or laboring class. In return the emperor supplied the laborers with agricultural products, animals, seeds, tools, public infrastructure, and stored food in reserve for times of crisis.[15]

[15] Roger Boesche (2003). The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra. Lexington Books. pp. 67–70. ISBN 978-0-7391-0607-5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#In_antiquity

I'm sure we can find something older than that. The Wikipedia articles and communist archaeologists/historians seem to mostly have focused on the "communalist" aspects in their research, rather than the statist welfare aspects.

The description of generic "ancient Egyptian" society is similar:
Quote
Ideas and political traditions that are conceptually related to modern socialism have their origins in antiquity and the Middle Ages.[6] Ancient Egypt had a strong, unified, theocratic state which, along with its temple system employed peasants in massive labor projects and owned key parts of the economy, such as the granaries which dispensed grain to the public in hard times.[7] This system of government is sometimes referred to as 'theocratic socialism".[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#In_antiquity

----

There are also various articles about types of religious socialism, but they seem to mostly be about "unorthodox" Marxists who have re-embraced religion, rather than examination of historic practices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

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

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

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2022, 10:24:00 pm »
Communists and anthropologists influenced by Marxism claim that farming and state societies which developed after the Neolithic marked the beginning of mass inequality and an end to ancient "communalism".

In reality, early Neolithic societies were the first to enact real socialistic policies. The surplus economic goods produced (e.g. grain) could be managed and _redistributed_ by the state to ensure a fair distribution and to ensure those who needed more resources would be alloted them.

I also wrote about how hunter-gatherer societies were _so_ stratified by "class" (specifically, gender), that the results of that unjust hierarchy has been written into our DNA... Communists are so obsessed with economics, that they have ignored much more important forms of oppression and tribalism.
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/how-the-extinction-of-ice-age-mammals-may-have-forced-us-to-invent-civilization-/msg9708/#msg9708

----

I only skimmed this publication, but it describes the "redistribution economy" that existed in the Susa cultural sphere from ~7200 BC to ~2000s BC.
Quote
A farming redistribution economy was an extraordinary accomplishment in human cooperation. It was nothing less than the second greatest economic event in the evolution of mankind. The first was when our ancestors, the hunters, broke rank from the other primates by sharing their catches with the band (Wilson 2014: 22–23; Hayden 2014: 36).
[...]
7th Millennium BC – Initial Village Period – Neolithic Administrative  Technologies

Farming and the corollary redistribution economy prospered in the entire Near East in the 7th millennium BC.

Quote
The temple, and the terrace decorated with clay cones it stood upon (Canal 1978b: 173), demonstrated a quantum jump in the amount of resources collected from the community. It brings the evidence that, after 2,000 years, the redistribution system had reached a new level of magnitude. The Susa I temple had enough wealth to afford large expenditures for building and decorating monumental structures as well as supporting a large work force of architects, masons, carpenters and ceramicists (Wright and Johnson 1985: 25).
[...]
One would expect that the transformation of the redistribution economy would lead to major administrative changes, but the people of Susa I still reckoned measures of cereals with exactly the same plain tokens, in the same shapes and sizes as in previous millennia.
[...]
The indigenous Susa I redistribution economy, managed with plain tokens, was based on an agricultural society. That of Uruk and Susa II vastly expanded to draw upon both agrarian and urban populations.
[...]
Among the innumerable scenes carved on cylinder seals appears the “En,” the awesome priest- king of Uruk (Amiet 1986: 61), who was certainly heading the redistribution economy, since the sign for his title appears on the Uruk tablets (Green and Nissen 1987: 197).

Quote
Sharing resources did not stop with the agriculture revolution. On the contrary, it further advanced when the first farmers initiated a redistribution economy mostly based on cereals and small cattle. The operation was complex because multiple households contributed and consumption was deferred over weeks or months. The new economy required a new leadership of managers able to administer the communal wealth by 1. Establishing the amounts of goods to be contributed by the community; 2. Controlling the deliveries; 3. Protecting the reserves from weather, rodents, raids and thieves; 4. Overseeing the redistribution. The leaders adopted tokens to count and control the communal resources at each step of the process.

The sites of Susiana and Deh Luran illustrate with surprising clarity the evolution of administrative technologies to implement the redistribution economy in Greater Susiana. Tokens were adopted at the same time as agriculture in the first levels of occupation of Ali Kosh and Chogha Bonut, ca. 7200 BC. Two millennia passed until the management of goods with plain tokens was complemented by stamp seals to communicate oficial information from an office or a person. The establishment of a temple at Susa, ca 4000 BC, did not cause any change in the plain tokens or stamp seals because it still relied on an agrarian economy. The next groundbreaking steps in administrative technologies – complex tokens and cylinder seals – came together to Greater Susiana from the neighboring Mesopotamian metropolis of Uruk. The new technologies were adapted to an urban economy.
Denise Schmandt-Besserat. (2018). Prehistoric Administrative Technologies and the Ancient Near Eastern Redistribution Economy – The case of greater Susiana. Published in Javier Alvarez-Mon, Gian Pietro Basello, and Yasmina Wicks, The Elamite World. Routledge, London.
https://sites.utexas.edu/dsb/tokens/prehistoric-administrative-technologies-and-the-ancient-near-eastern-redistribution-economy-the-case-of-greater-susiana/

