You’re confusing insults and advice. Drag is telling you how to be a better communist. You’re interpreting that as an attack because you see online discussions as being about performing correctness, instead of as a dialectical process where both parties benefit. You should read some Hegel.

Drag is talking about a hypothetical where white people don’t suck, don’t invade Australia, and trade advanced technology like computers and looms with independent and sovereign indigenous nations. Drag believes they would industrialise without major economic changes. It would be the same communism before and after.

Well that requires the internet, and Aboriginal Australians didn’t have the internet before colonisation. Having the internet wouldn’t have changed much in terms of the economic ideology. It would be the same communism, just with internet. They would have shared songs by email as well as at ceremonial grounds.

Also, don’t put Alabama on the same level as Korea. Put the USA on the same level as Korea, or put Alabama on the same level as Gyeonggi. Lemmy has enough US-centrism.

relatively disconnected

https://www.odysseytraveller.com/articles/ancient-aboriginal-trade-routes-of-australia/

Trade was a central part of life for Aboriginal people prior to the British settlement of Australia. Trading routes criss-crossed the nation, dispersing goods, information, technologies and culture thousands of kilometres away from their origins.

‘The lines are the way the history stories travelled along the trade routes. They are all interconnected. It’s the pattern of the sharing system.’

This trading of songs can be thought of as a trading of intellectual property to assist travelling. Aboriginal people travelled a lot. They renewed and created relationships and socialised at small ceremonies and huge gatherings. They travelled for seasonal harvests on land, in rivers or at sea, either seeking or avoiding dominant weather events. If you knew the songs, you held knowledge of the land to aid navigation as well as find water and food resources.

They weren’t as different from you as you think.

Being an internationalist doesn’t mean you don’t write to an audience. Marx was a very European man with European subconscious biases, and the readers who provided the most feedback on his ideas were Europeans. Writing to an audience is inevitable in the process of creating a work. Ideology doesn’t change the practical truths of the work. As a materialist, you should understand that.

Drag didn’t accuse Marx of disrespecting indigenous communism, drag’s argument is based on the fact Marx didn’t. How many times did you read drag’s comment? Try rereading it one more time than that.

Well it wouldn’t make any sense for him to advocate for a return to primitive technology, because he wasn’t a primitivist. He advocated for the kind of communism he could see in Europe’s future. He was a European historian interested in predicting and making European history.

Your arguments are weird. You’re citing the fact that Marx talked to Europeans within a European framework as evidence he didn’t respect indigenous societies as communists. That doesn’t make any sense. Of course he did that, it doesn’t mean he thought the people he called communists weren’t communists. It just means he had an area of specialisation. Drag has specialties too; drag doesn’t know the first thing about Jewish communism, so drag doesn’t talk about Kibbutz-es. That doesn’t mean drag doesn’t respect Jewish communism. Marx is the same way. Everyone is the same way about whatever part of their field they’ve specialised in.

Drag thinks you forgot that drag isn’t an anprim again. Otherwise the last paragraph is pretty random to include.

Primitive communism and industrial communism are both communism, just like pepperoni pizza and cheese pizza are both pizza. The above quote doesn’t have a qualifier because it describes both kinds of communism.

Tools are force multipliers. Hunting game is several times easier with a spear, boomerang, or bow than with bare hands. Gathering firewood is easier with a stone or copper axe.

Drag isn’t an anprim. Remember that thing drag said about trying to understand the whole argument? Drag said primitive communism and industrial communism are the same communism. If drag doesn’t believe in a meaningful distinction, why would drag want to avoid industrialised communism? No, your assumption doesn’t make sense. It’s like you forgot our whole conversation and just responded to drag’s most recent message in isolation. You’re probably overworking yourself, having so many arguments all the time, and that’s why you can’t pay attention. Slow down, breathe, and read carefully. Try to empathise. Drag’s comments will still be here later. Try to get into fewer arguments so you can devote the proper attention to each one. It’s disrespectful to pay so little attention.

Indigenous tribes skipped Marx’s first phase and went straight to his higher phase. Exactly what Marx described happened, when early humans began organising themselves into communes instead of acting as troupes of apes. The productive forces increased alongside the development of the individual into modern homo sapiens, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flowed more abundantly. With the advanced social structures of communism, they were able to perform more technologically advanced forms of work with greater rewards, like hunting mammoths or building longhouses.

Drag likes The Culture better than Star Trek, and in drag’s opinion the economic ideology is the same: people do what needs to be done and look after each other.

Marx didn’t conceive of communism only as post socialist, nor as only industrialised. He was willing to admit Haudenosaunee were communists. You’re the one claiming he was restrictive about these things when you’ve already admitted he called it “primitive communism”. If Marx said primitive communism isn’t communism, show a quote, because that conclusion is the opposite of self evident. It’s extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence.

No, you don’t need capitalism first in order to have communism. Turtle Island did communism without having capitalism first. Aren’t you paying attention? Don’t use assertions drag has already disputed as the basis for your arguments. You won’t convince drag that way, you’ll just wear drag out from repeating the same things over and over.

Try attempting to understand the entirety of drag’s argument, instead of bouncing between pieces of it and addressing them one at a time with the same old rhetoric.

You can’t address a unique and coherent argument by reading the counter to each part off your script.

as Communism is based on large production and social planning

It’s not. It’s based on worker ownership of the means of production.

Indigenous societies had complex networks of management and labour specialisation. Robust power grids and machinery don’t change whether something is communism or not.

and more are entirely different from small communes

You’re saying they’re different because they’re different. This argument is going around in circles just like your logic.

But all your arguments are based on technology and scale differences. You haven’t named any differences based on principles of economic organisation. Drag says technology and scale aren’t meaningful differences in this context.

If you exclude Turtle Island and Australia from the dataset, the continents with the best record of recent communism, then there’s no point in this conversation, because drag is talking about continents with recent communism and a strong historical record.

You’re making a circular argument. You’re saying the distinction between “primitive communism” (can we avoid using 200 year old terms that belittle indigenous people?) and industrialised communism is meaningful, BECAUSE tribes aren’t “primitive” anymore. That’s an argument going in circles.

Drag is arguing at the level of meaning: drag says you can draw the distinction, but your reasons for doing so are bad and you shouldn’t. The reliability of a measure is irrelevant if its construct validity is in question.

Tribes are perfectly capable of running industrial manufacturing supply lines in terms of administrative ability. In Australia, tribes are refuelling helicopters. They’re doing it under capitalism, because white people suck, but they could just as easily do it under communism if the white people had left well enough alone and not stolen the land and enslaved generations.

The only difference you’re talking about is quantity, not quality. Drag feels you’re othering them on a weak basis. Industrialised communists have ten times as much in common with tribal communists as with industrialised capitalists, and what differences do exist, are our lack of knowledge of the land and respect for the traditional ways. We have more to learn from them than we have to teach them. You’re dismissing them unfairly.

It’s important to draw a line between Primitive Communism and Communism as a post-Socialist society. Primitive Communism is founded upon small, isolated communities, while Marx’s Communism is one of large industry run along a common plan, democratically, to suit the needs of all.

That feels like some noble savage stuff. Societies aren’t different because they have different technology with the same economic system. It feels like you’re saying indigenous societies wouldn’t have been able to industrialise without changing their political system radically.

But indigenous societies made conscious political choices about how to structure society, and drag believes they had the political structure required to adapt to industrialisation without losing their political system.

Drag doesn’t buy the distinction you’re making between indigenous communism and industrialised communism. Drag doesn’t think the difference is relevant to whether something is communism, and the only way drag could see it being relevant is through the noble savage trope.