Primitive communism. Was primitive communism hungry? "primitive communism" in books

Communism is dead. Long live communism! The communist social system in Russia (real communism) has been destroyed. This is now an indisputable fact. Of course, some of its features and fragments have survived. They will persist for a long time, maybe forever. But real communism

It is on hunger that the classical theory of primitive communism and the subsequent emergence of private property and class society is based. The scheme is simple: hunger - no surplus - impossibility of exploitation. Labor productivity increased - surpluses appeared, and then a class society.

The hungry version is facilitated by the natural ideas of a civilized person about the lack of culture among barbarians and, accordingly, about their miserable existence. True, the indigenous peoples had their own opinion on this matter, and often, on the contrary, considered the Europeans extremely primitive, greedy and cruel.

If we compare the level of consumption and medicine (or something similar to it) among the discovered tribes that have not been affected by civilization, then there really is reason to talk about their lagging behind, or even just about poverty. However, it must be said that we are dealing with distant descendants of primitive people who lived millions of years ago. The tribes that survived to modern civilization could become impoverished, being ousted from the fertile regions. It is clear that a million years ago there were no TVs and cars, but does this mean poverty and hungry life?

For a long time, science had a very vague idea of \u200b\u200bpre-class society. In 1877. a breakthrough was the book by L. G. Morgan "Ancient Society", although later it revealed many inaccuracies. It was used by F. Engels in his work "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (1884), into which Morgan's flaws migrated and, according to experts, many new ones were added. Nevertheless, the works of Morgan and Engels are the richest in factual material, since the object of research practically disappeared for later research. The tribes untouched by civilization were destroyed or adapted to new times.

For a long time (since the heyday of Soviet times) they have been modestly silent about another work of F. Engels: "The role of labor in the process of turning a monkey into a man", where a simple scheme dominated, according to which a monkey climbed down from a tree, took up labor and became a man. Later archaeological excavations have shown an extreme multidirectional evolution of man and in nature in general. Today, we have moved away from the rough notion that evolution by natural selection immediately fixed every useful trait. Even at the level of genes, one can see how mutational changes accumulate "in reserve", which for a long time do not appear in any way, or may not appear at all.

Evolution seems to be spreading in all directions. And which traits are useful is very controversial, since ultimately the reproduction of a species depends on many circumstances, which, moreover, can change rapidly. Now it is clear that estimates of utility from a purely human standpoint are not suitable for nature. It simply creates a reserve in various directions, including for a person whose brain is clearly redundant for the primitive existence that was 4 million years ago. Today this brain "pulls" a lot of science, is well versed in computers, and it is still believed that a person uses only a small part of his potential. There is even talk of an oversupply of the human brain. It is quite obvious that trivial natural selection could not provide it in any way, since there was actually no one to compete with, except with God.

Where does this redundancy come from? A one-time gift from God? And only to man? Hardly. If it was a gift, then it went to animals, the continuity from which, in many ways, is visible in humans. And the fact that a person cannot yet figure out all the unique abilities of animals suggests rather that animals use the redundancy of the brain in their own way, while humans have taken a different path of evolution.

It is safe to say that labor created civilization, but the fact that labor created man is very controversial. The development of ideas about the origin of man shows more and more that the monkey that climbed down from the tree was already smart enough, she simply had nothing to show her talents on. Also, the human child who remained outside of civilization is not far from the level of modern monkeys.

Why nature gave the ancestors of man a powerful brain - it is difficult to find rational explanations for this. Or maybe they are not, since only man is interested in a long chain leading to him from the simplest animals. Along with this chain, there were an immense number of others, with nature experimenting most actively in the world of insects. Large organisms are associated with great complexity in their organization. Therefore, against the background of the general diversity, the exit towards large-sized products looks more like a rare exotic, a side random branch, a game of nature.

From the stated positions, the prevailing notions that primitive people were so helpless that they were forced to huddle in flocks look extremely simplified and vulgar, and every small invention was immediately fixed by natural selection, since it saved the dying from starvation.