Susa and the Uruk culture:




https://aryan-anthropology.blogspot.com/p/worlds-oldest-swastikas.html#Susa

----

The same archaeologist has a few other papers on this topic. She notes that similar tokens were found across the world, coinciding with the emergence of farming in those regions as well.
Quote
The Chinese, European, and African tokens from Khartoum share material, forms and size with their Near Eastern prototypes. Most importantly, they were based on the same symbolism, and served a similar economic function.
[...]
From the origin, the Near Eastern tokens served to keep track of amounts of goods in the early agricultural communities. For instance, the earliest examples of 7500 BC were recovered in level III of the site of Mureybet in Syria, which marked the transition to agriculture. Tokens occur in the sixth millennium BC in China and in the fifth and fourth millennium in Europe and Africa, where they also coincided with the beginning of agriculture. The need for counting and record keeping therefore may be attributed to farming, and in particular to the economy of redistribution typical of the early agricultural settlements.

It is important to understand that counting – the ability to determine the number of items in a collection – changed the economy. Counting and counters gave power to impose contributions and enforce their delivery. In other words, they gave control over the production and exchange of real goods. As I have discussed elsewhere (Schmandt-Besserat 2001), it is likely that the Near Eastern prehistoric tokens served for the administration of goods collected from communities on the occasion of seasonal festivals. The created surplus of staple goods, such as grain and animal on the hoof, was the fulcrum of the redistribution economy and tokens played a key role in its administration.
Denise Schmandt-Besserat. (2012). Tokens in China, Europe and Africa – The Significance. Scripta, 4: 1-12.
https://sites.utexas.edu/dsb/tokens/tokens-in-china-europe-and-africa-the-significance/

Aryan farmers used counting to ensure fairness and a just distribution of resources in society. When Turanian herders gained literacy and numeracy, they used more complex forms of counting to gain an unfair advantage in society...

Quote
Sharing food in the Neolithic Period

When cereal agriculture spread in the Fertile Crescent, people became increasingly sedentary, and by doing so, they became vulnerable to famine during the harsh Near Eastern winter months or the unpredictable lean years.20 The early farmers had the wisdom to join forces to amass the amount of food necessary for every individual in the group, the strong and the weak, to survive dire times.21

The farmers were not the first to altruistically partake of food communally. Already thousands of years earlier, Palaeolithic hunters broke rank with the other primates by dividing their game catches between the members of their band.22 In both instances, sharing resources increased the chances of survival of the group.

The practices of sharing, however, were very different. During the Palaeolithic, the distribution of meat took place as the hunter came back to camp. It was an immediate and direct operation because tradition assigned a specific morsel to each individual according to his or her kinship rank. But during the Neolithic, the lengthy and complex process of accumulating, protecting and redistributing communal reserves fairly necessitated formal management. And, as communities grew and resources multiplied, the administration required the mastery of counting and accounting.23
[...]
For example, with the help of tokens, a leader could compute the yields of the forthcoming harvest, request contributions in correspondence with the estimated surplus and control the actual delivery of the goods. Once the collected grain was stored in communal granaries and the quantity of the reserves calculated, a leader could allocate amounts for: a) seeds; b) a reserve for subsistence in dire times; c) ritual offerings to the gods; d) the preparation of festivals.26

There was no hiatus between the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age accounting procedures in the ancient Near East. From 9000 to 2700 BC, tokens and written tablets formed a straight trajectory: both served exclusively to register the same goods in similar quantities and both acted in tandem with the same system of seals.
Denise Schmandt-Besserat. (2019). The Invention of Tokens. Published in Antonino Crisà, Mairi Gkikaki and Clare Rowan, eds., TOKENS, CULTURE, CONNECTIONS, COMMUNITIES. Royal Numismatic Society, Special Publication No 51, 2019.
https://sites.utexas.edu/dsb/tokens/the-invention-of-tokens/

----

The leftist Jewish economic historian Karl Polanyi argued in the early/mid 1900s that the ancient Mesopotamian economy was solely based on the redistribution system and did not even have a market economy. (Which is basically as close as you can get to a communist centrally-planned economy in the pre-industrial era, although I don't know if Polanyi ever tried to draw that parallel). Apparently Polanyi is the one who coined the term "redistributive economy" as well.

The following economic paper argues that the assertion that there was no market economy in ancient Mesopotamia is unreasonable, but concedes that the redistribution economy was certainly an important aspect of society. A more interesting question to think of is whether the economy was in part _centrally directed_ in addition to being directly managed via redistribution.
Quote
In 2005 the Assyriologists Johannes Renger and Michael Jursa published papers offering a reconsideration of Polanyi's theory in the light of new written evidence and new analytical techniques. This present paper summarizes and evaluates their contributions.

With respect to the fourth and third millennia, Renger's main revision is that reciprocal exchange was less important than Polanyi had assumed. However, Renger fully agrees with Polanyi on the unimportance of market and on the supreme importance of redistribution.

