Material factors not only compelled early men to labor incessantly and adopt a particular ideology but also forced them to work cooperatively.  The need for increased production of the necessities of life, the need for protection, and the lack of sensible alternatives compelled the human species to live together.  From the beginning man was essentially, although not in every instance, a gregarious being--a social animal.  Although superficially the choice to combine may appear to have been his, in reality, material conditions ruled out any viable alternative.  Man's freedom to choose with respect to this issue was essentially nil.  Manlike creatures which did not combine because of counteracting material factors or whose mental capacity was not developed sufficiently through interaction with the environment to recognize the advantages, in fact, the necessity of united action, either remained primitive or disappeared altogether.  Environmentally decreed combined action brought forth greater productivity, ²² greater protection and, thus, greater chances of survival.  Decisions by man as well as other organisms were and are materially dictated and to the extent that options are non-existent, not worthy of rational thought, or impossible to execute, freedom is a myth.

Each person was not only compelled to unite with others but also to participate in an equal distribution of material goods.  Due to the poor state of technology in early society, production of life's necessities (food, clothing, shelter, tools, etc.) was at the lowest point consistent with the maintenance of life.  Total production was so small that when divided according to need (almost equally) everyone received no more than that required for survival. If someone had obtained more than his share, another person's allotment would have been reduced below the amount needed for the latter's existence and he would have perished.  The death of any productive member endangered the welfare of all.  They had less protection, were deprived of items which the deceased could produce more efficiently, and were unable to accomplish tasks involving many people.  Conditions dictated that if each was to survive he had to willingly participate in a sharing of produce. ²³

Since everyone had to share equally, private ownership was virtually nonexistent. ²⁴  Material conditions were not conducive to its appearance.  No material factor had yet arisen to cause the more productive, energetic, intelligent, self-centered, or fortunate individual to seek retention of his contribution to the total production.  If he had kept his part, others would have perished and his own existence would have been jeopardized.  He would have been forced to do without items which others could have produced more efficiently and been forced to protect his property alone.  Moreover, the output differential between the most productive and the least productive persons in the group was so small as not to generate a desire to hoard.  There was simply no material inducement for the advent of significant private property.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

²² Marx once quoted another author, Sadler, who wrote the following in The Law of Population, "Combined labour produces results which individual exertion could never accomplish....  Geometry says...that the whole is only equal to the sum of all its parts; as applied to the subject before us, this axiom would be false.  Regarding labour, the great pillar of human existence, it may be said that the entire product of combined exertion almost indefinitely exceeds all which individuals and disconnected efforts could possibly accomplish."

Source 53 , page 88

²³ (Add) "In the tribal or village community with common ownership of land...a fairly equal distribution of products is a matter of course."
Source 4 , page 204
²⁴ (a) "Primitive co-operation at the beginning of civilization, among hunting peoples, nomads, or in Indian communities, is based on common ownership of the means of production...."
Source 9 , page 82
(b) "Here the conception of private ownership of the means of production did not yet exist...."
Source 75 , page 34

Any arrangement of man's material conditions (environment and, to a lesser degree, other material factors such as heredity) unavoidably generates an ideological result or superstructure²⁵ and this case is no exception.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