No, the man was not at all helpless. It will be extremely difficult for a modern person to survive in the forest, even in the company of his own kind. But you can survive alone, like Robinson, and even get a good job. From the standpoint of a civilized citizen, ancient man was deprived of everything. But the ancient man did not know about this and did not even know about his deprivation. On the contrary, he was the undivided master of his land, the free arbiter of his own fate and the fate of the surrounding nature. This modern clerk can be frightened by a horse or a dog. And the animals of the past, apparently, quickly understood what a man is. And man understood perfectly well that he could kill any animal, catch a bird, cut down a tree, but a tree and animals are not capable of this.

It is customary to explain the deification of the forces of nature by the weakness and defenselessness of primitive man. But is it? Wasn't man himself a god over the surrounding nature even earlier? To appreciate other people's abilities, first you need to have your own. And there is every reason to believe that a person had such abilities, akin to the divine.

The man was not at all shy, downtrodden and morally crushed. He just wouldn't have survived. Not. He was brave and proud, he was a man.

Why did the primitives live in groups, and not separately? After all, say, safety at night can be ensured even alone by climbing a tree or into a cave, as animals do. For hunting a large animal? It is quite logical. But for this it is not at all necessary to hang around day after day. Gathered, hunted, fled. In addition, the rich vegetation of the tropics must have provided a substantial diet of food. And picking fruits and berries is easier alone. And collecting is the concept of a modern northern man. It was not necessary to collect then, but to put it directly into the mouth when the appetite was playing up.

As the excavations show, life was not always heavenly. Natural conditions changed. Deserts grew. It was here that the skills and tools of primitive man's labor could play a role. However, the history of resettlement across the globe shows that a person rather preferred to leave unkind places, and not work hard. With an extremely small population, the world was large enough to find more and more fertile places. And if numerous species of animals flourished under these conditions, it would be extremely surprising if the new king of nature eked out a miserable existence.

So why did people get together if there was no need for it? I think that a long line of far-reaching consequences starts with simple curiosity. Curiosity is not alien to animals. Probably everyone knows very well how restless and how puppies and kittens climb everywhere. An adult dog is not so fussy, but will not forget to carefully sniff all corners.

However, the physiological characteristics and capabilities of the brain impose great restrictions on what objects and phenomena an animal can distinguish, and therefore what can fall into the sphere of its interest. So, dogs perfectly distinguish smells and, perhaps, look at the world more with their nose than with their eyes. A person relatively poorly distinguishes smells and, accordingly, does not find information or anything particularly interesting in them. On the other hand, the human brain distinguishes well the shapes of objects, and is able to combine different forms "in the mind" into something that is not in front of the eyes. For example, he is able to imagine a stone rearranged to another place even before this stone is rearranged. As scientists believe, animals are not capable of this.

The human brain is able to distinguish a huge number of traits of another individual, by which to then evaluate his mood and intentions. Therefore, the appearance of this individual potentially becomes an object of curiosity, just like all kinds of smells for a dog.

What else could interest primitive man in the world around him? Probably, every plant, every hillock of the area is interesting in its own way, and all this, undoubtedly, was carefully examined by our ancestors. And what to do next with a lot of free time? What new and original can be found in plants that slowly evolve for millions of years? But another person can change right before our eyes, and this is not some unrequited beam, this is another king of nature, and it is proper for kings to pay attention primarily to kings.

Probably everyone knows the feeling of seeing a performance for the first time in a theater or a sports arena. I want to see him again and again. It is no coincidence that for the ancient Romans, spectacles were no less important than bread.

And every person is a spectacle, and a very expressive one. Nature has not given any animal such a wealth of gestures, movements, facial expressions, sounds. Even in the absence of articulate speech, it is not so difficult to convey the history of your adventures, or at least impressions of them. On the contrary, animals have no expressive means. In any case, there are no cases recorded that, for example, a lion performed in front of an audience of lionesses, demonstrating with his body and growling the details of a recent hunt.

And a person with his movements can show in the smallest detail how he lurked in an ambush, what a powerful sprint dash he made and how he hit the poor animal with a heavy club. You can show this at least a hundred times by adding new screams and antics. And there is no doubt that in the absence of other entertainment, there will always be a grateful audience.

Do I need to explain why modern fishermen, hunters, alcoholics are crowded together? Curiosity and passion for spectacle breed communication between people. In the communication of primitive people, useful skills could well be passed on to each other, but they did not gather for that at all. Actually, the caught fish, quickly eaten, both in ancient times and now, does not matter, but stories about it can last indefinitely, overgrown with anything and becoming a new objective reality.

