Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Collectivist

Frederick Engles "Origin of the famil, Private Property and the State"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

   When the first primitive man awoke to it's own consciousness and pointed, grunted or grabbed an object outside of himself (whether animate or inanimate) private property was born. This reality goes against everything written in Frederick Engles book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", where he believes that communal property was a primary reason for man's climb to a more and ever advancing state. This I refute. There are plenty of examples in primitive culture where private property was first cause. For example, when primitive man fashioned tools for hunting, polished stones for throwing or invented a new means for easing his hard life, he made life easier for himself and others who were less gifted but banned around him for an unearned but demanded an award of ownership that was not theirs to claim. He  had to defend his right to possession, at every moment, against merciless groups of jealous fellow tribesmen who were in no way his"mental"  equal. If he won, he became leader or chief and freely taught them how to fashion things for the betterment of all. If he lost he was killed, therefore the tribe losing the benefit of his knowledge eventually the tribe perished of their own ignorance and accord, If he was over powered he had to, much against his will, distribute his things throughout those with need to his possessions. Generally, this man learned not to share his knowledge and became a loner or worse. If  banished his tribe became more powerful than others and adapted more easily to the harshness of the environment they lived in conquering as much of nature as they could. These people, the followers of  "the men with brains" and the things which they were taught over time became bigger bans, tribes, villages, cities and finally advanced civilizations.

Of course main line anthropologists find this truth to be hard to swallow and mostly and formulate their theories on early primitive man to fit their own pre-conceived notions on the actions, beliefs and religious formations of early man. I don't believe any of their "hogwash!"

To me, however, I have refuted altruism, commualism, socialism and communism once and for all times as a false, egregious and empty thrashings of those who find life to hard to bare and must by means of force or legistration receive and be rewarded of the unearned property and possessions of those who would, by their own choice, if left alone, create a world and life worth living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Collectivist said:

   Of course main line anthropologists find this truth to be hard to swallow and mostly and formulate their theories on early primitive man to fit their own pre-conceived notions on the actions, beliefs and religious formations of early man. I don't believe any of their "hogwash!"

 

Really? What evidence do you have to support your theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Collectivist said:

where he believes that communal property was a primary reason for man's climb to a more and ever advancing state.

What was his reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not his reasoning. Engles fully quoted the work of Lewis H. Morgan in his book "Ancient Society or Researches In The Lines Of Human Progress From Savagery, Through Barbarism To Civilization" (1877) Engles was not an anthropogist using, Morgan's book and findings to fit his own theories of communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State

Marx's idea (and Engel's) regarding Historical Materialism can be traced at least back to 1848 (The German Ideology).  He believed that he had discovered the "science" of history, and that Man would, through a series of revolutions, eventually arrive at Perfect Communism where the State would wither away.  The "progress" through successive historical ages was completely deterministic - and completely beyond the influence of any one individual.  Thus, in Marx's mind, "scientific".

His idea that there exists (and has existed down through the ages) a conflict/revolution driven by Classes and their relations to the material means of production was a positivist/materialist spin on Hegel's dialectic idealism : Thesis: Antithesis => Synthesis.  In the case of Marx (early 1800's) this was reflected in:  Captial : Labor => Socialism => Communism.

The way to counter Marxism and Historical Determinism is not to argue that a different series of anthropological events took place.

6 hours ago, Collectivist said:

There are plenty of examples in primitive culture where private property was first cause. For example, when primitive man fashioned tools for hunting, polished stones for throwing or invented a new means for easing his hard life, he made life easier for himself and others who were less gifted but banned around him for an unearned but demanded an award of ownership that was not theirs to claim. He  had to defend his right to possession, at every moment, against merciless groups of jealous fellow tribesmen who were in no way his"mental"  equal.

This is every bit as fantastical as anything that Marx or Engles ever wrote.

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Collectivist said:

Historical Materialism if a false dicotamy which views man as a unconscious non-enity without brains and ability!

Of course it is.  Did you think I was arguing otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Collectivist said:

Fantastical but nonetheless truthful!

My initial impression is that this Collectivist is a troll account mocking typical teenage attempts at being profound.  Or maybe it is a typical teenager, or merely has the mentality of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me thinks you are to proud of yourself. I am neither mocking nor a teenager, If you are typical of this forum, then this forum is not worth my time or spit!. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Collectivist said:

Fantastical but nonetheless truthful!

 

You still have not presented the slightest bit of evidence that what you claim happened did happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SpookyKitty

Pick up any anthropology textbook or reseach (Margrett Meade) would be good and read" between the lines" of her presentations. That should clear the clouds on this matter! As for me I have already been attacked in this forum for being a "Newbie" who dares to post his views on Objectivism here. So I thank you for your kindness. Although I have found that cultists of Ay Rand , in general are not nice people (present company excepted of corse) so I am leaving thisforum for greener and happier fields-goodbye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....if you doubt what I am saying and you are interested in this phnom, about the "cult of Ayn Rand/Objectivism" I may be so bold as to recommend Karen Horney book "Our Inner Conflects: A Constructive Theory of Neurosis" It will give you great insights into your fellow forum members!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Grames said:

My initial impression is that this Collectivist is a troll account mocking typical teenage attempts at being profound.  Or maybe it is a typical teenager, or merely has the mentality of one.

