Abundance andScarcity inPrimitiveSocieties – LaGuerre Sociale Introduction by theInternationalist CommunistGroup (2000)

Capitalist society denieshistory, it denies thatcapitalism had a beginningand therefore that it will alsocome to an end. If it speaksof history it is only to depictthe entire past of the humanbeing as an endless quest forunlimited progress whosemodel is present-day society,as if primitive man wasalways in search of the“perfection” of contemporaryman with his automobile, his

Coca Cola, his cell phone,“surfing” the Internet andeating at McDonalds. The“man” depicted by thissimulacrum of history is,based on the projection oftoday’s society into the past,above all else “homooeconomicus”, who makesall his decisions on the basisof the maximization of utilityin a world with scarceresources and unlimitedgoals, that is, just like “our”

entrepreneurs. From thisbourgeois view of history,which projects onto man ingeneral the perspective of theemployer, all the vulgarconclusions are derived about“human nature” that willallow for the blanketjustification of the wholecatastrophe of today’ssociety as an intrinsicproduct of man himself:“man is egotistical”, “someare born to rule, others are

born to work”, “there hasalways been a struggle forpower”, “war is in the verynature of man”…. This is not the place toelaborate on the developmentof all the simplifications andfalsifications that thisworldview contains as anexpression of the intereststhat it defends; we shall onlypoint out that even “man”himself, about whom this

history speaks, as if he willforever and always possess aparticular human nature, is amyth, one of manyideological beliefs of thisdogmatic society, and that, tothe contrary, real man as asocial animal is a product ofthe organization of societyand in particular of therelations of production inwhich he is born andmatures. The “man” oftoday’s bourgeois society,

free to be exploited or to dieof hunger, free to starve afterworking all day withoutobtaining the means to liveor to speculate on the NewYork Stock Exchange withmillions of dollars … is,contrary to the myth, as Marxsaid, a historical product.Moreover, he is not a productof ancient history, but aproduct of modern history.The same thing may be saidof labor, “the very essence of

man”, according to thedominant ideology. Or, moregenerally: the concept of manas “the subject of duties andrights”, who “has to work”,who is “egotistical”, and whospends most of his life“earning a livelihood”, is avery recent “invention” whenviewed from the perspectiveof the history of humanity asa whole. The specialistsspeak of the existence of thehuman being since at least a

million years ago (accordingto current research [ca.2000], humans have existedfor at least two millionyears), whereas this “homooeconomicus” has existed foronly a few hundred years!This is even the case if werefer not to this man ofbourgeois society whoemerged just a few centuriesago (through an entirehistorical process by meansof which the world market

was consolidated andrevolutionized by means ofthe production of abstractlabor—which is also a recentproduct—and a singleworldwide standard ofvalue), but more generally toman as devoted to labor, wholived in all class and state-based societies, which haveexisted for no more than afew tens of thousands ofyears at the most. In otherwords, even according to all

the current scientifichypotheses concerningbourgeois man, this atomizedindividual has only existedfor less than one-tenth of onepercent of human history,and class-based exploitativesocieties have existed for lessthan two percent of humanhistory. It is therefore totallyaberrant and ahistorical tospeak of “human nature” byprojecting the impoverishedcapitalist individual onto the

entire history of humanity. It is obvious that capitalismhas no interest in real historyand even less interest insocial history.1 From therevolutionary point of view,on the other hand, knowingthat capitalist society is atransitory society is of thegreatest importance, andrevealing the historical andtransitory character of

everything that it implies(exploitation, poverty, war,“homo oeconomicus”,labor…) constitutes a vitaltask of the communists,perceiving, as far as this ispossible, societies prior tobourgeois society and thusexposing—even if only in anegative way—the futuresociety that will issue fromthe essential/total negation ofpresent day society.

It is within this frameworkthat the constant interestdisplayed by communists forprimitive society, from Marxand Engels to therevolutionary militants of theyear 2000, is inscribed. Andit is within this frameworkthat we publish this text,“Abundance and Scarcity inPrimitive Societies”, writtenby the revolutionary group,La Guerre Sociale. As theauthors say: “Our point of

view is above all historicaland perceives primitivecommunism, like the higherstage of communism, as twomoments in human evolutionthat are simultaneouslydistinct yet similar. We shallshow how one sheds light onthe other.” Contrary to the myth that thereader will find this subjecthard to understand, the textwe present below, besides

being fully documented, isalso accessible and clear.Furthermore, since theauthors themselves explain intheir introductory remarkstheir reasons for writing thetext and the myths againstwhich it is directed, it doesnot require a longintroduction specificallydealing with its contents. We would like, however, tosay two things about this

group of proletarian militantsand offer an observationabout the text itself. In thedifficult and chauvinistParisian “revolutionarymilieu” (which not onlyimagines that Paris is thecenter of the world but thatalso believes that France isthe revolutionary country parexcellence) which hasnothing to learn from anyoneabout anything, this group ofmilitants constituted,

together with a few others(such as Barrot and LaBanquise and thesituationists grouped aroundGuy Debord), a remarkableexception by swimmingagainst the current in everysense (even practicallyconfronting the united frontof the Parisian bourgeoisantifascists, from theorganized young Israelites tothe various Stalinist andTrotskyist groups), producing

very good materials both indiscussions and in their pressand leaflets. By virtue oftheir practice, it would bemuch more correct to saythat these groups, as much asour group, do not belong tothat pseudo-revolutionarymilieu that despite all itsverbal proclamations ofbeing the “communist left”has not broken with theessential core beliefs of thesocial democratic conception

of the world. Many of ourcomrade militants andsympathizers have found inthe texts of La GuerreSociale, as well as the othergroups mentioned above, asource of inspiration, ofdiscussion and agitation andsome of these materials willbe necessary starting pointsfor the understanding ofimportant aspects of theprogrammatic positions ofthe proletariat.

As for the text, “Abundanceand Scarcity in PrimitiveSocieties”, we consider it tobe very good, and althoughwe do not agree with somepassages, we do not think ourdisagreements are importantenough to warrant their fullelaboration in thisintroduction. On the otherhand, we have considered itindispensable to drawattention to a few important

points that we disagree with,and at the same time we havethought it necessary to inserta few clarificationsconcerning the content and/orthe translation of this text2 inseveral “Critical Notes by theEditors of Comunismo”. We would like to emphasizehere that perhaps the mostimportant difference thatseparates us from the authors

of this text is the fact that forus capitalism as a mode ofproduction has been aworldwide phenomenon forthe last five centuries andthat, while elements ofprimitive life still exist insome contemporary societies,it is incorrect to identifythese elements with primitivecommunism. They areinstead forms of thereproduction of life that havebeen totally altered by

capitalism no matter howdiffuse and episodic theircontacts have been. Thus,whereas in many casescapital directly and totallysubsumes different socialforms, in others capital, byvirtue of its own conditionsof profitability, tolerates orhas a “live and let live”attitude towards them. But itwould be absurd to claim thatprimitive communism couldsubsist, for example, in

societies where capital hasbeen destroying their meansof livelihood (appropriationof the forests and lakes,rivers and mountains,subjecting nature to all theconditions of the valorizationof capital) and where it hasbeen carving up and isolatingthe remaining pieces of“natural” land. Nor can onespeak of primitivecommunism in societies thathave been driven into

marginal areas andpersecuted by those who areseizing their lands or by stateterrorism and/or penetratedby various forms ofcommerce. All that isnecessary is for some of theirancestors to have beenkidnapped and taken away asslaves by capitalism, orsimply to have come to theverge of the forest and tohave seen a machine cuttingit down, or for their natural

environment to have beendestroyed by some dam manykilometers away (droughts,floods, or both inalternation), it is enough forsome petty traders, who forcenturies have been lookingin the forests for fresh meatwith whom they canexchange some prettycolored glass or someclothing, to have entered intocontact with members ofsuch a community … to

render any talk of primitivecommunism in these casesutterly absurd. And even inthe most remote locations, orin the “recently discovered”societies, there are alwaysancestral narratives of theterror of the “palefaces”, ofthe arrival of “other beings”,of attacks, of members of thecommunity who have“disappeared” and been takenaway as slaves, of beingswho bring pretty clothing and

exchange it for little girlsbetween 5 and 13 years ofage, of being forced to moveto another location due to thehunger fostered by theappropriation/destruction ofnature, or of alien traders. It is just such a concession tothe myth of a capitalism thatcan coexist with primitivesocieties that La GuerreSociale makes when they saythat “primitive peoples still

exist”, which then leads themto claim that “one cannot bea purist and seek absolutefrontiers between communistsocieties and societies ofexploitation”, as well asother assertions concerningthe coexistence of primitivesocieties with money.Actually, however, these arenot primitive societies, butsocieties totally denatured intheir essence both by theirrelations with other class

societies, as well as by thedissolving and destructiveeffect that money has on theprimal community. Actually,there is no such thing as, norcan one speak of theexistence of, a primitivecommunism that coexistswith money forms, nor withforms of exploitation. Suchclaims are in reality theresult of a lack ofunderstanding of the fact thatcapitalism historically

presupposes value, and thatthe world of money is thecommunity (a false, ratherthan a real community) thatdestroys all othercommunities. Such assertions, however, arequite marginal in a text thateffectively synthesizes avariety of research thatshows us how the mutilatedprimitive societies that stillexist allow us to get a

glimpse of primitivecommunism. Despite all thedenaturing of these societiescaused by class societies overthe last ten thousand yearsand despite all the disruptionbrought about during the lastfive centuries of worldcapitalism we can stillunderstand that history isvery different from what wehave been told, and that inprimitive societies noteverything was scarcity and

suffering as the champions ofprogress of all schools wouldhave us believe. Despite thefew elements available forthe reconstruction of a real“social anthropology” we cannonetheless confirm, nowmore than ever before, thatman did not come into theworld to work and toexperience pain, to suffer andto be exploited, to kill and todie; but, entirely to thecontrary, to live a full life of

satisfaction and pleasure, ofjoy and affection, ofsexuality and play, of delightand enjoyment. We can alsoconfirm, against the entiredominant ideology, whichtells us of uninterruptedprogress up to the present,that man never worked sohard and suffered so much ashe does now; and we canproclaim, against all thereligions that call for self-sacrifice in this world in

order to enjoy a paradiselater in another one (and thisgoes not only for the Judeo-Christian religions, but alsofor Islam and Marxism-Leninism and evenCastroism), that the onlypossible paradise will be hereon earth, but only aftercapitalism is destroyed alongwith all these ideologies andreligions of the state. Abundance and Scarcity in