Why is there a fish! But if a mammoth was killed, then this is a completely different scale. Here everyone is both actors and spectators. It is not difficult to guess in what heaven with happiness modern hunters would be if they drove a mammoth without even going to eat it.

You can listen to the story in gestures about the killed mammoth at night, but, probably, it is most relevant when you again wanted something meat. Here, along with memories, perhaps the anticipation of a future hunt comes out on top. However, the anticipation of happiness is always useful. Maybe this is happiness itself. Actually, killing and eating a mammoth is a troublesome business and does not allow one to come to his senses, to realize his happiness. But stories about this event can live forever and always warm the souls of fellow tribesmen.

For this, most likely, primitive people gathered together and modern people gather. For the soul! Not for the body, although food and drink will not interfere with a good performance.

The ancient representations, apparently, became regular, turned into rituals, with which the life of the tribes discovered by Europeans on other continents was filled. Only a city dweller thinks that the forest frees one from any instructions. In fact, over thousands of years, primitive people have accumulated much more of them.

Thus, primitive communism in the conditions of a huge planet and untouched nature could be completely different. This later, due to population growth, climatic changes and irrational economic activities, the world could quickly shrink. So, only a pale shabby copy of the old communism has reached historical times. However, she also gives many examples of proud and elevated people who are not at all inclined to petty property and the enslavement of brothers in reason.

This means that the conditions for the emergence of surpluses have developed in the past more than once, if not at all a constant phenomenon. This means that the classical scheme of the emergence of a class society in the recent past is doubtful. This topic will be continued in the next article on private property, although even there we will find more riddles than answers. N.V. Nevesenko

Ruling over the course of the very first and longest in the history of the socio-economic formation - the primitive communal system.

Terminology

The term "primitive communism" or its equivalent half-calf from the English. primitive communism and French fr. communisme primitif - "primitive communism", were in scientific circulation in Russia at the end of the 19th century.

The precedent for the transmission of the polysemantic ‘primitive’ by the word “primitive” (according to Dahl: “ancient or decrepit, primordial, pre-era, initial or eternal”) was set in Russia by the first translation of the monograph by E.-B. Tylor eng. "Primitive culture", 1871), published in 1873 in St. Petersburg under the title "Primitive Culture".

Category essence

At this stage in the development of society, all members of the “primary economic units” of the primitive hunter-gatherer population were in the same relation to the means of production, and the method of obtaining a share of the social product was the same for all.

Primitive communism is characteristic of all peoples in the early stages of development. The corresponding primitive communal system in terms of archaeological periodization coincides mainly with the Stone Age. The equal attitude of all members of the economic community to the means of production serves as a prerequisite for a single method for them to obtain a share of the social product. There are no private property, classes and the state. In such societies, the food obtained is distributed among the members of the society in accordance with the need for the survival of the society, that is, according to the needs of the members for individual survival. Extracted goods and newly manufactured means of production were in public ownership, suggesting joint use in the mode of open free access. This was possible due to the personal acquaintance of the members of such a society with each other, due to the small size of the group. The question of the ownership of personal items produced by a person for himself remains controversial. Researchers believe that in the early stages, there was no individual marriage; the genesis of family relations, matriarchy and patriarchy constitutes a separate group of discussion issues. The development of tools of labor led to the division of labor, which became the reason for the emergence of individual property, and the gradual formation of property inequality between people.

see also

Write a review on the article "Primitive Communism"