Quote
“Most obvious is the redistributive nature of Mesopotamian society and economy in the fourth and third millennia B.C. … [P]ractically the entire populace was taken care of for their living within the redistributional system. Thus, there was neither demand nor supply to create a functioning market”
Morris Silver. (2007). Redistribution and Markets in the Economy of Ancient Mesopotamia: Updating Polanyi. Antiguo Oriente, 5: 89-112.
academia.edu/2360528/Redistribution_and_Markets_in_the_Economy_of_Ancient_Mesopotamia_Updating_Polanyi

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2022, 10:31:26 pm »
The "redistribution economy", "palace economy", or "temple economy" describes an ancient state welfare system.

Quote
A palace economy or redistribution economy[1] is a system of economic organization in which a substantial share of the wealth flows into the control of a centralized administration, the palace, and out from there to the general population. In turn the population may be allowed its own sources of income but relies heavily on the wealth distributed by the palace. It was traditionally justified on the principle that the palace was most capable of distributing wealth efficiently for the benefit of society.[2][3]
[...]
The concept of economic distribution is at least as old as the advent of the pharaohs. Anthropologists have noted many such systems, from those of tribesmen engaged in common subsistence economies of various sorts to complex civilizations, such as that of the Inca Empire, which assigned segments of the economy to specific villages. The essence of the idea is that a central administration plans production, assigns elements of the population to carry it out, collects the goods and services thus created, and redistributes them to the producers.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy

...And communists want to claim they invented economic redistribution and economic planning?

(As a disclaimer, as the introduction to the Wikipedia article points out, technically a "palace economy" does not have to be populist--some societies used it to enrich the elite class and used slaves.)

----

Let's look at some more examples of ancient societies.

Earlier I quoted the claim on Wikipedia that Vasily Vodovozov was the first to write about "primitive communism", referring to ancient Crete. The "palace economy" there is probably what he was referring to, but the Wikipedia source mentioning Vodovozov doesn't even mention any of his writings on "primitive communism" or ancient Crete.
Quote
The thread leading to the current use of the terms came from the study of the palaces of the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations, which flourished in the Late Bronze Age on Crete and mainland Greece respectively. The term palace economy began as a label for the economic activities of individual palaces, which contained very large areas for the storage of agricultural produce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy#Etymology
Quote
As early as the Middle Bronze Age, roughly the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, the eastern Mediterranean was dominated by a civilization named Minoan by its discoverer, Sir Arthur Evans, excavating the Palace of Knossos, which he termed the Palace of Minos.
[...]
The economy of the Minoan civilization depended on the cultivation of wheat, olives, grapes and other products and also supported several industries such as the textile, pottery and metalwork industries. Some of the manufacturing industries were based in the palaces. Produce from surrounding farmland was collected, recorded, and stored in the palaces as seen from the large number of storerooms and pithoi (storage jars) recovered. The palaces appear to have had an extent of control over overseas trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy#Cretan_civilization

Quote
The mandala model for describing the patterns of diffuse political power in early Southeast Asian history, originated by O. W. Wolters 1982, does not address economic issues. Following British agent John Crawfurd's Siam mission in 1822, his journal describes a "palace economy" that he attributes to rapacity. ... This situation began the change to a market economy with the Bowring Treaty, negotiated by free-trade advocate Sir John Bowring with Siam's modernizing King Mongkut, signed on April 18, 1855.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy#Asia


Here, again, we have an example of a state consciously following socialist policies:
Quote
Emperor Ashoka of India put forward his idea of a welfare state in the 3rd century BCE. He envisioned his dharma (religion or path) as not just a collection of high-sounding phrases. He consciously tried to adopt it as a matter of state policy; he declared that "all men are my children"[12] and "whatever exertion I make, I strive only to discharge debt that I owe to all living creatures." It was a totally new ideal of kingship.[13] Ashoka renounced war and conquest by violence and forbade the killing of many animals.[14] Since he wanted to conquer the world through love and faith, he sent many missions to propagate Dharma. Such missions were sent to places like Egypt, Greece, and Sri Lanka. The propagation of Dharma included many measures of people's welfare. Centers of the treatment of men and beasts founded inside and outside of the empire. Shady groves, wells, orchards and rest houses were laid out.[15] Ashoka also prohibited useless sacrifices and certain forms of gatherings which led to waste, indiscipline and superstition.[14] To implement these policies he recruited a new cadre of officers called Dharmamahamattas. Part of this group's duties was to see that people of various sects were treated fairly. They were especially asked to look after the welfare of prisoners.[16][17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#India

Quote
The Emperor Wen (203 – 157 BCE) of Han Dynasty instituted a variety of measures with resemblances to modern welfare policies. These included pensions, in the form of food and wine, to all over 80 years of age, as well as monetary support, in the form of loans or tax breaks, to widows, orphans, and elderly without children to support them. Emperor Wen was also known for a concern over wasteful spending of tax-payer money. Unlike other Han emperors, he wore simple silk garments. In order to make the state serve the common people better, cruel criminal punishments were lessened and the state bureaucracy was made more meritocratic. This led to officials being selected by examinations for the first time in Chinese history. [23] [24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#China