Primitive Societies – LaGuerre Sociale (1977) The history of humanity hasbeen traditionally conceivedas more or less continuousprogress along the road ofwell-being and theproductivity of labor. Well-being and productivity arelinked because it is from theyield of labor that thequantity of goods is producedas well as the free time that

remains to us during whichwe can devote ourselves toleisure and cultural activities.As techniques, tools, andmore effective machinesappear, thanks to discoveries,man’s life improves. Thus,prehistoric times, duringwhich man is presented to usas naked and disarmed beforea hostile nature, can onlyhave been an era of terriblepoverty. And if wesometimes complain about

the misfortunes of modernlife, a glance back at the pastof humanity where, evenwithout entertainingourselves too much with thefamines and epidemics of theMiddle Ages, we maysubmerge ourselves in thedepths of the caves where ourdistant ancestors sheltered,would be enough to bring usback to our senses and makeus more appreciative of oursoft conditions of existence.

Let us imagine a man of thestone age. It is there, to hismeager little campfire, withan empty stomach and badmood, that he returns from anexhausting and unsuccessfulday of hunting. And justbehind him, frozen andterrified, lurk his wife andchildren. We should not besurprised that our man—should we even consider thisbrute to be a human being?—comes home with empty

hands. How could weimagine that he would returnvictorious after confrontingterrible mammoths andgigantic tigers! And he evenhad the luck not to have todeal with the enormousdinosaurs that lived duringeven more distant ages,when, a few hundreds ofmillions of years earlier, aneven more terrible sceneprevailed. Woe to the weakin those societies where only

force ruled! These men who,terrified of each other anddriven by hunger, did nothesitate to devour oneanother, were in turnterrorized and oppressed bynature. They resorted tomagic and other infernalpractices, with which theysought to exorcise hostilepowers, and with the aid ofwhich they were onlysubjected to an even moretragic fate. It is

understandable that they triedeverything in an attempt toescape from this hell;although we might askourselves how they couldhave had either the time orthe inclination to think at all. This vision of the past isderanged, both when it ispresented in the naïve andgraphic form of the textbooksor in the comic strips, as wellas when it is presented in the

dry language of the scholar.This world of starvation,these men oppressed byeconomic need, this socialjungle, this universe ofmagic, this era of survival,are not situated in thehistorical moment to whichthey correspond: they arenothing but a screen uponwhich today’s societyprojects its own truth, a truththat it wants to impose ashuman nature itself.

Primitive peoples still existin the Far North, in theAmazonian jungle, and in theAustralian deserts.3 Theirways of life do not by anymeans correspond to thisclassic depiction of the stoneage. They are often leisurelyand tranquil, they haveconfidence in nature andhave not lost their sense ofcommunity.

One might think that it wouldbe easy for us, based on thestudy of existing reality, andno longer on that of thereconstruction ofquestionable remains, toobtain a precise notion of theway people lived inprehistoric times. This is notthe case, however. Variousand numerous observationsof primitive peoples havebeen woven into lies thatrecapitulate Western

prejudices and have norelation to reality. Thesetheories are in general all themore false the greater theirpretenses to scientificobjectivity. The mostinteresting, faithful andcharming accounts aregenerally those provided bymissionaries, who, althoughthey tried to bring moralityto the savages, did not findtheir good health surprisingdespite the fact that they had

characterized their livingconditions as “impossible”.After the initial encounterswhen explorers andphilosophers discoveredprimitive populations andwere sometimes captivatedby their strange customs, astage would supervene inwhich ingrained arroganceand stupidity would takeover: the primitive realitymust be sacrificed on thealtar of the cult of progress.

Such prejudices are not justbased in the minds of theideologues, but also emergefrom the conditions underwhich contact with theprimitive peoples was made,since the people theyencountered so easily arealready victims ofcivilization. There is a realdifficulty in estimating theresources of these strangeand seemingly deserted

territories where huntingpeoples generally evolved.4

The contacts are often briefand superficial, to whichmust also be added thelanguage difficulties.Furthermore, the specialists,up until the First World Warand Malinowsky’s studies,were content to elaboratetheir theories on the basis ofthe accounts of others.Interest was focused on

magical-religious behaviors,on mythology, rather than onthe “productive” activities ofthe indigenous peoples andtheir relation to nature. *** Humans did not live worsebecause they were born in amore backward era orbecause they had a morerudimentary technology. Onemight even to be tempted to

think the opposite was true.One example is of greatsignificance, that of theTasaday: the most primitivepeople ever studied,5 recently discovered living completely isolated from the rest of humanity in the Philippine jungle. The Tasaday are not even acquainted with hunting,6 they live a simplelife based on gathering andrudimentary fishing. Their

tools are not verycomplicated since they aresatisfied with assemblingrocks and bamboo to maketheir huts. Even so, these super-primitive people laugh atmodern civilization and itshappiness. As F. de Clozetwrites, commenting on thereport of the anthropologists: “… the Tasaday show every

sign of happiness. Not of anauthentically humanhappiness to which we mightaspire, but of a certainbalance that is so hard toattain in industrial societies.They know nothing ofhierarchy, inequality,property, insecurity,loneliness, frustration. Theyare perfectly integrated intotheir natural environment andthey can get as much food asthey need by working only a

few hours a day. “Their social life seems to befree of conflicts, tensions andanimosity. They spend mostof their time playing, talkingor daydreaming. This kind ofhappiness, however, which ismore like that of an animalthan a man, commands therespect of the civilized. “Photographs taken by theanthropologists show the

Tasaday grinding hearts ofpalm, digging up roots,bathing in the river, laughingchildren playing in the trees.Every face seems to besmiling and tranquil. Amarked contrast with theharsh visage of the Parisiansin the metro, the anxiousfaces of the unemployedreading the help wanted ads,the feverish pace of theemployees leaving theiroffices at five-thirty.

Seriously: do we really haveany right to ‘civilize’ theTasaday? “Yet how can one not rebelagainst such an idea? Howcan we accept that all theprogress attained since thePaleolithic has not providedus with a decisive advantageon the only terrain thatcounts: happiness?”7

Since technology makes it

possible, they take thissnapshot of primitive“happiness” in the jungle anddisseminate it inTechnicolor. Magazines likeStern8 provide their readers,with their “anxious faces”and “feverish” pace, thisinaccessible happiness, withphotos as evidence. *** It is becoming fashionable to

make sympathetic referencesto or reflect nostalgically andsometimes guiltilyconcerning primitivepeoples. But this is notenough to achieve a correctunderstanding of their way oflife, its advantages and itslimitations. Such attitudesexhibit many prejudices andare often reconciled with themythology of the noblesavage, poor but happy,because he knows how to be

satisfied with what he has.This lesson is aimed at ourinsatiable yet unhappyproletarians. The primitive isposited as the Other, theperson that modern manwould want to be, althoughthis is not possible or even,basically, desirable. ThePaleolithic is seen as adifferent way of life and notas a moment of humanhistory. Historicalexplanations are, on the other

hand, few and far between. Isit not perhaps racist to placethe “savage” at a lower levelthan ours on the scale ofevolution? When the Western, that is,capitalist, ideology andlifestyle are in crisis, when“nature” sells at a higherprice the more endangered itis and perhaps, above all,when primitive peoples havebeen so persecuted and

devastated that they are nolonger disturbing, we canindulge in theirrehabilitation. This attitude,which blames industrialism,progress, history, and excess(or abuse) does nothing butobscure the futurecommunism with itsnostalgia.9

“What matters is not thelifestyle of the primitives,

the image of happiness insimplicity, and innocence,but poverty.”10 Studies ofprimitive peoples show uspossible forms of socialbalance and harmony, of theadaptation and utilization ofthe environment, of anabundance that is notbourgeois wealth and a kindof man who is not economicman, man as commodity.These perspectives are not

limited to a society operatingon a more or lessrudimentary technical level,with more or less limitedneeds. Our point of view isabove all historical andperceives primitivecommunism, like the higherstage of communism, as twomoments in human evolutionthat are simultaneouslydistinct yet similar. We shallshow how one sheds light onthe other.