Notes

Excerpt from Primitive Communism

At 10 o'clock in the evening, Weyrother moved with his plans to Kutuzov's apartment, where a military council was appointed. All the leaders of the columns were required to see the commander-in-chief, and, with the exception of Prince Bagration, who refused to come, all appeared at the appointed hour.
Weyrother, who was the complete controller of the proposed battle, presented with his liveliness and haste a sharp contrast to the disgruntled and sleepy Kutuzov, who reluctantly played the role of chairman and leader of the military council. Weyrother evidently felt himself at the head of a movement that was already unstoppable. He was like a harnessed horse running downhill with a cart. Whether he was driving or was being driven, he did not know; but he rushed as fast as possible, no longer having time to discuss what this movement would lead to. Weyrother that evening was twice for a personal examination in the enemy chain and twice with the sovereigns, Russian and Austrian, for a report and explanations, and in his office, where he dictated the German disposition. He, exhausted, has now come to Kutuzov.
He, apparently, was so busy that he even forgot to be respectful with the commander-in-chief: he interrupted him, spoke quickly, indistinctly, without looking into the face of the interlocutor, without answering the questions put to him, was stained with dirt and looked pathetic, exhausted, confused and at the same time arrogant and proud.
Kutuzov occupied a small noble castle near Ostralits. In the large living room, which became the office of the commander-in-chief, gathered: Kutuzov himself, Weyrother and the members of the military council. They drank tea. Only Prince Bagration was expected to begin a council of war. At 8 o'clock, the orderly of Bagration arrived with the news that the prince could not be. Prince Andrey came to report this to the commander-in-chief and, using the permission previously given to him by Kutuzov to be present at the council, remained in the room.
“Since Prince Bagration will not be here, we can begin,” Weyrother said, hastily getting up from his seat and approaching the table on which was laid out a huge map of Brunn's surroundings.
Kutuzov, in an unbuttoned uniform, from which, as if freeing himself, his fat neck swam onto the collar, sat in a Voltaire armchair, placing his plump senile hands symmetrically on the armrests, and was almost asleep. At the sound of Weyrother's voice, he struggled to open one eye.
“Yes, yes, please, otherwise it's too late,” he said and, nodding his head, lowered it and closed his eyes again.
If at first the council members thought that Kutuzov was pretending to be asleep, then the sounds that he made with his nose during the subsequent reading proved that at that moment for the commander-in-chief it was about much more important than the desire to show his contempt for the disposition or for whatever be that as it may: it was for him about the irrepressible satisfaction of a human need - a dream. He was really asleep. Weyrother, with the movement of a man too busy to waste even one minute of time, looked at Kutuzov and, making sure that he was asleep, took the paper and in a loud monotonous tone began to read the disposition of the future battle under the title, which he also read:
"Disposition to attack the enemy position behind Kobelnitsa and Sokolnitsa, November 20, 1805".

The concept of "primitive communism" first appeared in the drafts of Capital in 1857-1858. It is noteworthy that the starting point of the argument was the Russian land community. Karl Marx wrote: “Community property has recently been rediscovered as a kind of Slavic curiosity,<…> and more thoroughly historical research reveals this community as the starting point of all cultural peoples. The production system based on private exchange is initially the historical decomposition of primitive communism. " These words meant the absence of property, collectivism in the division of food, and in the ownership of women - group marriage. In the 60s of the XIX century, this term was widely used in the works of K. Marx and F. Engels, and in the 20s of the XX century it penetrated the works of Marxist historians in Soviet Russia. But at this his solemn procession stopped.

Starting in the 1930s, the term gradually began to be supplanted from scientific publications. During the discussions, another concept was found to characterize the first stage of the development of human society - "generic". The need to replace the previous name was justified by the fact that when using it, the illusion arises that theoretical ideas about communism had arisen even before the appearance of communist ideas themselves. In addition, as the participants in the discussions noted, there was a desire to identify the future communist society with the era of the primitive herd. The term was withdrawn from scientific use, but the idea that he personified remained alive. The idea was simple: the existence of "primitive communism" was an additional (and for many people a very weighty argument) in favor of the inevitability of the replacement of capitalism by communism, a classless class society. This idea came to the fore again when, after the Second World War, communist and capitalist ideologies were forced to fight for the minds of the people of the third world. This is where the idea of \u200b\u200bprimitive communism came in handy. Communism began to be presented as a system that preserves traditions. Yes, yes, the same ones coming from the times of primitiveness. Capitalism, on the other hand, has become synonymous with colonialism, the breakdown of traditions, "the pernicious influence of civilization." These ideas were actively used to describe the confrontation in Vietnam. Vietnamese communists - Viet Cong - personified fighters for independence, for the preservation of their own traditions, which included communist ideas. American soldiers became accomplices of colonialism. The communist ideology was the winner, which led to a reciprocal information campaign. The Americans, both politicians and their constituents, needed an example of a people who, on the one hand, would be completely primitive, on the other, ready and, moreover, interested in the generous help of people under the stars and stripes. Such people were found.