Quote
The Roman Republic intervened sporadically to distribute free or subsidized grain to its population, through the program known as Cura Annonae. The city of Rome grew rapidly during the Roman Republic and Empire, reaching a population approaching one million in the second century AD. The population of the city grew beyond the capacity of the nearby rural areas to meet the food needs of the city.[25]

Regular grain distribution began in 123 BC with a grain law proposed by Gaius Gracchus and approved by the Roman Plebeian Council (popular assembly). The numbers of those receiving free or subsidized grain expanded to a high of an estimated 320,000 people at one point.[26][27]
[...]
The doles of bread, olive oil, wine, and pork apparently continued until near the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD.[29] The dole in the early Roman Empire is estimated to account for 15 to 33 percent of the total grain imported and consumed in Rome.[30]

In addition to food, the Roman Republic also supplied free entertainment, through ludi (public games). Public money was allocated for the staging of ludi, but the presiding official increasingly came to augment the splendor of his games from personal funds as a form of public relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Rome

Quote
The concept of states taxing for the welfare budget was introduced in early 7th century Islamic law.[32] Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam and is a mandatory form of 2.5% income tax to be paid by all individuals earning above a basic threshold to provide for the needy. Umar (584–644), leader of the Rashidun Caliphate (empire), established a welfare state through the Bayt al-mal (treasury), which for instance was used to stockpile food in every region of the Islamic Empire for disasters and emergencies.[33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Middle_East
Quote
The emergence of Zakat (charity), one of the Five Pillars of Islam as alms collected by the government, was the world's first instance of a codified universal social security tax,[23] in the time of the Rashidun caliph Umar in the 7th century (634 CE), and used to provide income for the needy, including the poor, elderly, orphans, widows, and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist Al-Ghazali (Algazel, 1058–111), the government was also expected to store up food supplies in every region in case a disaster or famine occurred.[24][25] (See Bayt al-mal for further information.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#History

Quote
Otto von Bismarck established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society, with social-welfare legislation, in 1880s Imperial Germany.[34][35] Bismarck extended the privileges of the Junker social class to ordinary Germans.[34] His 17 November 1881 Imperial Message to the Reichstag used the term "practical Christianity" to describe his program.[36] German laws from this era also insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace.[37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Modern

Quote
The Song dynasty government (960 CE) supported multiple programs which could be classified as social welfare, including the establishment of retirement homes, public clinics, and paupers' graveyards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#History

Quote
Early welfare programs in Europe included the English Poor Law of 1601, which gave parishes the responsibility for providing welfare payments to the poor.[26] This system was substantially modified by the 19th-century Poor Law Amendment Act, which introduced the system of workhouses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#History

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2022, 10:38:37 pm »
"irrigation canals"

Recall:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/aryan-hydraulic-empire/msg1096/#msg1096

Quote
As gatherers became farmers, they recognized that more consistent supplies of water resulted in better crop yields and healthier animals. The creation of water control systems, such as wells, cisterns, runoff diversion systems, and, eventually, irrigation, allowed populations to provide water for crops without relying solely on local rainfall. Water control was part of the Neolithic Revolution, as V. Gordon Childe called it, and, along with plant and animal domestication, it allowed people to consolidate and create denser population areas.

The development of these water control systems, though, created a concomitant need to control access to the water. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, anthropologists Karl Wittfogel and Julian Steward proposed that this control was a major factor in the development of early civilizations. Increased food production, they argued, led to increased population; increased population led to a need for increased food production to feed the larger population; increased food production required more water; increased demand for water required that it be apportioned in some way; and increased need for apportionment led to a need for greater control in order to prevent tension over conflicting demands for water.

Ultimately, whoever controlled the water had to maintain that control in one (or some combination) of three ways: through force, by having permission from those who needed the water, or by being able to negotiate with all the parties involved. People accepted the decisions of the water administrator to withhold or provide water, but they also came together under the administrator’s direction to construct or maintain water control structures. This centralized control led to greater integration of various family groups as they united for a common cause under an acknowledged leader

In contrast to the Marxist notion that primitive communism was stateless, our conception of early socialism should be presented as categorically statist, and specifically monarchist (imagine the chaos that would ensue if there were two or more water administrators instead of just one!).

"Lack of evidence of an "elite" class of rulers does not mean no rulers existed. It could simply mean they were populists who did not live in a higher state of luxury than non-rulers."

Good point. Along similar lines, absence of luxurious living conditions for a few is not a indicator of ideological egalitarianism. To assume that it is presumes that everyone would prefer to live as luxuriously as possible, which is a hedonistic presumption, in response to which Marxism merely insists that no one should live more luxuriously than anyone else (but is not opposed to increase in luxury so long as it occurs strictly uniformly).

In fact, egalitarianism is the belief that no one is qualitatively better than anyone else. It is perfectly possible to believe that someone is better without believing that the better person should have more stuff! If anything, we would expect that the better someone is, the less stuff they would want! In saner eras, ascetics were widely regarded as the qualitatively best people in a society precisely from others observing their austere lifestyles and reflecting that they themselves probably could not live like that.