Hunting and gathering Broadly speaking, whatdistinguishes the productiveactivity of the savage fromthat of modern wage laborand from the various kinds ofservitudes that preceded thelatter, is the fact that, for thesavage, the quest for hissubsistence is not felt ascoercion. It is not a means ofearning his livelihood but an

integral part of his existence.Hunting is as much a kind ofplay as it is work.11 Asenjoyment or test, it is not abad thing that he is trying toflee or minimize, which hewould like to palm off onothers. Thus, for the GuayakiIndians: “Hunting is neverperceived as a burden. Eventhough it is the almost

exclusive occupation of themen, their daily task, it isalways practiced as a ‘sport’… Hunting is always anadventure, sometimes risky,but always exalting. It is ofcourse pleasing to extractfrom the comb the sweethoney with its pleasant odoror to split open a palm anddiscover the delicious guchugrubs inside. But in thesecases one knows everythingin advance, there is no

mystery, nothing isunforeseen: it is routine. Totrack animals in the jungle,to demonstrate that one ismore skilled than the others,to shoot an arrow withoutletting the animal sense yourpresence, to hear the hiss ofthe arrow in its flight, andthen the dull sound of itsfinding its mark in the side ofthe animal: all of these thingsare familiar and oft-repeatedjoyful moments, but

nonetheless experienced eachtime as if it were the firsthunt.12 The aché can neverhave enough of the bareka.Nothing else is asked of themand it is this which they seekabove all else. They are inthis way, and from this pointof view, at peace withthemselves.”13

Even more surprising is thefact that savages devote

relatively little time to thequest for food. Not only dothey enjoy what they do, butthey know enough not tooverdo it. This conflicts with the pointof view that identifies historywith the increase ofproductive effectiveness. Thegolden age of leisure liesinstead in our past. If theprimitives did not inventcivilization or build

pyramids, the reason is notbecause they did not have thetime, but more likely becausethey did not see any need todo these things. The leisure at the disposal ofpopulations of hunters is allthe more significant insofaras they live in inhospitableregions unsuitable for themode of production offarmers and settlers from theoutside world.

The duration and intensity ofthe activity of thesepopulations obviouslydepend on their environmentand its bounty. It appears,however, that the hunterswho inhabit territories thatare most hostile to man, suchas the Eskimos, are not anexception to the rule. J.Malaurie, who lived with theEskimos of Thule who aredriven by necessity to resist

and struggle with a difficultnatural environment, cannonetheless write: “TheEskimo certainly sleeps a lot.More in the winter than inthe summer—he hibernateslike a bear—but overall,quite a lot, if one considersthe fact that half of his life isspent sleeping and dreaming.To put it into figures, onecould say that only the otherhalf—and we were surprisedat the small amount of time

this represented for such anallegedly active people—isdivided as follows: one thirdin visiting neighbors, anotherthird in traveling to huntinggrounds, and the remainingthird actually hunting.Laziness is the sign ofwisdom. It is how a societyphysically protects itselfagainst the exhaustion of ahard life.” “Only the young people are

naturally an exception to thisbalanced rhythm of life: alarge part of their time isoccupied with the sexualurge, depending on theseason of the year; in springand summer, they chase afterthe girls and lie in wait forthem between one village andthe next with the mostdiverse motives: they usehunting as an excuse.” ***

Marshall Sahlins, in “TheOriginal Affluent Society”,14

attempts to demonstrate, inopposition to the dominantprejudices, the effectivenessof the activity of theprimitive peoples. He baseshis conclusions for the mostpart on two studies. Onestudy is about the Australiansof Arnhem Land, and theother is about the Dobe

population of the KungBushmen. These studiescontain data regarding howthese peoples spend theirtime. They are confirmed bymany other observations thatshow that the most primitivepeoples are also the ones whodevote the most time toleisure and relaxation. “In the case of the people ofArnhem Land, who live inthe bush, the time spent

looking for food varieswidely from day to day. Theydevote an average of about 4or 5 hours per person ingathering and preparing food.In other words, no morehours of labor than anindustrial worker—when heis a member of a trade union.The time devoted to leisureeach day, that is, to sleeping,was enormous…. “Moreover, they do not work

continuously. Thesubsistence quest was highlyintermittent. It would stopfor the time being when thepeople had procured enoughfor the time being, which leftthem plenty of time to spare.Clearly in subsistence as inother sectors of production,we have to do with aneconomy of specific, limitedobjectives. By hunting andgathering these objectives areapt to be irregularly

accomplished, so the workpattern becomescorrespondingly erratic.15 Inthe event, a thirdcharacteristic of hunting andgathering unimagined by thereceived wisdom: rather thanstraining to the limits ofavailable labor anddisposable resources, theseAustralians seem to underusetheir objective economicpossibilities….

“It follows, fourthly, that theeconomy was not physicallydemanding. Theinvestigator’s daily journalindicates that the people pacethemselves; only once is ahunter described as ‘totallyexhausted’…. Neither did theArnhem Landers themselvesconsider the task ofsubsistence onerous. ‘Theycertainly did not approach itas an unpleasant job to be got

over as soon as possible, noras a necessary evil to bepostponed as long aspossible’…. At least someAustralians, the Yir-Yiront,make no linguisticdifferentiation between workand play….16

“‘Apart from the time(mostly between definitiveactivities and cookingperiods) spent in general

social intercourse, chatting,gossiping and so on,17 somehours of the daylight werealso spent resting andsleeping. On the average, ifthe men were in camp, theyusually slept after lunch froman hour to an hour and a half,or sometimes even more.Also after returning fromfishing or hunting, theyusually had a sleep, eitherimmediately they arrived or

whilst game was beingcooked. At Hemple Bay themen slept if they returnedearly in the day but not ifthey reached camp after 4:00p.m. When in camp all daythey slept at odd times andalways after lunch. Thewomen, when out collectingin the forest, appeared to restmore frequently than themen. If in camp all day, theyalso slept at odd times,sometimes for long periods.’

“As for the Bushmen,economically likened toAustralian hunters byHerskovits, two excellentrecent reports by Richard Leeshow their condition to beindeed the same…. Lee’sresearch merits a specialhearing not only because itconcerns Bushmen, butspecifically the Dobe sectionof !Kung Bushmen, adjacentto the Nyae Nyae about

whose subsistence—in acontext otherwise of‘material plenty’—Mrs.Marshall expressedimportant reservations. TheDobe occupy an area ofBotswana where !KungBushmen have been livingfor at least a hundred years,but have only just begun tosuffer dislocation pressures.(Metal, however, has beenavailable to the Dobe since1880-1890.) An intensive

study was made of thesubsistence production of adry season camp with apopulation (41 people) nearthe mean of such settlements.The observations extendedover four weeks during Julyand August 1964, a period oftransition from more to lessfavorable seasons of the year,hence fairly representative, itseems, of averagesubsistence difficulties.

“Despite a low annualrainfall (6 to 10 inches), Leefound in the Dobe area a‘surprising abundance ofvegetation’. Food resourceswere ‘both varied andabundant’, particularly theenergy rich mangetti nut—‘so abundant that millionsof the nuts rotted on theground each year for want ofpicking’…. His reports onthe time spent in food-gettingare remarkably close to the

Arnhem Landobservations…. “The Bushmen figures implythat one man’s labor inhunting and gathering willsupport four or five people.Taken at face value,Bushman food collecting ismore efficient than Frenchfarming in the period up toWorld War II, when morethan twenty percent of thepopulation was engaged in

feeding the rest. Confessedly,the comparison ismisleading, but not asmisleading as it isastonishing. In the totalpopulation of free-rangingBushmen contacted by Lee,61.3 per cent (152 of 248)were effective foodproducers; the remainderwere too young or too old tocontribute importantly. In theparticular camp underscrutiny, 65 percent were

‘effectives’. Thus the ratio offood producers to the generalpopulation is actually 3:5 or2:3. But, these 65 per cent ofthe people ‘worked 36percent of the time, and 35percent of the people did notwork at all’!.... “For each adult worker, thiscomes to about two and one-half days labor per week. (Inother words, each productiveindividual supported herself

or himself and dependentsand still had 3 ½ to 5 ½ daysavailable for other activities.)A ‘day's work’ was about sixhours; hence the Dobe workweek is approximately 15hours, or an average of 2hours 9 minutes per day.Even lower than the ArnhemLand norms, this figurehowever excludes cookingand the preparation ofimplements. All thingsconsidered, Bushmen

subsistence labors areprobably very close to thoseof native Australians…. “The daily per-capitasubsistence yield for theDobe Bushmen was 2,140calories. However, takinginto account body weight,normal activities, and theage-sex composition of theDobe population, Leeestimates the people requireonly 1,975 calories per

capita. Some of the surplusfood probably went to thedogs, who ate what thepeople left over. ‘Theconclusion can be drawn thatthe Bushmen do not lead asubstandard existence on theedge of starvation as hasbeen commonly supposed.’” In Africa, among the Hadzas,who, due to their distaste forhard work, prefer not tobecome farmers, “… Hadza

men seem much moreconcerned with games ofchance than with chances ofgame. During the long dryseason especially, they passthe greater part of days onend in gambling…. In anycase, many men are ‘quiteunprepared or unable to huntbig game’…. only a smallminority … are activehunters of largeanimals….”18

Around 1840, an Australiansquatter had to wonder “howthat sage people managed topass their time before myparty came and taught themto smoke?.... Thataccomplishment fairlyacquired, matters went onflowingly, their leisure hoursbeing divided putting thepipe to its legitimate purposeand begging my tobacco”.19

On another continent, FatherBiard, in his Relation (1616),described the MicmacIndians in the followingmanner:20 “In order tothoroughly enjoy this, theirlot, our foresters start off totheir different places with asmuch pleasure as if they weregoing on a stroll or anexcursion; they do this easilythrough the skillful use andgreat convenience of

canoes…. so rapidly sculledthat, without any effort, ingood weather you can makethirty or forty leagues a day;nevertheless we scarcely seethese Savages posting alongat this rate, for their days areall nothing but pastime. Theyare never in a hurry. Quitedifferent from us, who cannever do anything withouthurry and worry.”21

