Is there any truth to this? because it sounds like pure bullshit

>>2841380

True in a sense. You get the beginnings of a priestly class in shamanhood but it takes the surplus of grain monocultures to create the pyramids. So to speak.

If you can have a surplus, and maintain it, of some valuable object (in this case, grain food), you have power over people who don't have that surplus. You can even raise a soldier class to fight other tribes and to put down rebellions of (effectively) slave farmers. And then your priest caste gets to justify this by saying "will of god(s)" pretty much.

If everyone had a universal constructor, government wouldn't exist except on a purely cooperative level.

of course it's pure bullshit. It wasn't primitive communism, it was tribalism.

And power structures have always existed with our race; and most of our ancestor races. Resource allocation is part of our power structure.

>>2841394
CONT.

Also notice, though, the absurdity of using "communism". To describe it. Communism requires a central computer to be inserted in place of calculations between innumerable cognitive entities (people).

>>2841396

There were a diversity of cultures that adapted to their particular environment. The "good" thing about tribalism is that they couldn't enforce their shittiness anywhere as wide as empires were able to enforce their shittiness.

>>2841405
the "good" thing about tribalism is, that it worked. Every structure that grew out of it worked better. Structures based on Marxist thought never work; as is proven by numerous case studies at the cost of millions of lives.

>>2841380

No it's nonsense. Monarchy is the oldest form of governing, and it predates anything like agriculture or advanced civilization. Even the most primitive of tribes living in the jungle have a monarch (a "big man") who has rights and resources not available to the proles.

File: 1194740-zulu-warriors.jpg (74KB, 624x457px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 624x457px

>>2841420
That's a real stretch you're making.

"Big man" could just as easily be a stand in for a high priest, military general, energetic entrepreneur, any number of things besides hereditary head of state.

And he was almost certainly NOT appointed to that position of "big man" because of his daddy, but instead made himself into one by the sheer force of personality and/or competence. It was MERITOCRACY, which is literally the exact opposite of being ruled by guys whose defining feature is the vagina they crawled out of.

>>2841457
how do you think the first big man came to power? Through meritocracy, you ape. The fact monarchs have their offspring inherit their power position is because that's the price which is asked of the community by the alpha. The alpha, after all, like all other members of the community, prioritise the interests of his own blood and kin.

If his offspring is too weak / rejected by the community, they are replaced by the next meritocratic alpha.

He's not making a big stretch at all.

>>2841396
It was both though. Being one racial group doesn't disqualify how they lived and worked.

File: 220px-Isis_priest01_pushkin.jpg (14KB, 220x344px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x344px

>>2841476
>you ape.
shit like this makes you sound insecure and weakens the case you're trying to make. Put it back in your pants, nobody cares how tiny your ding-dong is

>blood and kin.
The word that you were groping for is despotism. The first governments were despotic regimes, NOT Monarchical. The difference is that a monarch justifies himself by divine right, and a despot justifies himself by naked exercise of authority. Monarchy could be considered a type of despotism, but not all despotisms are monarchies.

>believes in the myth of the alpha male
This is a huge, gaping meme. The overwhelming majority of the work being done by humans is done communally, and the presence of capital hording men is a latter day distortion of that work ethic. Half of the time these "big men"'s defining feature is their ability to keep their families safe from other big men. That makes them gangster-tier, not "le beautiful alpha male princelet."

The other half of the time, they're great show-men whose defining quality is their skill at stealing credit and hogging the spotlight.

Government developed as a way for big men to keep each other in check, then it developed into a tool that clusters of big men used to pillage and steal from other big men, and then people figured out that they can use the machinery of government to keep ALL the big men in check, and as time goes on the historical trend has been towards more egalitarian societies.

Even if you believe in Capitalism, you believe that the ideal society is where men rise in accordance with merit, and that's NOT monarchy. Monarchy's defining feature, the one thing you can't separate from the concept without changing it into something else, is the concept of landed, hereditary nobility who appoint a chief executive the same way that shareholders appoint one to a corporation, and that legitimacy to this appointment comes from having a blood-link to a title, backed up by the good faith of everyone else with one.

>>2841574
this guy is right

>>2841380
read about the life of Red Cloud...they had classes.