The last people of the Stone Age. Tasadai case.

In 1972, in the extreme south of Mindanao, the Philippine archipelago, a meeting of American anthropologists and the Tasadai-Manobo tribe took place. This tribe turned out to be a living relic of the Stone Age. The Tasadai lived in caves, did not wear clothes, did not know how to hunt and were engaged exclusively in gathering. As leading travel magazines wrote, “The biggest animal they hunted was the frog. They treated wild pigs and deer almost like friends. " The peacefulness of these people was truly all-encompassing: “Tasadai are very affectionate with each other: every now and then you see how they sniff each other - it replaces their kisses. They learned to live in harmony and harmony not only with nature, but also with each other. There are no conflicts between them at all. As far as we were able to establish, they do not even have a word for 'war' or 'struggle'. " Their tools resembled archaeological exhibits. Seeing them, one of the members of the first expedition to Tasadai, the anthropologist Fox, exclaimed: “Lord God! Have any of you seen something like this ?! Why, this is the purest Neolithic! " In his hands was a hatchet made of a small stone, the size of a chicken's egg, tied with flexible reeds to a rattan handle. It was a real sensation! And more importantly, this ethnographic fact radically changed the alignment of information forces. If earlier the Viet Cong were the embodiment of "good savages" defending their right to primitive communism, now it turned out that they are not savages at all. Within the Rousseau scheme, they were just as corrupted by civilization, albeit to a lesser extent, as Americans and Europeans. Communist ideology, on the other hand, has become not something primordial, but one of the many social ailments acquired in the process of development. Tasadai became real "good savages" for the next fourteen years. They had never even heard of primitive communism. Surprisingly, in numerous descriptions there is not a single scene of the division of prey or collected plants: each tasadai got himself the necessary food himself. There is not a single mention of matriarchal relationships. As the magazines wrote, "It is curious that despite the lack of women, there is no polyandry in the tribe." In other words, the descriptions of tasadai very much resembled the characteristics of American society - independence, individualism, strict monogamy ... But at the same time, a deaf primitiveness! There was only one stroke left: to show that this society is ready to evolve towards capitalism under the supervision of good helpers. Numerous articles reappeared in magazines under the heading "Tasadai - a year later." The idea that it was mortally dangerous for people of the Stone Age to face diseases, alcohol, cold weapons and firearms and other benefits of civilization in one hour ran through them as a red thread. In the United States, a fundraising society was created to adapt tasadai to modern times. The society was immediately joined by actress Gina Lolobrigita, who at that time was fond of photography, aviator and philanthropist Charles Lindbergh, as well as politician John Rockefeller IV. It was an outstretched helping hand, and the tasadai gladly accepted this help. The magazines wrote that for them anthropologists were the personification of the spirit of Divata. They accepted all the gifts, saying: "We have everything we need, but we are very happy to meet Divata!" On the territory of the tribe, a reserve was organized, and contacts with newcomers almost ceased ... In 1986, the regime of the Philippine dictator Marcos fell, and the Swiss correspondent Oswald Iten arrived in the country, wishing to meet with Tasadai. It turned out that the caves are empty, and the tasadai live in the nearest villages in houses and wear jeans. They talked about how they were asked to disguise themselves as "cavemen" for television cameras and make stone tools from museum samples. The greatest ethnographic (or socio-anthrpological) deception in the history of the 20th century has been exposed. The disclosure of the deception did not generate as much noise as the discovery of the tribe in 1972. French anthropologist Jean-Paul Dumont drew attention to the following facts: tasadai were discovered and described by American anthropologists, and the deception was exposed by a Swiss and caused almost no outrage in the United States. Messages about tasadai appeared at the height of the Vietnam War and were actively circulated by leading magazines, and famous people, as if by order, entered this fund. Such a multitude of coincidences is no coincidence, the researcher is sure. The descriptions of tasadai-manobo in the press are the product of a well-thought-out ideological campaign. This people embodied all the stereotypical ideas about the Stone Age, but at the same time, its values \u200b\u200bresembled those of America. The Vietnam War is over. Then the Soviet Union disappeared. But the struggle against primitive communism continues.