Food, scarcity and mobility Are the results of this lowlevel of activity or thisindolent lifestylesatisfactory? Are theprimitives not the victims oftheir lack of foresight andtheir lack of ambition?Would they not benefit fromdevoting their leisure time tothe improvement of theirmaterial welfare? Because,after all, their lives are not

always a bowl of cherries.Everyone knows about theirpoverty. How else can weexplain cannibalism,infanticide and theelimination of the elderly ifnot by the impossibility offeeding so many mouths? Itis possible that if theprimitives could choose, theywould prefer death to certaincoercions that are acceptedby the civilized. The idea thatlife is the greatest good and

that it must be preserved atall costs is alien to them.This explains some of thepractices that, to Westerneyes, might seem utterlybarbarous. At the same time,the attitudes of the civilizedmight seem unacceptable tothese savages. CannibalIndians have been known toprotest against the conditionsof slavery imposed onprisoners who would haveoriginally been consigned to

the cooking pot, but who hadinstead been handed over towhite humanists. Groups ofprimitives prefer suicide toconforming to theunacceptable livingconditions imposed on them. One cannot project upon theactivity of hunting peoples aconcept of the utilization oftime and output that is aliento them and that wouldultimately be irrational,

given their way of life.Indolence might be revealedto be an effective form ofactivity: “… this apatheticbehavior (of the Australianaborigines) is actually anadaptation to the physicalenvironment. In any case,this ‘indolence’ helps keepthem in good shape. Inordinary times, when they areon the move, they rarelytravel more than 13 to 19kilometers per day, and since

‘they travel without haste orpressure, they avoid theafflictions of anxiety andheat stroke; in particular, theharm inflicted by thirst,which among Europeans isprovoked not only byphysical activities and thestrenuous efforts they imposeupon themselves, but also,and above all, by the feelingof a lack of security and theanxiety that this causes.’Furthermore, they look for

food and water ‘without hasteand without too much stress,and are capable of greatendurance before they are indire need’.”22

Thus, the aborigines preservetheir good health in regionswhere the Western explorersof the 19th century, despiteall their equipment, couldhardly survive. Hence thesurprise of those explorers at

finding men who were “goodlooking, upright, mostly withbeards … in good physicalcondition, especially if youtake into account theirimpoverished and precariousexistence”.23

*** With regard to the questionof food, the primitivesmanaged to achieve a certaindegree of abundance. Here is

what Sir George Grey wrote,who travelled through themost barren regions ofAustralia during the early19th century: “One mistake… is to imagine that they[the natives of Australia]have small means ofsubsistence or are at timesgreatly pressed for want offood: I could produce many,almost humorous instancesof the errors which travellershave fallen into upon this

point. They lament in theirjournals, that the unfortunateAborigines should be reducedby famine to the miserablenecessity of subsisting oncertain sorts of food, whichthey have found near theirhuts; whereas, in manyinstances, the articles thusquoted by them are thosewhich the natives most prize,and are really neitherdeficient in flavour nornutritious qualities.” “…

[To] render palpable theignorance that has prevailedwith regard to the habits andcustoms of this people whenin their wild state”, Greyprovides “one remarkableexample”, a quotation fromhis fellow explorer, CaptainSturt, who, uponencountering a group ofAboriginals engaged ingathering large quantities ofmimosa gum, concluded that“these unfortunate creatures

were reduced to the lastextremity, and, being unableto procure any othernourishment, had beenobliged to collect thismucilaginous food”. But, SirGeorge observes, the gum inquestion “is a favouritearticle of food amongst thenatives, and when it is inseason, they assemble … inlarge numbers to enjoy thisluxury. The profusion inwhich this gum is found

enables large bodies to meettogether”, which otherwisethey are unable to do. Heconcludes: “Generallyspeaking, the natives livewell; in some districts theremay at particular seasons ofthe year be a deficiency offood, but if such is the case,these tracts are, at thosetimes, deserted. It is,however, utterly impossiblefor a traveller or even for astrange native to judge

whether a district affords anabundance of food, or thecontrary…. But in his owndistrict a native is verydifferently situated; heknows exactly what itproduces, the proper time atwhich the several articles arein season, and the readiestmeans of procuring them.According to thesecircumstances he regulateshis visits to different portionsof his hunting ground; and I

can only state that I havealways found the greatestabundance in their huts.”24

Sometimes the hunt isunsuccessful. This mode ofsubsistence has its risks. Is itnot the case, however, thatagriculture can hardly avoidfamines, or overcome theproblem of subsistence fromone harvest to the next, andthat it is dependent on the

variations of the climate?Disconnected from thenatural conditions, the risksof insecurity increase. Evenduring the worst times,hunters are confident and donot think about laying upstores for the future. According to Le Jeune,speaking of the MontagnaisIndians:25

“In the famine through which

we passed, if my host tooktwo, three, or four Beavers,immediately, whether it wasday or night, they had a feastfor all neighbouring Savages.And if those People hadcaptured something, they hadone also at the same time; sothat, upon emerging from onefeast, you went to another,and sometimes even to athird and a fourth. I told themthat they did not managewell, and that it would be

better to reserve these feastsfor future days, and in doingthis they would not be sopressed with hunger. Theylaughed at me. ‘Tomorrow’(they said) ‘we shall makeanother feast with what weshall capture.’ Yes, but moreoften they capture only coldand wind.” “I saw them, in theirhardships and in their labors,suffer with cheerfulness…. I

found myself, with them,threatened with greatsuffering; they said to me,‘We shall be sometimes twodays, sometimes three,without eating, for lack offood; take courage, Chihiné,let thy soul be strong to avoidsuffering and hardship; keepthyself from being sad,because otherwise thou wiltbe sick; see how we do notcease to laugh, although we

have little to eat’.”26

Gessain writes, concerningthe Eskimos: “In a worldwhere the forces of wind andice are so powerful, wherethe forces of nature are sodecisive, is it not better tolive with confidence? It isnot by storing up reservesthat one obtains gifts. Wouldit not be an insult to theimmortal souls who, in

eternal return, offer theiranimal bodies, to have toomany reserves?”27

*** As for their other goods,besides food, the primitivesseem to be somewhatlacking. But does this botherthem? Apparently not. Theyare careless about even thefew goods that they havemade or been given. They

have no sense of property. AsGusinde writes concerningthe Yahgan Indians: “They do not know how totake care of their belongings.No one dreams of puttingthem in order, folding them,drying or cleaning them,hanging them up, or puttingthem in a neat pile. If theyare looking for someparticular thing, theyrummage carelessly through

the hodgepodge of trifles inthe little baskets. Largerobjects that are piled up in aheap in the hut are draggedhither and yon with no regardfor the damage that might bedone them. The Europeanobserver has the impressionthat these [Yahgan] Indiansplace no value whatever ontheir utensils and that theyhave completely forgottenthe effort it took to makethem. Actually, no one clings

to his few goods and chattelswhich, as it is, are often andeasily lost, but just as easilyreplaced…. [In every case,the supreme and almostexclusive concern of everyIndian is to preserve his ownlife, to shelter himself fromthe elements as best he can,and to satisfy his hunger.These are their essentialpreoccupations, whichrelegate the preservation oftheir material goods to a

secondary level ofimportance.]28 The Indiandoes not even exercise carewhen he could convenientlydo so. A European is likely toshake his head at theboundless indifference ofthese people who drag brand-new objects, preciousclothing, fresh provisions andvaluable items through thickmud, or abandon them totheir swift destruction by

children and dogs….Expensive things that aregiven them are treasured fora few hours, out of curiosity;after that they thoughtlesslylet everything deteriorate inthe mud and wet. The lessthey own, the morecomfortable they can travel,and what is ruined theyoccasionally replace. Hence,they are completelyindifferent to any material

possessions.”29

The Tasaday of thePhilippines, far from beingdazzled by the technologicalmarvels shown to them,expressed a scepticalattitude. They rejected thefabrics, the baskets and thebows that were offered tothem, although they didaccept the machetes thatmade it easier for them to cut

down palm trees. Theyaccepted only things thatwould increase theirefficiency withoutcontravening their customs.When a group of Tasadaywas offered a flashlight, theyrefused to accept it: youcannot use it to start a fire,they said. When they weretold that it was for seeing atnight, they laughed andpointed out that they sleep atnight. They call the tape

recorder “the man-madeobject that steals yourvoice”; they viewed it withneither fear nor animosity,but above all amusement.The provisions and tools for24 persons kept in theircommon cave were asfollows: three bamboosections full of water, threestone axes. They accepted thecigarette lighters that sparedthem the trouble of rubbingtwo sticks together over dry

tinder to light their fires.They learned how to maketraps to catch animals. Butwhen an attempt was made toexplain agriculture to them,they were surprised by suchproposals and responded thatthey always had more thanenough to eat. If there wasn’tenough, the children get firstpriority to eat what isavailable. Their supremepleasure seems to be thefeeling of the rain streaming

down over their bodies. Thus, our savages are indeedpoor, but content with theirfate. Poor; but why poor?They do not go withoutanything. The naturalenvironment provides themwith the food they need andallows them to fabricate,without much effort, theobjects that they so lightlyabandon. They do not live in

conditions of scarcity.30

As Sahlins says, their societywas the first society ofabundance. If they did notstockpile reserves, this isbecause nature represents aninexhaustible and alwaysaccessible storehouse. Sahlins’ merit resides in hisattempt to apply a generalmaterialist explanation,without getting bogged down

in questions concerning theprimitive peoples’ feelings ofsatiety and contentment.What is the cause of theattitudes of the primitivepeoples, what is their deep,underlying logic? *** The wealth of the hunter-gatherer is based on hismobility. It is this mobilitythat allows him to combat the

tendency of “diminishingreturns”, by constantlymoving to new territories ofsubsistence. From thisperspective, nomads’ need tohave few possessions will beunderstood. The possessionof numerous objects wouldonly be a hindrance to them.The same can be said ofstoring reserves. Saving inthis sense would not beuseful, but rather, in the finalinstance, harmful, since it

would restrict their freedomof movement. Objects are valued to thedegree that they are easy totransport. “The Murngin havean undeveloped sense ofproperty; this seems to beconnected with their lack ofinterest in developing theirtechnological equipment.These two characteristicsseem to be rooted in thedesire to be free from the

burdens and responsibilitiesof objects which wouldinterfere with the society’sitinerant existence…. Theprinciple that determineswhich kind of objects will bepreserved more or lesspermanently by their owners,is the relative ease oftransportation of the articleby human beings or incanoes. For the Murngin, theamount of effort required toproduce each object also

contributes, in a way, toestablishing the value of anobject as a personalpossession. It is also the casethat the degree of scarcity ofan object, whether in natureor in barter, also plays a partin the determination of theeconomic values of theMurngin; but the decisivecriterion is still how easilythe object can be transported,because this society has notdomesticated any beasts of

burden. The metallic objectsobtained through exchange,whose original source waswhite missionaries, areextremely rare and veryhighly esteemed: if they arelarge, however, they will behanded over to the nextperson they meet in the bushor cut up to be used for otherpurposes. The ultimate valueis freedom of movement(Warner).”31