To be fair to the OP, both Rand and Marx write of history as progressing to a final state -- both seeing history as driven by a "dialectic".

Marx saw Primitive Man as residing in a state of perfect communal living, and would eventually return to one via. Pure Communism.  The introduction of the concept "property" created a state of Alienation, which would eventually disappear.

Rand's "historical dialectic" is one of Man having begun in absolute primitive, ignorant savagery and, through the achievements of lone individuals (largely in opposition to the community) Man would eventually reach (for lack of a better expression) a state of "pure individualism".  Rand's writings are full of references to "witch doctors", "brutes", "mystics of spirit", "mystics of muscle", etc.  Rarely does she get into a detailed account of how our current understanding of "property" largely arose English Common Law and from the Puritan opposition to the Stuart's claim of the Divine Right of Kings, the establishment of a limited Constitutional Monarchy under William during the Glorious Revolution, etc., etc., etc.

This idea, of historical progress to a final state, in many ways, parallels the discussion in the other current post regarding anarcho-capitalism.  Some anarcho-capitalists believe, like Marx, that the State will eventually "wither away".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Mankind started with nothing and now we have so much.  How did it happen?  

"... our current understanding of "property" largely arose English Common Law and from the Puritan opposition to the Stuart's claim of the Divine Right of Kings, the establishment of a limited Constitutional Monarchy under William during the Glorious Revolution, etc., etc., etc."    Yes, that is how it happened.

"Rand's "historical dialectic" is one of Man having begun in absolute primitive, ignorant savagery and, through the achievements of lone individuals (largely in opposition to the community) Man would eventually reach (for lack of a better expression) a state of "pure individualism".  Rand's writings are full of references to "witch doctors", "brutes", "mystics of spirit", "mystics of muscle", etc. "   This is just objectively bad as an explanation, that it was Rand who indulged in some of it  does not excuse it.  "Historical dialectic" practiced as fabricated morality plays is not a valid approach to history or any other field which claims to be fact based. "Historical dialectic" practiced as a rhetorical strategy is easily mocked and ridiculed as the OP demonstrated because for any given story another story can slapped together to "prove" the opposite.

That so many Marxists take historical dialectic seriously does not make historical dialectic a serious idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be brief, Rand's dialectic was "reality  based" what the eye see's and what the hands touch. Marx dialecic is "what is possible to happen could happen!?", all by pure conscious thinking. To deny reality is to deny life-maybe that's was Marx was aiming for. (anti-lfe)

Edited by Collectivist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Rand's "historical dialectic" is one of Man having begun in absolute primitive, ignorant savagery and, through the achievements of lone individuals (largely in opposition to the community) Man would eventually reach (for lack of a better expression) a state of "pure individualism".

Can you give some citations? She did write about lone geniuses, witch-doctors etc., but I've never encountered claims about mankind eventually reaching a state of pure individualism. Or perhaps you're equating progress itself with a historical dialectic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early man did reach the stage of "pure individualism" but was considered a fahra, outcast, someone who must be controled and if not controlable must be killed! Look at DiVinci, Michaelangelo, Galileo, Decartes , Einstein and of course John Galt. All of which were condemened in some manner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Collectivist said:

To be brief, Rand's dialectic was "reality  based" what the eye see's and what the hands touch. Marx dialecic is "what is possible to happen could happen!?", all by pure conscious thinking. To deny reality is to deny life-maybe that's was Marx was aiming for. (anti-lfe)

What? Marx was a historical determinist; "pure conscious thought" doesn't even enter the picture. So, I don't trust you got Engels right either. Imagining a narrative is fine as a way to promote contemplation of what might be the case, but your examples lack any context or even demonstration why they might be true - just assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Margrett Meade and other such anthroplogists. I mean really reading their research not glancing over it!

If you pay really good attention their themselves reaveal this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Neuro

You must know the Engels was no anthropologist and quoted freely from others work (without giving references) and forulated their findings to fit his conception of was was primative communistic life. I have read the works that schalors say Engels quoted and find that the development of "pure individualism" as everyone wants to call it here, was in plain sight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

. . . I've never encountered claims about mankind eventually reaching a state of pure individualism.

Page 201 of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future—if mankind is to have a future.

Ok. Capitalism is not "pure individualism". Capitalism is the political system based on individual rights, and by extension this is as close to stating it as Rand ever wrote that comes to mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Collectivist said:

You must know the Engels was no anthropologist and quoted freely from others work (without giving references) and forulated their findings to fit his conception of was was primative communistic life. I have read the works that schalors say Engels quoted and find that the development of "pure individualism" as everyone wants to call it here, was in plain sight!

From 3 paragraphs before the end of Selfishness Without a Self:

It is obvious why the morality of altruism is a tribal phenomenon. Prehistorical men were physically unable to survive without clinging to a tribe for leadership and protection against other tribes. The cause of altruism's perpetuation into civilized eras is not physical, but psycho-epistemological: the men of self-arrested, perceptual mentality are unable to survive without tribal leadership and "protection" against reality.

Couched in terms of altruism/collectivism-egoism/individualism, the progression comes across as philosophical, not anthropological. As you've stated "pure individualism" here, the question could arise if the term "individualism" being adhered to in this sense here, or is there a different sense of it being interjected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×