²⁵ (a) "...the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which, these ideas, theories, views etc. are the reflection."
Source 75 , pages 20-21
(b) "Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought and views of life."
Source 64 , Volume 1, page 272
(c) "...all man's juristic, political, philosophical, religious and other ideas are derived in the last resort from his economic conditions of life (from his material conditions of life--Ed.)...."
Source 62 , page 243
(d) "...man himself is a product of nature, which has developed in and along with its environment; hence it is self-evident that the products of the human brain, being in the last analysis also products of nature...."
Source 43 , page 21
(e) "The production of notions, ideas, and consciousness is from the beginning directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of human beings, the language of real life.  The production of men's ideas, thinking, their spiritual intercourse, here appear as the direct efflux of their material conditions....  Consciousness (politics, ideas, morals etc.--Ed.) can never be anything else but conscious being and the being of men is their real life-process....  ...we (the materialists--Ed.) proceed not from what men say, fancy, or imagine, nor from men as they are spoken of, thought, fancied, imagined in order to arrive from them at men of flesh and blood; we proceed from the really active men and see the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of their real life-process as proceeding from that life-process....  It is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness."
Source 62 , pages 65-66
(f) "...the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period."
Source 10 , page 91
(g) "...the fundamental proposition, which forms its (The Communist Manifesto--Ed.) nucleus, belongs to Marx.  That proposition is" that in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch....  This proposition which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology...."
Source 59 , pages 20-21
(h) "Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life."
Source 58 , page 38
(i) "Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man's manner of life, such is his manner of thought."
Source 75 , page 29
(j) "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
Source 43 , page 27 and Source 64 , Volume 1, page 363
(k) "The notion that the ideas and conceptions of people create their conditions of life and not the other way round is contradicted by all past history, in which results constantly differed from what had been desired and in the further course of events were in most cases even the opposite."
Source 4 , page 473

Participants viewed the welfare of each as being inextricably bound up with the welfare of all.  The ideological theme was one of brotherhood and harmony.²⁶  In essence, matter had created a community in which each man tended to look upon his neighbor as an extension of himself.  This general attitude of selflessness on the part of early man was not the by-product of teaching, preaching, excoriation, or punishment but of material conditions arranged in such a manner as to produce no other result.  The dominance of material factors over man's thoughts, ideology, or desires is readily apparent.  Early societies were invariably organized as communes. ²⁷

-------------------------------------------------------------------

²⁶ "And the kind of men and women that are produced by such a society is indicated by the admiration felt by all white men who came into contact with uncorrupted Indians, admiration of the personal dignity, straightforwardness, strength of character and bravery of these barbarians....  This is what mankind and human society were like before class divisions arose."
Source 64 , Volume 2, page 254
²⁷ (a) "There was a time when property bore a communistic character, when the forests and fields in which primitive men roamed belonged to all and not to individuals.  Why did communist property exist at that time?  Because production was communistic, labor was performed in common, collectively; all worked together and could not dispense with each other."
Source 73 , page 37

(b) "We all know that at the beginning of society products are consumed by the producers themselves, and these producers are spontaneously organized in more or less communistic communities...."
Source 51 , Volume 3, page 873
(c) "In reality communal ownership of land is an institution which is to be found among all Indo-Germanic peoples on a low level of development, from India to Ireland, and even among the Malays...."
Source 64 , Volume 2, page 56
(d) "...I (Engels--Ed.) cannot agree with you that the bellum omnium contra omnes (the war of all against all--Ed.) was the first phase of human development.  In my opinion, the social instinct was one of the most essential levers of the evolution of man from the ape.  The first men must have lived in bands (communes--Ed.) and as far as we can peer into the past we find that this was the case."
Source 63 , page 304
(e) (Add) "Primitive society did not spring from and was not organized around the family as people have been led to believe.  'Mr. Mikhailovsky, evidently, borrows his ideas on the history of society from the tales taught to school children.  The history of society--this copybook maxim runs--is that first there was the family, that nucleus of every society, then--we are told--the family grew into the tribe, and the tribe into the state.  If Mr. Mikhailovsky with a solemn air repeats this childish nonsense, it merely shows--apart from everything else--that he has not the slightest notion of the course taken even by Russian history."
Source 20 , Volume 1, page 154
(f) (Add) "Nevertheless, all written history so far takes as its point of departure the absurd assumption, which became inviolable in the eighteenth century, that the...individual family, an institution scarcely older than civilisation, is the nucleus around which society and the state gradually crystallized."
Source 64 , Volume 2, page 257