An explorer named Van derPost states: “The matter ofpresents gave us many ananxious moment. We werehumiliated by the realizationof how little there was wecould give to the Bushmen.Almost everything seemedlikely to make life moredifficult for them by addingto the litter and weight oftheir daily round. Theythemselves had practically no

possessions: a loin strap, askin blanket and a leathersatchel. There was nothingthat they could not assemblein one minute, wrap up intheir blankets and carry ontheir shoulders for a journeyof a thousand miles. Theyhad no sense ofpossession.”32

An explanation based on theneed for mobility is very

revealing. But this need mustnot be viewed as an objectivefactor of coercion that wouldsomehow prevent thedevelopment of a subjectivesense of possession andaccumulation. It onlyconfirms a spontaneousattitude. The Tasaday, whowere hardly interested at allin the acquisition of newtools, never traveled morethan three kilometers beyondtheir permanent settlements.

The basic requirement of afunctioning hunting andgathering society is a verylow density of humanpopulation. Pre-ColumbianAmerica was inhabited byonly a few million Indians.33

The population of AustralianAborigines has beenestimated at 300,000 personsin the 18th century. In one oranother form, paleolithic

societies obey strongdemographic pressures. Thesize of groups must belimited and they generallymove from one place toanother over large territories.It is in this context that onemust situate the frequentlyencountered customs ofinfanticide and theelimination of the elderly.The same reasoning appliesto the practices of sexualcontinence, and the

prevailing polyandry that isconnected with femaleinfanticide. According to Sahlins, thesame considerations of limitsgovern the attitude ofprimitive people with respectto people as well as things:“The presumption that suchdevices [infanticide,senilicide, etc.] are due to aninability to support morepeople is probably true—if

‘support’ is understood in thesense of carrying them ratherthan feeding them.”34

Such forms of conduct arenot a consequence ofscarcity, but are necessary tomaintain the efficacy of, andtherefore the capability ofproviding abundance for, thegroup. They are the result ofa whole way of life in whichthe real wealth is health and

the ability to live inaccordance with thenecessary activities for thegroup’s subsistence. That one must be left behind,or killed, when one can nolonger meet theserequirements, is obvious.This harshness with respectto the useless does notproceed from the egoism ofthose who have power.Numerous acts of extreme

solidarity, among hunters orwith respect to the group,testify to this. The primitive is as generouswith his own life as he iswith the lives of others. He isready to risk his life, and infact he risks it every day sothat the group can survive.For the individual inbourgeois society, and firstof all for the proletarianhimself, certain practices of

the primitives seem to beterrible barbarisms. Theyprefer to relegate theirhelpless elderly to thenursing home rather thanabandon them to snow anddeath like the Eskimos. Thisis because, for him, life is agood thing. The supremegood! He is all the moreinterested in it to the degreethat he is incapable of livingit, to the degree that itescapes him. From in front of

his refrigerator he looks withhorror on the cannibals,without seeing that he ishimself being devoured bythe anthropophagic economy. From Hunting and Gatheringto Agriculture If these groups of hunter-gatherers were truly the firstsocieties of abundance, whydidn’t we stay that way?Because humanity took the

road of agriculture and classdivision? Because it had towait for thousands of years to“restore (although in a higherform) the liberty, equalityand fraternity of the ancientgentes? (Morgan)”.35

First of all, humanity doesnot choose to take one roador another. History is notmade by reason. Theexplanation based on a kind

of profound tendencytowards progress andinnovation is unsustainable.Then there is the “Marxist”explanation that employs theconcept of the “surplus”.Progress with respect to thedivision of labor andproductivity entails theappearance of a surplus: theproduction of more goodsthan are strictly necessary forthose who create them. Thissurplus production becomes

an incentive and the socialdivision of labor bears, ingerminal form, classdivision. A relativeabundance is thereforenecessary, a precondition, forthe rise of classes. According to thisperspective, there can be nodoubt that our hunters,having acquired a littleleisure, some time to reflectand to make new, more

sophisticated tools, will havedeveloped agriculture, whichmakes possible a moreintensive exploitation of theenvironment and therefore ahigher productivity. Oncethis point is reached,technical improvementsfostered and reinforced theclass domination that aroseas a result of thesedevelopments. All that wasnecessary was to wait for themoment when the usurped

wealth will be so vast that itcan be enjoyed in common. Unfortunately for thesethinkers, and fortunately forthe savages, the latter do notlack food, and they are evenless in need of leisure. Theydo not take advantage of theirfree time, however, toaccumulate a surplus, toimprove their technicalknowledge or to readMuscovite handbooks on the

materialist conception ofhistory.36

The transition to agriculturecan only be explained by adefect of the paleolithic era,by the product of itscontradictions or by theimpetuous development ofthe productive forces thatcaused an upheaval in therelations of production. It didnot take place due to certain

discoveries or thanks to therevelations of thosepassengers on UFOs that areso common in theexplanations of Invariance.37

Hunter-gatherers currentlyexist alongside agriculturalpopulations, without anydesire to appropriate theirsavoir-faire; although, incertain circumstances they dofeel a somewhat strongertemptation to help

themselves to their harvestsor their cattle! The abandonment of huntingand gathering as the soleresource of livelihood, hasdepended on fortuitouscauses: climatic variations,diminution of the yield ofhunting, demographicgrowth, a forced restrictionof the hunting territory…. But was the inception of

agriculture due to afortuitous event? Is it anunimportant event itself?Obviously not. If theconditions that drove this orthat group towards farmingor herding are fortuitous, thisis only because chance,which is in this case the roadof necessity, allows thecapacities of the species toundergo further elaboration,to affirm themselves and totriumph. The problem is not

one of origins, it is one of theimmediate conditions thathave spurred such a breakwith the past; a break thatwas not perceived as a break.From the moment when suchcapacities existed, when thenecessary knowledge arosefrom the former conditionsof existence themselves, itwas unavoidable that over thecourse of thousands of years,and among thousands ofhuman groups, the step to

agriculture would be taken.The problem lies inunderstanding why it hassubsisted and triumphed. It isconceivable that this is not aquestion of the superiority ofone way of life over another,but of relations of force. Everything cannot be reducedto the opposition betweenhunting and agriculture. Thetransition was not necessarilyabrupt. The first forms of

agriculture were extensiveand were not necessarilyincompatible with a nomadiclifestyle. Gathering is notthat far removed from slashand burn agriculture. For along time in the history ofhumanity, hunting andgathering remained animportant factor ofsubsistence for farmingcommunities: theyconstituted, in the case ofpoor harvests,

complementary oremergency procedures. Agriculture and the Rise ofClasses For millions of years, thehominids, pithecanthropoids,and Neanderthals pursued ahunting and gatheringlifestyle with rudimentarytools of a kind that are stillused by our Tasaday“contemporaries”. The first

traces of the domestication offire date from about 700,000years ago. The transition toagriculture was quite recent—a few thousand years—andis therefore closelyconnected with the capacitiesof the species, homo sapiens(which appeared about40,000 years ago, at thebeginning of the UpperPaleolithic era), which istoday the only humanspecies, since the

destruction-absorption of theNeanderthals. Agriculture bore the seed of afuture development thatwould have been absolutelyimpossible on the basis ofhunting and gathering. Itimplied the possibility andthe necessity of storingreserves, of exercisingforesight…. It favors asettled way of life that allowsfor a great deal of stability in

social relations; it made adeparture from“dilletantism” possible. Why did agriculturalsocieties prevail over hunter-gatherer societies? First, weshall say that this took a longtime. It was not the primitivefarmers who posed a realthreat to the hunter-gatherers.It was the ancient imperialistclass societies that destroyedthem or marginalized them

and, a few centuries ago,capitalism put the finishingtouches on this process. Agriculture makes possible amore intensive exploitationof the environment, andtherefore not a higherproductivity per person, but alarger number of persons onthe same territory, and theconstitution of larger andmore stable social units. Thefact that agriculture made

possible the real appearanceof a durable, storable andtransportable productengendered the appearance ofexploiters. This was alsofavored by the division thattended to be establishedbetween the farmer—whoautomatically ceases to be awarrior like the hunter—andthose who were to concernthemselves with pillaging, or“defending” him.

