...so I'm gonna tell you something here instead.
I think a future communist society would have more nomads. For the bulk of humanity's existence, nomadic life was the norm. Property and contractual obligation has made settled life mandatory in most of the imperial core, with a slim handful of exceptions.
Here in the states, the contradiction is mind-boggling. We're told the settlement of America was necessary to the establishment of freedoms, that nobody else enjoys as much liberties as we do today. And yet, for those "liberties", we had to stop people from leading nomadic lives. Corralled and marched people miles, so they could be free. Stole babes from families, so they could be free. Free to do what, exactly?
Centuries ago, nomadic life was a fundamental freedom for millions. Maybe it could be again...
~
...not that I know what that nomadic life would look like, or how it would interplay with settled life... just that it seems like something that should be striven for
i don't think this is really true.
Didn't hunter gatherers move around?
not all of them. people in particularly hospitable places never needed to, and nonagricultural peoples who live/d off the water were were/are fairly stationary
and those that did probably rotated about a set range rather than go wherever willy-nilly
Good point. Can argue that people generally moved when compelled by scarcity or duress and settled when they had a good thing going with agriculture and also protection from the elements (improved shelters, clothing, fire, eventually air conditioning) expanding the range of areas that could be permanently settled more so than changing the calculus of nomadic life vs settlement. Also worth noting that from what I've read most people in cultures with limited western contact when asked their favorite hobbies/past times tend to say something along the lines of visiting other villages/areas so I still think there is some innate tendency of people to travel even when they don't necessarily have to.
travelling doesnt necessarily mean a nomadic lifestyle though. its also important to find someone to date because most people in a village are related
They come back home afterwards. Big difference between that and nomads with no home.
They did. Right up until someone figured out instead of gathering plants, you could stick the seeds into the ground and then hang out until they were ready to eat. Boy, that was a game-changer.
yeah it isnt. fishing and limited cultivation + the dangers of entering a new biome, knowing absolutely nothing about it, were huge deterrents
mass migrations were mostly from huge disasters and overpopulation leading to depleted resources, and even then it wasnt a quick migration. the bantu migration for instance took nearly 1000 years, and the germanic migrations took nearly 400 years
even the idea of the mongolian nomadic tribe is mostly incorrect. they had many permanent areas and just used the steppe for grazing and brought the herds back to those areas when it was time for slaughter. and prior to animal husbandry, steppe life was nonexistent. animal husbandry was probably first conceived around 13,000 bc. modern humans have been around since 250,000 years ago
not to say it isnt a valid lifestyle, but the idea of it being the 'natural order' is likely incorrect. the natural order is probably camping out next to lake victoria while eating hallucinogenic berry bushes and fishing all year round
This is what they took from us.
And transhumance was pretty much always based around seasonal moves with flocks and herds, so since I don't expect pastoralism to be a major way of life in our communist future, I don't think transhumance is going to be a major way of life either.
Agriculture isn't that old, honestly. Not compared to the millions of years we lived as hunter-gatherers.
the assumption that hunter-gatherers are inherently itinerant is false. moreover all peoples we've studied who migrate (of their own volition) do so in systemic limited ways that'd quite disappoint someone imagining distant travels to diverse locales.