I think we can construct an archetypical model citizen for different types of socialist society. The model communist citizen would be one who is unselfishly hedonistic: they will spend their energy trying to increase luxury as much as possible while rigorously avoiding uneven distribution of luxury. In contrast, the model True Left socialist citizen would be one who is anti-hedonistic: they will spend their energy trying to remove desire for luxury (which if successful consequently removes the problem of uneven distribution also, but in a far more radical way).
« Last Edit: March 04, 2022, 11:11:12 pm by 90sRetroFan »

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2022, 02:07:55 am »
Quote
In contrast to the Marxist notion that primitive communism was stateless, our conception of early socialism should be presented as categorically statist, and specifically monarchist (imagine the chaos that would ensue if there were two or more water administrators instead of just one!).

So, we can say that in pre-modern socialism: statism* is embodied by monarchism, and the "social idea" is embodied by a religious philosophy, a non-religious philosophy, or just general populist attitudes. In practice, this results in the various policies I outlined in the first post being put into practice.


* Or, we can word it more strongly, and call this the "national idea", like Hitler did. Especially considering--as Hitler pointed out--because a truly sovereign monarch is basically the state itself, a noble monarch has no higher interest than to serve the nation as a whole.

On this basis, Hitler claimed Frederick the Great was the first socialist ruler. However, perhaps it is more accurate to say Frederick the Great was the last in a long line of pre-modern socialist monarchs.

Wikipedia says Frederick the Great was an "enlightened absolutist", and Wikipedia claims this philosophy was influenced by the "Enlightenment". However, since the "Enlightenment" is most widely known for its democratic principles, it seems the "enlightened absolutists" were in fact the predecessors to the Romanticist movement instead. (The phrase itself was coined during the Romanticist era as well).

It seems the only real "Enlightenment" idea is that the enlightened absolutists did not base their claim to rule on divine right (i.e. traditionalism), but on the "social contract". (Ironically, the social contract theory originated with Thomas Hobbes prior to the main part of the "Enlightenment", and Hobbes himself arrived at the conclusion that monarchy/autocracy was the best form of government to uphold the social contract. ...Then John Locke had to come around and make social contract theory synonymous with democracy.)

Quote
Enlightened absolutism (also called enlightened despotism) refers to the conduct and policies of European absolute monarchs during the 18th and early 19th centuries who were influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, espousing them to enhance their power.[1]
[...]
The enlightened despotism of Emperor Joseph II of the Holy Roman Empire is summarized as, "Everything for the people, nothing by the people".[4]

Enlightened absolutism is the theme of an essay by Frederick the Great, who ruled Prussia from 1740 to 1786, defending this system of government.[5]
[...]
Enlightened absolutists held that royal power emanated not from divine right but from a social contract whereby a despot was entrusted with the power to govern through a social contract in lieu of any other governments. The monarchs of enlightened absolutism strengthened their authority by improving the lives of their subjects. The monarch’s taking responsibility for his subjects precluded their political participation.
[...]
The concept of enlightened absolutism was formally described by the German historian Wilhelm Roscher in 1847[8] and remains controversial among scholars.[9]
[...]
Frederick explained, "My principal occupation is to combat ignorance and prejudice ... to enlighten minds, cultivate morality, and to make people as happy as it suits human nature, and as the means at my disposal permit".[12] He wrote an essay on "Benevolent Despotism" defending this system of government.[13]
[...]
For a brief period in Denmark Johann Friedrich Struensee attempted to govern in terms of Enlightenment principles. After issuing 1,069 decrees in 13 months covering many major reforms, his enemies overthrew him and he was executed and quartered.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism

Socialist absolutist vs traditionalist dynasts:
Quote
Johann Friedrich Struensee (5 August 1737 – 28 April 1772) was a German physician, philosopher and statesman. He became royal physician to the mentally ill King Christian VII of Denmark and a minister in the Danish government. He rose in power to a position of "de facto" regent of the country, where he tried to carry out widespread reforms.
[...]
At first, Struensee kept a low profile as he began to control the political machine. However, in December 1770 he grew impatient, and on the 10th of that month he abolished the council of state. A week later he appointed himself maître des requêtes. It became his official duty to present reports from the various departments of state to the king. Because King Christian was scarcely responsible for his actions, Struensee dictated whatever answers he pleased. Next, he dismissed all department heads, and abolished the Norwegian viceroyship. Henceforth the cabinet, with himself as its motive power, became the one supreme authority in the state. Struensee held absolute sway for almost thirteen months, between 18 December 1770 and 16 January 1772. During this time he issued no fewer than 1069 cabinet orders, or more than three a day.[5]