The relation between thenature of what is producedand the development of classsocieties is not withoutimportance. Cereals were thepillars of the great empires:wheat in the Mediterraneanbasin, rice in China, corn inthe Inca empire. The Incaempire attempted to replacethe cultivation of potatoeswith that of corn, even inregions that were more suitedto potatoes. This function of

cereal grains is linked in partto the fact that they aremeasurable, storable … andin part to the methods andsophisticated agriculturalinfrastructure they require. The defeat of the hunter-gatherers was inevitable. Itcorresponds to the victory ofthe development of theproductive forces and thepower of the species. But thisdeterminism is not a

determinism that is inherentto society; it does notcorrespond to any immediateadvantage. History and the social formsthat succeed one anothercannot be explained only by aspontaneous tendency toincrease the productivity oflabor on the basis of theinternal divisions of society.As Marx wrote, labor is itselfan elaborate historical

product: “Labor seems like avery simple category …however … labor is acategory that is as modern asthe social relations that gaverise to this simpleabstraction” (Contribution tothe Critique of PoliticalEconomy, 1858-1859). Man’srelation to his environmentcannot, any more than hisrelation to the developmentof history, be reduced tolabor, to the development of

its productivity and to thattendency towards a materialwell-being that is manifestedby the increase of a surplusthat is, unfortunately,confiscated. This is a viewthat is derived from thereality of capitalism and isprojected upon a previousepoch. From One Communism toAnother

The essay by Sahlins, whichhas the merit of notrestricting its investigationsto the experiential andemotional side of reality, inits concept of the “savage”for whom labor has noreality, shows that the wealthof the primitive peoples isnot the result, the crowingachievement, of their“productive” activity. Whatdetermines the productivityof the hunting and gathering

lifestyle, or the “labor” of theprimitive peoples, is thegeneral relation that theymaintain with theirenvironment: mobility,dispersion, social cohesion,demographic control. Thehistorian T. Jacob, who waspresent with thearcheological team thatdiscovered thepithecanthropus in Java, afterhaving mentioned thepossibility that the

pithecanthropus might haveprohibited incest and therebyreinforced social cohesion,writes: “… it is possible thatsince the Pleistocene thefamilies38 of pithecanthropushad voluntarily practiced‘family planning’ by way ofinfanticide and the killing ofthe elderly in order to resolvetheir economic problems.This hypothesis must beconsidered, even if we prefer

to think that we haveourselves invented, in the20th century, programs forthe control of the worldpopulation.”39 Such a relationof man to his environmentcannot be reduced to mereuse, without transformationor restoration. The Eskimoswere careful not to destroytoo many of the animals theyhunted. Thus, when the riflewas first introduced among

them, they only killed ananimal after first harpooningit. The vast and fertile NorthAmerican prairie, where thebison once grazed, is theresult of the age-oldactivities undertaken by theAmerican Indians to increaseits extent. It cannot be claimed that thehunter has an animal-likerelation to his environment.He makes and uses tools with

great skill, a skill that couldbe envied by manyTaylorized workers andtransistorized intellectuals.Above all, he has anextraordinary and lovingknowledge of hisenvironment: “This is myfatherland. My fatherlandknows me”.40 He isdistinguished from theanimals by certainintellectual qualities, his

capacity for conceiving anobject, for making it and forrepresenting hisenvironment. As Elkin says,after having depicted theAustralian Aboriginesmanufacturing their stonetools: “The objects made bythe Aborigines testify to theskill of these men to realize,in a perfect form, right downto the smallest details, themodels that are perfectlyrepresented in their minds.

Their art also provides proofof this mental aptitude…. thelittle indigenous girls, ontheir own, can thus paint thewatercolors they are asked topaint. This was interesting towatch. Instead of tracing on apiece of paper the variousoutlines of the natural objectthey had chosen to depict—amountain, a valley, a roadwith trees—and thencompleting this sketch bycoloring each of the parts of

the whole, the child paintedthe whole thing all at once,both the details as well as thecolors, so that the wholepainting unfolded from oneside of the page to the otheras if, in a way, the child wascreating it, and in fact thechild had it in his or hermind’s eye before beginningthe painting. The Aborigine,who lives on the resourcesoffered by the land, is indirect and constant contact

with it, the aspect and theshapes of the area thatsurrounds him are familiar tothe point that he has a‘photographic’ knowledge ofit. It is almost impossible forus to grasp this, because ourartificial conditions of lifeare opposed to this way ofperceiving things.”41

It is true that representationcan be the enemy of the

imagination, and certaintythe enemy of the trial anderror approach and thereforeof experimentation, but it isvery far removed from theanimal in this world in whicha capacity for abstraction istruly exercised that is alsomanifested in a mythologyand various complicatedsystems of kinship. Thismode of existence, thisintellectual/sensory relationwith the environment, in fact

surpasses technical skill. It isthis same mode of existencethat is the basis of the powerof the hunter and allows himto stay alive. Can one speak of primitivecommunism? Some haveopposed the term, afraid thatconfusion might arisebetween a past and a futurethat are very different. Theexistence of commonproperty, and the primal

group marriage that Engelsfound so enthralling, havebeen cast in doubt.Exploitative relations havebeen discovered between theold and the young, andbetween first-born and lateroffspring, in certainprimitive agrarian societies;although they are not classsocieties, are theycommunist? One cannot be a purist and

look for absolute bordersseparating communistsocieties and societies basedon exploitation. One willsoon find more or less well-established, more or lesspermanent, relations ofexploitation and domination.Does the cannibal exploit theperson he eats, by consumingthe “labor” accumulated inthe fat of his feast? Is it“good surplus value?”Likewise, in the forms of

circulation of goods thatprevail among primitivepeoples, one can find theorigin of exchange and evenembryonic forms of money.This does not mean, however,that they are necessarily theforms that have historicallygiven rise to the commodityeconomy, any more thanmodern industry developedfrom Incan textile factories. So, what about common

property, and groupmarriage? They are myths. Akind of zero point of privateproperty and the family. Anundifferentiated state thatpreceded differentiation, theoriginal nature beforecivilization. *** Communism does not meancommon property as opposedto private property, but the

abolition of property. Andthis abolition by no meanssignifies a state ofundifferentiated relations inwhich everything belongsindiscriminately to everyone.And this applies to moderncommunism as well as to thecommunism of the past.Among hunter-gatherers, therules of sharing, of thedistribution of the yield ofthe hunt, are strict; they arenot left to chance. They are

based on kinship relationsand sometimes even forbidthe hunters to eat the animalsthey have themselves killed.And the same is true of therules that prohibit orencourage certain sexualcombinations.42

The communism of thefuture will discover, beyondlabor and production, theuniversal relation of the

primitive peoples with theirenvironment. It will leavebehind the stage of homofaber, the man whomanufactures things. The abundance of primitivehumanity was based on thepreservation of a lowpopulation density. Smallhuman groups used theirenvironment withoutprofoundly transforming it.Future humanity will be

numerous and technicallyefficient. But, unencumberedby competition and theconflicts that currently afflictand motivate it, it will notcomprise a multitude ofseparate productiveprocesses, which will betransformed by anuncontrolled, unforeseen andcalamitous evolution. Eachparticular transformation willbe conducted in accordancewith a global evolution and

equilibrium. It will not be so much amatter of production, as ofparticipating in theimprovement and enrichmentof the human environment.Each individual willparticipate in efforts andenjoyments without wanting,and without needing, tomonopolize any part of thecommon patrimony. He willbe able to lead a nomadic

existence because he will feelat home everywhere. He willlose the sense of ownership,he will not be attached toobjects, because he will notneed to fear that there will bea shortage of them; he willtherefore be exempt fromcorporeal and spiritualworries. One cannot be free,of course, unencumbered andrich in desires andpossibilities, without acertain degree of a personal

lack of possessions.Unfortunate is the bourgeoisthat bears his wealth like ashell on his back. And evenmore unfortunate is theproletarian who possessesneither an airplane nor ayacht to transport him andhis penates.43

It is not a matter of confusingthe past with the future. Areturn to the paleolithic is

impossible, if one excludesthe hypothesis of aliquidation of almost all ofhumanity and civilization ina nuclear war. Nor is such areturn desirable. The customsof the hunter-gatherersocieties might seem cruel tous; their living conditions,hardly comfortable; whattruly distinguishes thatepoch, however, from theaspirations that produced themodern world, is its limited

character. Hunters contentthemselves with what theyhave and they are contentedwith little. The possibilitiesare reduced, the horizon isnarrowed, the concernsmaterialistic. This way of lifeis somewhat dull. All thepotlatches, all the feasts, allthe sexual extravagances, arelargely the products of theexplorers’ imaginations:priests, intellectuals, andtraders, who, having few

frameworks for comparison,quickly generate illusions.The sexual life of theEskimos actually seemsrather prudent and modest,even if some of them had tocrack open the skull ofpriests who did not want todo them the courtesy ofhaving sex with their wives. The transition to agriculture,to class societies, tocapitalism, has been the via

dolorosa along which thepossibilities of the specieshave developed; thedehumanization of labor hasbeen the via dolorosa leadingto a truly human kind ofactivity. Now is the time toleave prehistory behind us. *** “There is no Indian sowretched as not to retainunder his hut of bark a lofty

idea of his personal worth; heconsiders the cares ofindustry and labor asdegrading occupations; hecompares the husbandman tothe ox which traces thefurrow; and even in our mostingenious handicraft, he cansee nothing but the labor ofslaves. Not that he is devoidof admiration for the powerand intellectual greatness ofthe whites; but although theresult of our efforts surprises

him, he contemns the meansby which we obtain it; andwhile he acknowledges ourascendancy, he still believesin his superiority.” Alexis deTocqueville, Democracy inAmerica, tr. Henry Reeve(1840). *** “I beg thee now to believethat, all miserable as weseem in thy eyes, we consider

ourselves nevertheless muchhappier than thou, in this thatwe are very content with thelittle that we have…. Thoudeceivest thyselves greatly ifthou thinkest to persuade usthat thy country is better thanours. For if France, as thousayest, is a little terrestrialparadise, art thou sensible toleave it? And why abandonwives, children, relatives andfriends? Why risk thy lifeand thy property every year?