Don't sleep - snakes are all around! The case of a pirah.

In 2008, Daniel Everett's work "Do not sleep - snakes are all around!" It has been published in thousands of copies in many countries of the world. This is a book about the Piraha tribe, or in the Portuguese pronunciation, Piraaa, a small Indian tribe of about 450 people living on the Maisi River in the state of Amazonas. The title of the book contains a phrase that the Piraha Indians admonish each other before going to bed. According to their beliefs, falling asleep a person dies, and wakes up already done by another. Therefore, the Piraha try not to sleep for a long time - they doze on their haunches for twenty to thirty minutes several times a day. They spend the rest of the time awake. A reader familiar with tasadai will notice almost textual overlaps in the descriptions. For example, talking about material culture, Everett writes: “The houses of the Piraha are remarkably simple. In addition to “kaui-iu” (thing-for-daughter), they also make “aitaui-iu” (thing-from-the-palm tree), a less durable structure. The Palm Thing is commonly used on the beach to create shade. It consists of four sticks that support the roof, covered with any wide leaves, usually palm leaves. They are built exclusively for children. Adults will sleep in the sand or sit in the open sun all day, sometimes sticking a branch vertically into the ground that provides some shade. ” Again minimalism in material culture, although not living in caves. The wind shield is also the oldest form of dwelling. Again, the behavior of the subjects is total friendliness. “Piraha laugh at everything. They laugh at their own misadventures: if a sharp gust of wind destroys someone's hut, its inhabitants laugh louder than others. They laugh when they catch a lot of fish. They laugh if they go without a catch. They laugh when they are full and laugh when they are hungry. They are always sober, they never beg for anything, they are not rude. " Anyone who has visited traditional peoples knows how unusual this description is. And exactly the same thing was written about the tasaday. The Pirah is dominated by a monogamous marriage. “Given that divorces are frequent, and divorced people are not shamed in public opinion, free sexual relations are possible during dance and song events, and people are allowed sexual experiments in pre-pubertal and post-pubertal ages, it is reasonable to assume that Piraha had sex with lots of other piraha.<…> At the same time, the majority of Pirah live in nuclear families. " Again, a striking coincidence. As with tasadai, piraha should not live in small families, but still live! In the descriptions of the pirah there is no equalizing section of food. Redistribution is being carried out, but, let's say, by mutual agreement. When piraha shares, “they ask, 'Do you know how to eat this?' This is a wonderful phrase, because if you don't want something, you can refuse without getting into a fight. All you have to say is: 'No, I don't know how to eat it!' ”The problem of“ how to refuse ”is completely contrived. For example, bushmen can give a newcomer a similar amount of food. I give you forty nuts, you give me forty nuts! It seems silly ... However, this act will not be considered senseless. He will bond two people with a bond of respect. They exchanged gifts, which means that something like a relationship was established between them. The Pirah case is strikingly similar to the Tasadai case. Once again, a huge number of people around the world are beginning to talk about traditional cultures. Once again, as if by magic, a people appears who embodies all the stereotypical ideas about primitiveness. Again, among all the social institutions of this people, those that are key to primitive communism “are not”. Again, in terms of deep values, these people more closely resemble Americans than all other traditional peoples described by scientists. The only question that remains unanswered is: what is the goal of the 2008 ideological campaign?

In previous articles, we wrote about two types of animal economics (inherent in human ancestors, hominids), 1) a primitive economy, where loners predominate, creating temporary alliances, for example, during the breeding season, and 2) the economy of appropriating communism, where eternal associations are created, collectives where everyone has their own role. Once a person, and today some ethnic groups, led an appropriating communist economy, and then moved on to production. What caused this transition?

It was a Neolithic revolution, it dates back 10 thousand years before us, it happened for the first time in the Middle East, and a little later in other regions of the planet, independently of each other. The transition was caused, on the one hand, by an unprecedented cold snap, which threatened to wipe out all mankind, on the other hand, by the activation of external enemies, such as saber-toothed tigers, cave lions, and, possibly, by the war with the Neanderthal man next to Homo sapiens. It was necessary to have an advantage over other species in order to survive and give birth to offspring. Salvation came in the form of fire, which became a saving technology, the energy that determined the first technological order of society. To clarify what has been said, let me digress a little.