Reforms initiated by Struensee included:[6]

    abolition of torture
    abolition of unfree labor (corvée)
    abolition of the censorship of the press
    abolition of the practice of preferring nobles for state offices
    abolition of noble privileges
    abolition of "undeserved" revenues for nobles
    abolition of the etiquette rules at the Royal Court
    abolition of the Royal Court's aristocracy
    abolition of state funding of unproductive manufacturers
    abolition of several holidays
    introduction of a tax on gambling and luxury horses to fund nursing of foundlings
    ban of slave trade in the Danish colonies
    rewarding only actual achievements with feudal titles and decorations
    criminalization and punishment of bribery
    re-organization of the judicial institutions to minimize corruption
    introduction of state-owned grain storages to balance out the grain price
    assignment of farmland to peasants
    re-organization and reduction of the army
    university reforms
    reform of the state-owned medical institutions
[...]
Critics of Struensee thought that he did not respect native Danish and Norwegian customs, seeing them as prejudices and wanting to eliminate them in favor of abstract principles.
[...]
While initially the Danish people favored his reforms, they began to turn against him. When Struensee abolished all censorship of the press, it mostly resulted in a flood of anti-Struensee pamphlets.[7]

During the initial months of his rule, middle class opinion was in his favor.[8]" What incensed the people most against him was the way in which he put the king completely on one side; and this feeling was all the stronger as, outside a very narrow court circle, nobody seems to have believed that Christian VII was really mad, but only that his will had been weakened by habitual ill usage;
[...]
A palace coup took place in the early morning of 17 January 1772 ... The chief charge against Struensee was that he had usurped the royal authority in contravention of the Royal Law (Kongelov).
[...]
On 27 April/28 April Struensee and Brandt were condemned first to lose their right hands and then to be beheaded; their bodies were afterwards to be drawn and quartered. The Kongelov had no provisions for a mentally ill ruler who was unfit to govern. However, as a commoner who had imposed himself in the circles of nobility, Struensee was condemned as being guilty of lèse majesté and usurpation of the royal authority, both capital offences according to paragraphs 2 and 26 of the Kongelov.
[...]
The King himself considered Struensee a great man, even after his death. Written in German on a drawing the king made in 1775, three years after Struensee’s execution, was the following: "Ich hätte gern beide gerettet" ("I would have liked to have saved them both"), referring to Struensee and Brandt.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Struensee


Quote
It is perfectly possible to believe that someone is better without believing that the better person should have more stuff! If anything, we would expect that the better someone is, the less stuff they would want!

Plato even found this concept important enough to put into law in his ideal state:
Quote
An important feature that distinguishes Plato's ideal society in the Republic is that the ban on private property applies only to the superior classes (rulers and warriors), not to the general public.


Quote
The ideal communist citizen would be one who is unselfishly hedonistic: they will spend their energy trying to increase luxury as much as possible while rigorously avoiding uneven distribution of luxury.

That seems like a reasonable definition. I don't have anything more to add to this, but I do think that definition captures what communists in Western societies imagine. E.g. this is a meme, but I haven't seen any serious communist arguments against such an 'ideal'*:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/fully-automated-luxury-gay-space-communism

* (Other than Communists pointing out the practical matter that there are not yet enough "productive forces" for the "third world" to share that standard of luxury, and therefore such a meme is Eurocentric bougie escapism--but only for now--eventually production may reach high enough levels, and they are therefore not opposed to it in principle.)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2022, 02:57:41 am »
"social contract theory"

The main ethical problem with social contract theory is that those incapable of understanding and/or formulating contractual language are considered unworthy of ethical concern. Thus in effect, only beings possessing structured language are considered part of the in-group by social contract theory, while everyone else is placed into the outgroup. Social contract theory becomes another form of tribalism.

Our vision of an enlightened absolutist, in contrast, is someone so sensitive that their empathy does not require the mediation of language and hence will be expected to rule with the welfare of beings without structured language in mind also.

"it seems the "enlightened absolutists" were in fact the predecessors to the Romanticist movement instead."

You are correct, and again we return to Christianity as the true inspiration for both socialism and Romanticism, the latter as described here:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/921/921-h/921-h.htm

Quote
To the artist, expression is the only mode under which he can conceive life at all.  To him what is dumb is dead.  But to Christ it was not so.  With a width and wonder of imagination that fills one almost with awe, he took the entire world of the inarticulate, the voiceless world of pain, as his kingdom, and made of himself its eternal mouthpiece.  Those of whom I have spoken, who are dumb under oppression, and ‘whose silence is heard only of God,’ he chose as his brothers.  He sought to become eyes to the blind, ears to the deaf, and a cry in the lips of those whose tongues had been tied.  His desire was to be to the myriads who had found no utterance a very trumpet through which they might call to heaven.  And feeling, with the artistic nature of one to whom suffering and sorrow were modes through which he could realise his conception of the beautiful, that an idea is of no value till it becomes incarnate and is made an image, he made of himself the image of the Man of Sorrows, and as such has fascinated and dominated art as no Greek god ever succeeded in doing.

(You probably remember this as part of the extract I posted here:

http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/De-Profundis.jpg )

"Hobbes himself arrived at the conclusion that monarchy/autocracy was the best form of government to uphold the social contract. ...Then John Locke had to come around and make social contract theory synonymous with democracy.)"