And why venture thyself withsuch risk in any seasonwhatsoever, to the storms andtempests of the sea in orderto come to a strange andbarbarous country which thouconsiderest the poorest andthe least fortunate of theworld. Besides, since we arewholly convinced of thecontrary, we scarcely take thetrouble to go to Francebecause we fear with goodreason, lest we find little

satisfaction there, seeing inour own experience thatthose who are natives thereofleave it every year in order toenrich themselves on ourshores. We believe, further,that you are alsoincomparably poorer thanwe, and that you are onlysimple journeymen, valets,servants, and slaves, allmasters and Grand Captainsthough you may appear,seeing that you glory in our

old rags, and in our miserablesuits of beaver which can nolonger be of use to us, andthat you find among us in thefishery for cod which youmake in these parts, thewherewithal to comfort yourmisery and the poverty whichoppress you. As to us, wefind all our riches and all ourconveniences amongourselves, without trouble,without exposing our lives tothe dangers in which you find

yourselves constantlythrough your long voyages.And whilst feelingcompassion for you in thesweetness of our repose, wewonder at the anxieties andcares which you giveyourselves, night and day, inorder to load your ships. Wesee also that all your peoplelive, as a rule, only upon codwhich you catch among us. Itis everlastingly nothing butcod—cod in the morning, cod

at midday, cod at evening,and always cod, until thingscome to such a pass that ifyou wish some good morselsit is at our expense; and youare obliged to have recourseto the Indians, whom youdespise so much, and to begthem to go a-hunting that youmay be regaled. Now tell methis one little thing, if thouhas any sense, which of thesetwo is the wisest andhappiest: he who labors

without ceasing and onlyobtains … with great trouble,enough to live on, or he whorests in comfort and finds allthat he needs in the pleasureof hunting and fishing.” T. C.McLuhan, ed., Touch theEarth: A Self-Portrait ofIndian Existence,Outerbridge & Dienstfrey,New York, 1971, pp. 48-49.Original source: FatherChrestien LeClercq, NewRelation of Gaspesia, with

the Customs and Religion ofthe Gaspesian Indians,translated and edited byWilliam F. Ganong, TheChamplain Society, Toronto,1910, pp. 104-106. *** “But the worst lapse of thiskind is the shortage ofresearch on the primitiveperiod, or Eden. There aremasses of archeological

materials but no socialarcheology. They want to goback 14,000 years based oninscriptions, on the zodiac ofDenderah, etc. Yes, let themgo back only 5,000 years, tothe first three centuries of thehuman race, before the flood;and if they manage todiscover the nature of thedomestic and social order ofthat time, the way will beopen to the most beautiful ofmysteries, distribution by

contrasted series.” CharlesFourier, “Theory ofUniversal Unity”. *** “We have seen: a socialrevolution possesses a totalpoint of view because – evenif it is confined to only onefactory district – it representsa protest by man against adehumanized life, because itproceeds from the point of

view of the particular, realindividual, because thecommunity against whoseseparation from himself theindividual is reacting, is thetrue community of man,human nature.” Karl Marx,“Critical Notes on theArticle: ‘The King of Prussiaand Social Reform.’ By aPrussian.” (1844) ***

La Guerre Sociale1977 Translated between January2014 and June 2017 from theSpanish translation entitled,“Abundancia y Escasez en lasSociedades Primitivas”,translated from the Frenchand with an introduction byGrupo ComunistaInternacionalista,Comunismo, No. 45, 2000.Originally published under

the title, “Abondance etdénuement dans les sociétésprimitives”, in La GuerreSociale, No. 1, April 1977. Source of the Spanishtranslation: http://gci-icg.org/spanish/comunismo45.htm#abundancia

Notes[←1]

As Charles Fourier said,we know absolutelynothing about theprimitive era, or Eden,and when some aspectof it is studied, what isundertaken is “materialarcheology”, rather than“social archeology”.

[←2]The translation of thistext was an extremelydifficult project.

[←3]As we said in ourIntroduction to this textit does not seem correctto us to say that“primitive peoples stillexist …” because inreality the worldwidecapitalist mode ofproduction has forcenturies condemnedand subsumed in variousways all such societiesdespite the fact that they

may retain this or thatappearance of primitivelife and of the primitivecommunity. This doesnot, however, by anymeans invalidate whatfollows, but to thecontrary endows it witheven more force: despiteall the destructive workexercised by capital forcenturies, the societiesin question still preservecertain characteristics

(ever fewer, since evenin the brief period sincethis text was written[1977] the destruction ofwhat remained of the“primitive” way of lifehas been more brutalthan ever) by virtue ofwhich one may “read” atotally different pastfrom the one that iscustomarily presentedby all the supporters ofprogress. Of course, the

most plentiful elementsthat can still be foundthat reflect thatprimitive lifestyle are tobe found in thosesocieties which haveremained the mostisolated fromcivilization; and despitethis isolation it mustalways be considered asrelative. It is preciselythese societies fromwhich the authors of this

text derived most oftheir information.[Editorial Note ofComunismo.]

[←4]We think it would bemore correct to use theterm, hunter-gatherers,instead of huntingpeoples, because it morenearly approximates thereality of the primitivepeoples among whomthe activity of searchingfor resources is notlimited to hunting but isalso based above all ongathering, both of plants

and animals. Currently,only the most archaicand conservativehistoriography still usesthe term hunter to referto the primitive peoplesof the paleolithic era.Since we are notauthorized to makechanges in the contentof the text we have inevery instancemaintained the originalexpression, “hunters”,

which is why we ask thereader to keep thiswarning in mind everytime this expressionappears. [Editorial Noteof Comunismo.]

[←5]Since this text waswritten [1977] severalother communities havebeen discovered that arecertainly more primitivebut this does not by anymeans invalidate what iswritten here. [EditorialNote of Comunismo.]

[←6]There is generally anoverestimation of therole of hunting as ameans of subsistence inprimitive societies. Thefact that a communitydoes not use certaintools or techniques doesnot mean that they areunacquainted with thembut merely that they arenot interested in them,due to an evaluation of

how easy they are tomove, the effort neededto use them, the yieldobtained from their use… and the risks impliedby an activity likehunting. [Editorial Noteof Comunismo.]

[←7]De Clozet, Le Bonheuren plus, 1973. [Note ofLa Guerre Sociale.]

[←8]Stern, No. 45, October1972. [Note of LaGuerre Sociale.]

[←9]We understand that thiscommodified and“environmentalist” wayof obscuringcommunism must beunderstood in the strictmeaning of the wordobscure, which performsnot just the task ofconcealing, but also ofproposing an active andcounterrevolutionaryalternative project. The

fashionable resort tonature and support forthe primitives, as thesimplistic antithesis toprogress, is not only nota negation of progress,but to the contraryforms a part of capitalistprogress itself.[Editorial Note ofComunismo.]

[←10]We cannot understandthis sentence that weplaced in quotationmarks and that appearsboth in the original aswell as in ourtranslation; we thinkthere must be somemistake here or thatwhat the authors reallywanted to say was “whatdoes not matter to us” inthe sense of “what

currently matters to theindividual of bourgeoissociety”; because thiscompulsion to seepoverty—which inreality is a product ofclass society—inprimitives is a typicalcompulsion of bourgeoissociety and particularlyof its anthropologists.[Editorial Note ofComunismo.]

[←11]For us it is clear that itmakes no sense to speakof work in the context ofprimitive society wherethis torture has not beeninstitutionalized andtransformed into aneveryday fact; nor doesit make much sense tospeak of play as opposedto work in this context.Later in the text, theword “leisure” will

appear, which is alsodefined in opposition towork; in the dictionary,it is defined as“cessation of work”,“diversion orrecreational activity …rest from otheractivities” and thereforeit is a sub-product ofwork (despite itsopposition to work).Therefore it, too, likework, is a historical

product rather than aneternal reality. The samemay be said of otherwords that implicitlyrefer to the contrast“work/leisure” andwhich precisely in thesesocieties do not exist,such as, for example,“ludic activity”. Wemight be tempted toreplace all these wordswith “activity” or“human activity”, which

would more faithfullyexpress the reality of theprimitive peoples, but inthis way the text wouldbecomeincomprehensiblebecause what theauthors are trying to dois precisely to explainthat these separated andopposed activities donot make sense outsideof societies based onexploitation and it is

therefore necessary topreserve theseexpressions in order toreveal that thisopposition does notexist in primitivesociety, just as the polaropposites, work andleisure, do not exist inprimitive communism.Moreover, our currentlanguage is the productof a society based onexploitation, and in fact

on its maximumelaboration, and we haveno other language toexpress ourselves. Thisis why we are obliged topreserve this incorrectterminology, as were theauthors (in the light ofthis and other texts it isobvious that they have aperfectly clear grasp ofthis problem), in orderto explain precisely thatthis opposition between

work and leisure has nomeaning in a societywhere exploitation doesnot exist. It seems to usimperative to have madethis clarification onceand for all so that thereader can have a cleargrasp of the problemwhenever this servileterminology appears, sothat it does not distort orinfluence theunderstanding of the

text’s essential message.[Editorial Note ofComunismo.]