By causing brotherhood to be the undoubted rule and not the exception, material conditions also created a situation in which any need for control mechanisms was negligible.  Criminal activity in any form was virtually non-existent, since killing, robbing, or injuring one's neighbor was practically equivalent to self-destruction.  Those rules and regulations which existed were more the product of each individual realizing what was required and expected of him than of any pronouncements by a group of officials.  Although rare, disputes and violations did exist but they were settled by the entire commune with full participation instead of a dominant group. ²⁸ Leadership of daily communal activities was generally under the guidance of the oldest, the wisest, or those individuals possessing the greatest skill in the central activity of the commune (fishing, hunting, etc.).  Nearly everyone had some voice in administrative affairs and membership in the top leadership was rarely fixed or rigid.²⁹   But into this somewhat idyllic arrangement of universal brotherhood and harmony was to intrude the most decisive factor in the history of man's relationship to man--PRIVATE PROPERTY--caused by the creation of a SURPLUS of production.  Originally, of course, private property had been negligible for reasons previously mentioned.  Material conditions were such that staking out claims would provide an individual with more problems than benefits.  But man, ceaselessly reacting to the combined material forces of his own physical needs (food, clothing, shelter, etc.), environmental dictates (what is available), and the ever present danger of fires, droughts, plagues, floods, and other natural calamities, was constantly forced to improve and expand his technology.  He unremittingly created better methods and tools with which to provide a greater quantity of produce for his physical needs.  The result of this repeated innovation was the creation of something with which he had never before been confronted--s SURPLUS.  For the first time in man's evolution the commune was able to produce more than its members needed to survive.  Goods could now be stored for later consumption.  The existence of each member in the commune had been precarious at best so the appearance of a surplus of production was a welcome sight indeed.  Yet, its realization was the catalyst for the most basic of all alterations in man's relationship to man.  It created disharmony and disunity which has continued to increase with every passing century; it divided man as no other factor in history.  Man found himself faced with a fateful decision.  Either he could continue to work as a member of the group, submitting and withdrawing his share of the total production on a basis of equal membership as formerly, or he could devise a plan by which the excess produce could be channeled in his direction.  The choice was his to make and subsequent history has been dominated by the fact that he chose the latter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

²⁸ "And this gentile constitution (primitive communal society--Ed.) is wonderful in all its...simplicity!  Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes or police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects, or judges; without prisons, without trials.  All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole body of those concerned...."
Source 64 , Volume 2, page 253
²⁹ "The grandeur and at the same the time the limitation of the gentile order was that it found no place for rulers and ruled....  there was as yet no distinction between rights and duties; the question of whether participation in public affairs...was a right or a duty never confronted the Indian; it would have appeared as absurd to him as the question of whether eating, sleeping, or hunting was a right or a duty."
Source 64 , Volume 2, page 308

