• sweatersocialist [comrade/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      but they are just tribes. saying "statists make this argument" doesn't invalidate the argument lol. you're acting like these tribes didn't have hierarchies and lineages and privilege based on both. (they did)

      not having a state isn't the same thing as anarchism. anarchism is an actual and fairly refined philosophy that has to account for material conditions, social and economic reality and shape them with anarchist thought. it isn't just when no state.

      and i mean no disrespect to you when i say this, but comments like this are why most leftists tend to leave anarchism once they're exposed to more "authoritarian" socialist theory. the "authoritarians" simply make a much better argument. anarchism sounds great until you've really considered the arguments that "statist" leftists make

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        At least by the Marxist definition, these societies virtually all did have states, they were just very small states. They enforced the oppression of women by men (patriarchy) along with other class relations.

      • HelltakerHomosexual [she/her, comrade/them]
        ·
        2 months ago

        not having a state isn't the same thing as anarchism. anarchism is an actual and fairly refined philosophy that has to account for material conditions, social and economic reality and shape them with anarchist thought. it isn't just when no state.

        yall are giving em toooo much credit but yeah. The marxist leninists are the best anarchists at the end of the day.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]
      ·
      2 months ago

      Patriarchal* agrarian societies were brutal, though, and have nothing to do with anarchism if anarchism is worth anything. The "forced to barter bc no money" is a myth made up by capitalists though, since all of these societies were either self-sufficient or simply pillaged from other societies. The telling in which theses societies were reliant on trade between each other is so silly it doesn't even rise to the level of Adam Smith's "barter myth," which itself is discredited.

      *in the old sense of men literally ruling as a rule, with all the women being in a condition not meaningfully distinguishable from slavery.

      • Dolores [love/loves]
        ·
        2 months ago

        since all of these societies were either self-sufficient or simply pillaged from other societies. The telling in which theses societies were reliant on trade between each other is so silly it doesn't even rise to the level of Adam Smith's "barter myth," which itself is discredited

        the hell are you talking about, trade is very well documented in the medditerrean since the bronze age

        • thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          2 months ago

          Trade is arguably a lot earlier, too. In the Mediterranean region obsidian (from volcanic regions) was highly prized during the neolithic for making sharp blades, and even though there are only a few sources of it in the entire region obsidian blades can be found all over the Med. Speaks to some kind of trading network operating during the neolithic, if not earlier.

          • HelltakerHomosexual [she/her, comrade/them]
            ·
            2 months ago

            Most societies for thousands of years did not barter. Bartering is a myth, but that does not mean trade itself is a myth. Most had some form of money and accounting. The complexity of ancient civilizations should not be underestimated.

          • Dolores [love/loves]
            ·
            2 months ago

            a vulgar generalization! many "tribal" social organizations had monetary development and were plugged into a long range trading network. cornwall continuously exported tin from the bronze age through the medieval period, regardless of the state of political sophistication it was subject to