Yes, but Hobbes was still a humanist. His vision of an ideal monarch is unlikely to be anything like the Romantic one as described above, but at best merely a ruler seeking a sustainably balanced collective self-interest of humans only (and probably only adult humans at that!), which to us is nothing but successful sustainable evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes%27s_moral_and_political_philosophy

Quote
Hobbes’s concept of moral obligation stems from the assumption that humans have a fundamental obligation to follow the laws of nature and all obligations stem from nature.[8]

Quote
Ratiocination leads individuals to uncover the Laws of Nature, which Hobbes deems “the true moral philosophy”.[2]

By no coincidence, Hobbes worships Yahweh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)

Quote
He discusses the Ten Commandments, and asks "who it was that gave to these written tables the obligatory force of laws. There is no doubt but they were made laws by God Himself: but because a law obliges not, nor is law to any but to them that acknowledge it to be the act of the sovereign, how could the people of Israel, that were forbidden to approach the mountain to hear what God said to Moses, be obliged to obedience to all those laws which Moses propounded to them?" and concludes, as before, that "making of the Scripture law, belonged to the civil sovereign."

So my point is that Hobbes and Locke really have the same (inferior) objective, but differ only in what governmental form they believe is optimal for achieving it.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2022, 03:07:00 am by 90sRetroFan »

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2022, 09:32:35 pm »
That makes sense. So if the social contract is not an acceptable basis for a leader to justify their "mandate" to rule, then what? I suppose we can say it's the Führerprinzip/Leader Principle that the leader is the embodiment of the nation's aspirations and that, consequentially, citizens have a duty to support their leadership (and the leadership has a corresponding duty to ensure the welfare of the nation as a whole)?

The Leader Principle seems like it would encompass the non-traditionalist interpretation of "divine right". Many historic leaders claimed to be the living embodiment of a god or that they alone possessed the capabilities to fulfill the ethical goals set forth by a religious/philosophical creed. They justified their rule on the basis that they were individuals of uniquely high quality who alone could fulfill the duties of leadership.

(Come to think of it, Jesus being referred to as "king of kings" could be portrayed as an example of the Leader Principle, and an example of how socialist attitudes can be traced back to him).

This is in contrast to the traditionalist interpretation of "divine right"--that certain dynasties have a "right" to rule simply because their ancestors ruled, and that this hierarchy is "divine" and should not be questioned (even if the ruler is of low ethical quality and poor administrative talent).

The willingness to test the social contract theory, democracy, and other 'Enlightenment' ideas was a reaction to this ignoble traditionalist form of divine right, but merely as a way to keep Western Civilization progressing after progress had become stagnant.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2022, 10:23:45 pm »
"So if the social contract is not an acceptable basis for a leader to justify their "mandate" to rule, then what? I suppose we can say it's the Führerprinzip/Leader Principle that the leader is the embodiment of the nation's aspirations and that, consequentially, citizens have a duty to support their leadership (and the leadership has a corresponding duty to ensure the welfare of the nation as a whole)?"

Yes. Of course those who dislike the leader must be allowed to emigrate (renouncing their citizenship in the process).

"Many historic leaders claimed to be the living embodiment of a god or that they alone possessed the capabilities to fulfill the ethical goals set forth by a religious/philosophical creed. They justified their rule on the basis that they were individuals of uniquely high quality who alone could fulfill the duties of leadership."

Yes!

"This is in contrast to the traditionalist interpretation of "divine right"--that certain dynasties have a "right" to rule simply because their ancestors ruled, and that this hierarchy is "divine" and should not be questioned (even if the ruler is of low ethical quality and poor administrative talent)."

Yes, but there is a subtlety here that many people miss. We recognize that rulers who are of excellent administrative talent (in the actual job of ruling) are frequently poor in campaigning talent (to seize power in the first place) precisely because successful campaigning requires extremely dirty and dishonourable tactics and is thus unsuited to people of high ethical quality. It is under this awareness that we defend direct appointment of each successor by each preceding ruler as opposed to letting multiple candidates compete for the position: our expectation is that the best at getting the job is extremely unlikely to be the best at doing the job, and vice versa. It is for the sake of putting in the best person to do the job that we insist how they got the job (by direct appointment) not be questioned by naturalists who cannot understand why the part in bold is true.

To clarify then, the belief that a ruler has a "divine right" to rule on account of appointment by the previous ruler is not necessarily traditionalist. It is traditionalist only if it is based on the reasoning that the previous ruler can predict who is the best at getting the job (and hence by directly appointing that person is merely sparing the candidates from going through the trouble of competing, without altering the outcome). It is anti-traditionalist if it is based on the reasoning that the previous ruler can predict who is the bet at doing the job (who will almost always be a different person than the best person at getting the job, and hence alters the outcome compared to what would happen if the candidates were to compete for the job).

(Similarly, this is why arranged marriage is not necessarily traditionalist. It could also be based on awareness that those who would make the best spouses are usually those whose personality is such that they will refuse to date on their own initiative, whereas those willing to put a lot of effort into dating usually make terrible spouses. We should be discussing how to re-normalize arranged marriage as part of:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/social-decolonization/ )
« Last Edit: April 06, 2022, 10:41:18 pm by 90sRetroFan »

SirGalahad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 317
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2022, 11:44:00 pm »
@90sRetroFan "Yes. Of course those who dislike the leader must be allowed to emigrate (renouncing their citizenship in the process)."