[←12]It seems to us that thisexultation in the hunt asan activity in the questfor food is excessive andis due to the quotedauthor’s particularperception. It shouldalso be pointed out that,as is logical, theprimitive communistsrisked their lives asseldom as possible andthat hunting is not an

individual act (of themale), as one mightimagine on the basis ofthe limited horizon ofcontemporary man inthe light of which onemight interpret thispassage, but to thecontrary is a collectiveand carefully plannedactivity in whichstrategies of collectiveaction are implementedin which the whole

community participates(the elderly, children,women …), where thelion is approached andsurrounded until killinghim does not pose greatrisks because he isalready tired andvanquished and in somecases almost dead.[Editorial Note ofComunismo.]

[←13]Pierre Clastres,Croniques des IndiensGuayaki [Chronicles ofthe Guayaki Indians],Plon. [Note of La GuerreSociale.]

[←14]Marshall Sahlins, “TheOriginal AffluentSociety”, availableonline (January 2014)at:http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm. Later,Sahlins published thebook, Stone AgeEconomics, Routledge,New York, 1974, whichincludes a revisedversion of this essay.

The French edition usedby the authors isapparently somewhatdifferent from theoriginal Englisheditions, but only withrespect to thearrangement of thesentences and not withrespect to the meaningof the text. This Englishtranslation uses theversion published asChapter One of Stone

Age Economics (Aldine-Atherton Inc., Chicago,1972, available online inJune 2017 at:http://libcom.org/files/Sahlins%20-%20Stone%20Age%20Economics.pdf[Note of the AmericanTranslator.]

[←15]As we have alreadypointed out in previouseditorial notes, it isextremely difficult toexpress the reality ofthese societies with thelimited categories of theworld of the commoditythat we suffer under andsome of the authorsquoted are not evenaware of this problem,and that is why they see

everything in terms ofwork-leisure, of worktime-leisure time, whichare all categories thatpertain to a society ofexploited and exploiters.This lack of awarenessleads to absurdities likethe assertion that “thework pattern [is]erratic”, when what theauthor should emphasizeis that, in fact (except atthe levels in which one

or another society issubsumed in capital),work does not exist atall. [Editorial Note ofComunismo.]

[←16]Here we may once againconfirm, against allmainstream thought intoday’s society, thateven in this remnant ofprimitive communism,there is no work (orleisure). We shall alsotake this opportunity tocall attention to theideological limitationsof the person who wrotethis account, who still

continues to speak ofwork and play.[Editorial Note ofComunismo.]

[←17]It is impossible to inserta note every time theauthor who is quoteduses a totallyideological concept byprojecting his ownperspective as a man ofcommodity society to“understand” a societythat is not a commoditysociety. [Editorial Noteof Comunismo.]

[←18]Quoted by Sahlins [Noteof La Guerre Sociale].American translator’snote: all subsequentquotations from Sahlinsare taken from the book,Stone Age Economics,cited above, or from theseparate edition of theessay on “The OriginalAffluent Society”, alsoreferred to above. Itwould appear that the

French edition ofSahlins’ text was re-edited or re-arranged forpublication. The overallmeaning is preserved,however, with someminor variations.

[←19]Quoted by Sahlins [Noteof La Guerre Sociale].

[←20]Here is the original textof the passage thatfollows: “… pour bienjouyr de ce leurappanage, nos sylvivoless’en vont sur les lieuxd’iceluy avec le plaisirde peregrination et depromenade, a quoyfacilement faire ils ontl’engin et la grandecommodite des canotsqui sont petits esquifs

… si vite a l’aviron qu’avotre bel-aise de bontemps vous ferez en unjour les trente, etquarante lieues: on nevoit guiers ces Sauvagespostillonner ainsi: leursjournees ne sont toutque beau passé-temps.Ils n’ont jamais haste.Bien divers de nous, quine faurions jamais rienfaire sans presse etoppresse.” [Editorial

Note of Comunismo.]

[←21]Quoted by Sahlins [Noteof La Guerre Sociale].

[←22]A. P. Elkin, Lesaborígenes australiens,Gallimard. Quoted bySahlins [Note of LaGuerre Sociale].[Original title: TheAustralian Aborigines:How to UnderstandThem, Angus &Robertson, 1954.Translated from theSpanish translation—note of the American

translator.]

[←23]Ibid. [Translated fromthe Spanish translation—note of the Americantranslator.]

[←24]Quoted by Sahlins [Noteof La Guerre Sociale]The text quoted is fromSir George Grey,Journals of TwoExpeditions ofDiscovery in North-Westand Western Australia,During the Years 1837,38, and 39, Volume II,T. and W. Boone,London, 1841, pp. 259-263 [American

translator’ssupplemental note].

[←25]See footnote 20 above.Here is the originalFrench text: “… Le malest qu’il font tropsouvent des festins dansla famine que nousavons enduree; si monhoste prenoit deux trioset quatre castors, toutaussi tost fut il jour, futil nuit on en faisoitfestin a tous lesSauvages voisins; et si

eux avoient pris quelquechose, ils en faisoient demesme a mesme temps:si que sortant d’un festinvous allez a un autre, etparfois encore a untroisieme et unquatrieme. Je leurdisoios qu’ils nefaisoient pas bien, etqu’il valoit mieuxreserver ces festins auxjours suivants et que cefaisant nous ne serions

pas tant presses de faim:ils se moquoient demoy; demain (desoientils) nous ferons encorefestin de ce que nousprendrons: ouy, mais leplus souvent, ils neprenoient que du froid etdu vent….” “…Je lesvoyais, dans leurs peinsdans leurs travauxsouffrir avecallegresse…. Je me suistrouve avec eux en des

dangers de grandementsouffrir; ils me disoientnous ferons quelque foisdeux jours, quelquesfois trios sans manger,faute de vivre prendscourage. Chihine, ayel’ame dure, resiste a lapeine et au travail,garder toy de latristesse, autrement tuseras malade; regardeque nous ne laissons pasde rire, quoyque nous

mangions peu….”

[←26]Quoted by Sahlins [Noteof La Guerre Sociale].

[←27]Gessain, Ammassalik oula civilisationobligatoire. [Note of LaGuerre Sociale.]

[←28]The two sentences inbrackets are notincluded in the Englisheditions of the Sahlinstexts used for thisEnglish translation, andwere translated from theSpanish translation[American translator’snote].

[←29]Quoted by Sahlins, op.cit. [Note of La GuerreSociale.]

[←30]Here we can see that thecomrades of La GuerreSociale are criticizingthe bourgeois notionthat sees nothing butpoverty and scarcity inprimitive peoples[Editorial Note ofComunismo.]

[←31]Quoted by Sahlins, op.cit. [Note of La GuerreSociale]. This passageappears in a anextremely truncated andsummarized form in theedition of Sahlins’ StoneAge Economics that wasused for this Englishtranslation, and wastherefore translatedfrom the Spanishtranslation, which was

presumably based on aFrench edition thatcontained a moreextensive quotationfrom Warner’s text[American translator’ssupplemental note].

[←32]Quoted by Sahlins, op.cit. [Note of La GuerreSociale]

[←33]This has been contestedby recent scholarshippublished since this textwas written. See, forexample: David E.Stannard, AmericanHolocaust: TheConquest of the NewWorld, OxfordUniversity Press, NewYork, 1992, in which theauthor argues that thepopulation of the pre-

Columbian Americaswas over 100 millionpeople; and also,Charles Mann, 1491:New Revelations of theAmericas BeforeColumbus, Alfred A.Knopf, 2005, in whichthe author estimates thepopulation of theAmericas before 1492 tohave been between 90and 112 million people[American translator’s

note].

[←34]Sahlins, op. cit. [Note ofLa Guerre Sociale]

[←35]Quoted by Engels in TheOrigin of the Family,Private Property and theState. [Note of LaGuerre Sociale]

[←36]This text was obviouslywritten at a time whenthe world bourgeoisiestill upheld the myth ofthe “socialist countries”to designate thecountries of EasternEurope, and Marxism-Leninism (i.e.,Stalinism) as aworldview and a view ofhistory that was stillrobust. [Editorial Note

of Comunismo.]

[←37]Invariance, which is sobitterly criticized hereby La Guerre Sociale forits modernist“discoveries” thatcharacterized its laststages, was a group ofmilitants who in Europe(mainly in France andItaly) engaged in a veryinteresting activity bypublishing the historicalmaterials of the so-

called “Italiancommunist left”, as wellas other communistgroups (KAPD,Miasnikov’s group) thatopposed the Leninistdegeneration of theThird International.Camatte, who was theleading figure inInvariance, also madesome interestingmilitant contributions tothe critique of various

“Marxist” ideologiesand interpretations in aparticularly desolateperiod, at theinternational level, forprogrammatictheoretical affirmation.[Editorial Note ofComunismo.]

[←38]Here, too, a term thatcurrently has a precisedefinition is used andapplied to a completelydifferent reality. It isobvious that the authoris not referring here tothe “family” asunderstood under therule of the bourgeoisie,but to a group ofhumans that share aliving space (a group

which in many casesvaries and changes itsparameters). [EditorialNote of Comunismo.]

[←39]T. Jacob, L’Homme deJava, “L’Homme deJava”, in La Recherche,No. 62, December 1975.[Note of La GuerreSociale]

[←40]Quoted by Gessain.[Note of La GuerreSociale]

[←41]Quoted by Gessain.[Note of La GuerreSociale]

[←42]In the next issue of ourjournal we will publishan article on distributionand “exchange” inprimitive societies thatwill criticize theclassical authors likeMalinowski, Mauss,Levi-Strauss, etc. [Noteof La Guerre Sociale]

[←43]Household gods of theancient Romans[American translator’snote].