There is the famous theory of Kondratieff waves, according to which the development of society is cyclical, determined by periodic disturbances in the production and consumption of products. Capitalism, Kondratyev believed, went through several large cycles (which include small 10-year cycles), today there are exactly five of them: 1) 1770-1851, at the beginning of the cycle there is an increased use (together with investments) of water energy steam, due to the fact that windmills (and everything connected with them) have completely exhausted themselves, this advancement of innovations (steamboats, steam locomotives, steam locomotives, steam heating) is due to the invention of the Watt steam engine; 2) 1855-1896, the period of domination of natural gas as the dominant form of energy (internal combustion engines, gas lighting, which did not gain distribution in that era, gas heating), the beginning can be counted from 1860, when the Lenoir internal combustion engine with lamp gas was invented; 3) 1896 - 1947, the period of the domination of electricity, the beginning of investments in this area - 1890, the year of the invention of the electric incandescent lamp Lodygin; 4) 1947 - 1983, the era of atomic energy, if you do not take into account the socialist world, in capitalist realities the period begins in 1956, when a nuclear power plant was put into operation in Great Britain; 5) 1983 - 2018 (?) - this period can rightfully be called the era of oil, when all crises occurred due to overproduction of oil, when the world abandoned the dangerous and unprofitable atomic energy and switched to a cheaper source of fuel, and all revenues from oil went to the development of electronics.

Every time humanity comes to the edge in its irrepressible striving for production for the sake of production, it is saved by some form of energy that has not been previously used or not actively used. An invention, just one invention, entails a stream of innovations, changes in various spheres of society. But then the energy loses profitability, the world suffers a crisis and the turn of new innovations comes. And so it is always, until the most destructive crisis.

Almost the same was the case during the Neolithic Revolution. The fire, which was used unconsciously by the Neanderthals, among the Cro-Magnons became the reason for a greater rallying of people who had a need to say something to each other. This is how speech appeared. In the future, people moved on to agriculture, cattle breeding, and craft. The modification of the community, a clear separation of the clan, phratry, tribe, tribal union in it contributed to the development of social institutions. Production communism took shape, in which the basis was the means of production and consumer goods that were in public ownership, and the superstructure was the primitive religious forms of consciousness. The fire saved the world from the crisis of underproduction of the necessary product. But this technology has exhausted itself and at the sunset of the formation gave way to another type of energy.

What happened to the Neanderthals? They were ruined by the harsh climate or the war with the Cro-Magnons?

Rather, the second. Neanderthals were a hardy species, their bones are found even beyond the Arctic Circle, which means that a drop in temperature could not be the cause of their death. But their real enemy was a close relative, Cro-Magnon. It is most likely that humans drove the Neanderthals to the edge of the Ecumene, to places uninhabitable. Here, in the Far North, in the mountains of Tibet, in the Himalayas, the Neanderthals, for disguise, switched to a primitive economy, an economy of loners (snowmen have never been seen in communities, most often they stumble upon loners). The political economist Porshnev adhered to this version, at one time it was on his initiative that the relict hominoid was searched for at the state level.

Are there peoples in the modern world at the stage of primitive productive communism?

Yes there is. These are the Siberian peoples (Chukchi, Evenks) who are engaged in reindeer herding, some American Indian tribes. They have developed primitive forms of production, but there is still no exchange of goods, no division of labor between communities due to the absence of a surplus of product. The same was true of the primitive communists. Production and distribution was collective, equalizing, but due to the scarcity of resources and low productive forces, the lack of advanced technologies for cultivating the land, raising livestock, making tools for labor, primitive peoples for thousands of years could not get a surplus of the necessary product.

This was the basic economic law of primitive productive communism: the normal functioning of primitive communist production is possible only if the extremely meager living conditions for people are ensured by maintaining a low level of production. Violation of this law meant a crisis of overproduction of the necessary product (the only and significant one), the appearance of an excess of product due to the growth of productive forces, and after this the division of labor between tribes, the exchange of excess product between tribes, the emergence of proto-state institutions.