What would you say to those who don't like the current leader, and at the same time don't wish to emigrate because they claim to prefer their current culture and people over that of any other country they could possibly emigrate to? I agree on paper that everyone should be ruled in the way that they prefer, and I'm personally aware that any sort of culture outside of Aryan culture is an abstraction that isn't worth emphasizing over something far more important like form of leadership. But it feels more complicated than that, since people can just say, for example, "I love Afghanistan, but I just don't like the current leader or the form of leadership. Why do the Taliban get to say what Afghanistan is?" And that would lead to three options:

1. They begrudgingly stay in their current country and accept the current regime, which in a way hurts the folkish sorting.

2. They attempt to overthrow the current regime and install their own regime. (This isn't ideal because assuming that survivalism is out of the equation, it would likely trigger a chain of successive overthrows and regime changes that accomplish very little.)

3. They secede and form another separate state (Kind of like the whole North Korea and South Korea situation, if South Korea happened to be equally as autocratic). This isn't ideal either, for obvious reasons.

Again, I agree with you on paper, I just don't think I'm well-equipped enough to confidently say "Just emigrate if you don't like the current regime" and be able to defend that position in a way I'd find satisfactory, upon further questioning.

"Similarly, this is why arranged marriage is not necessarily traditionalist. It could also be based on awareness that those who would make the best spouses are usually those whose personality is such that they will refuse to date on their own initiative, whereas those willing to put a lot of effort into dating usually make terrible spouses."

I agree with the very last part, but aren't arranged marriages unromantic, since the person in question isn't being given the freedom to potentially find and marry the person that they instinctively know they love enough to pledge life-long loyalty to? Also, arranged marriages are almost always set up by parents, who obviously forfeit the right to have any say in their child's life, the moment that they conceive.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2022, 11:46:47 pm by SirGalahad »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11039
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2022, 01:18:47 am »
"What would you say to those who don't like the current leader, and at the same time don't wish to emigrate because they claim to prefer their current culture and people over that of any other country they could possibly emigrate to?"

They cannot then claim to be tyrannized (see below).

"1. They begrudgingly stay in their current country and accept the current regime, which in a way hurts the folkish sorting."

Which is why we also need state control over reproduction as a method of folkish filtering to cover those who do not want to do folkish sorting.

"2. They attempt to overthrow the current regime and install their own regime."

I fully expect them to try this in reality. The point is, by us making it clear from the outset that our regime allows them to leave at any time they want, and that it was they who turned down our offer and instead decided to overthrow us, we have the moral high ground. In contrast, if (as with communist countries) the regime prohibits emigration, then it is the rebels who have the moral high ground on account of a valid claim of being victims of tyranny.

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Ancient candidates for socialism
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2022, 02:44:43 pm »
Quote
What would you say to those who don't like the current leader, and at the same time don't wish to emigrate because they claim to prefer their current culture and people over that of any other country they could possibly emigrate to? ... But it feels more complicated than that, since people can just say, for example, "I love Afghanistan, but I just don't like the current leader or the form of leadership.

The solution is a multi-ethnic nation (as opposed to a "nation state", where the nation comprises of almost exclusively a single ethnic group). Afghanistan, in fact, is an example of such a nation. The Pashtun ("Afghan") ethnic group only makes up ~38-50% of Afghanistan!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Ethnic_composition

The Pashtun ethnic group comprises 25% of Pakistan (the second-largest ethnic group, only 12 percentage points less than Punjabis):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan

The Tajik ethnic group (the second-largest in Afghanistan at ~25%) are also prevalent in Tajikistan, etc.


The US is another example--many different customs have been introduced from all the different ethnic groups immigrating here, but, simultaneously, there is a general attitude that the national "identity" (for lack of better term) is shared by all citizens--even those who have no ancestors born in the US! So, immigrants do not necessarily need to assimilate into the predominant culture (thereby giving up certain customs), nor does the established culture need to view new customs and ethnic groups as a "threat" to the nation's sense of self.

As yet another example, there are even millions of Brazilians of Japanese ancestry who continue to practice certain customs from Japan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Brazilian

So, if someone likes the culture/customs that exist in their current nation, but not the government, they could move somewhere else where the customs they prefer also exist.


In an ideal folkish scenario, immigrants would give up ignoble customs from their culture of origin (while replacing them with noble customs from the nation they immigrated to) and also help the nation to which they immigrated give up ignoble customs that are part of their established culture (by promoting noble customs introduced from the immigrants).


Many, (if not all!), ancient empires were multi-ethnic. Hitler praised nationalism for its ability to dissolve petty identities which were a holdover from fossilized feudal identities and unite them into a higher national consciousness (i.e. folkism). But it seems that, in Western nations, the very idea of a nation has itself become fossilized and degenerated into a "nation state" tied to ethnic identity.