But was there really an option or was the situation comparable to the overwhelming majority of problems faced by man in the past--only one possible choice because of dangerous, unrealistic, or non-existent alternatives.  Cursory examination will show that the latter situation prevailed.  The entire existence of early man was fraught with uncertainty--insecurity brought about by the ever-present danger of natural calamities, repeated victimization by a multitude of forces and events beyond his control, a growing population encroaching on a restricted supply of natural resources, incessant physiological needs which had to be satisfied, and a whole host of other material problems, not the least of which was the lowly mental and genetic (material) makeup which he inherited yet in no way constructed.  His nearly helpless condition compelled him to view the advent of a surplus as the long-sought alleviator to his seemingly insurmountable difficulties.  He knew that if he obtained the surplus the others would continue as before and possibly perish.  He also realized that if he stayed in the commune and accepted only an equal share of the excess production, his existence would continue to be in doubt--certainly in greater jeopardy than if he obtained a greater portion of the surplus; so he chose self over his neighbors.  The question for early man was basically one of deciding whose security was more important--his or others.  His dilemma resembles that of the present-day army private who is ordered to kill ten innocent civilians or face immediate execution himself.   Yes, it was his decision to make.  But, realistically, what other choices were available? The only feasible alternative consisted of staying in the commune and facing all of the previously-mentioned hazards and the greater possibility of their occurrence.  Nearly every material factor, the results of nearly every event, nearly every piece of information in the life of early man was arranged in such a manner as to predetermine the outcome of his decision.  His very being hung in the balance.  Yes, it was his decision and he decided in favor of self and against his friends.  But when nearly every material factor in a person's life is working against his well-being, when, figuratively speaking, the "cards are stacked" against him from birth, can one really say that he is a free agent.  If early man had been perfect, of course, he would have chosen to stay in the commune out of concern for his co-workers, regardless of the risk to himself or the arrangement of all material factors impinging on his life.  But man, through no fault of his own, was not perfect.  In fact, what is, ever has been, or ever will be perfect.  Conditions largely beyond his control caused him to be weak.  He had no voice in the time or place of his birth, the nature of what he inherited, the character of his parents, or the environment in which he was raised.  Indeed, nearly every major factor affecting the life of early man was beyond his control while all he wanted was to survive.  His intent was not to injure or sacrifice his companions but to insure his survival.  And when, for the first time in his life, an opportunity presented itself, he acted.  In reality, early man played only a small part in deciding to jeopardize the security of his comrades; material conditions exercised the decisive role.  Every form of life, man included, places its own survival above all others, since conditions have long since dictated that any organism following another policy would become extinct or teeter on the edge of extinction.  If any form of life, including man, is involuntarily put into the position of being forced to choose between its own survival and that of its friends, conditions, not the life form, are primarily responsible for whatever conclusion emerges.  To view the situation differently would be unreasonable.  Any decision for early man was the result of combining 99% dictation by material conditions with 1% free choice (approximately accurate figures selected for illustrative purposes).

Nevertheless, many observers will say, "Even though 99% of early man's material conditions did point to only one possible decision if one expected greater security, he had no right to sacrifice his fellow man and think of his own welfare first.  Regardless of the fantastic degree to which his life was controlled by material factors over which he exercised little influence, he was still responsible for his behavior.  And the fact that he chose self over others demonstrates the fundamentally evil and egotistical nature of man.  Being greedy and self-centered is "human nature."  But is this conclusion valid?  Although there is always an ineradicable element of freedom in the actions of any form of life, otherwise living matter would not differ from non-living matter, no rational individual can consider 99% dictation by material conditions to be of secondary importance.  To assert the primacy of 1% freedom would be highly unreasonable and no more justified than the execution of the army private because he followed orders under threat of death and killed 10 innocent civilians.  One might just as well hold all forms of life accountable for their behavior, including babies and the mentally impaired, because they too possess a small degree of free will.  Every person is a mirror, a reflection, of material factors (environment, mode of making a living, heredity,³⁰ etc.) affecting his existence.  If he exhibits undesirable behavior or shelters anti-social attitudes, the

-------------------------------------------------------------------

³⁰ "As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production."
Source 58 , page 32

conditions from which they emerged are more responsible than he.  Personality traits (envy, greed, viciousness, aggressiveness, egotism, etc.) and undesirable behavior are more the product of changing matter than any conscious, freely-expressed activity or any inherent nature (an alleged human nature) on man's part.  Man is more a result than a cause, more a follower than a leader, more a product than a producer, more to be pitied than condemned.

Man will be totally blameworthy only when he is totally free.  And he will be totally free only when he exercises complete control over all internal and external material factors that could possibly affect his well-being.  Man's entire history has been a process of moving from an early state in which he was almost completely controlled (possessed few viable and realistic options) and exercised little discretion in making decisions to a future state in which he will be almost completely without restraints or controls and will exercise almost complete freedom (the extremely long journey from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom³¹ ).  In a sense the percentages will change from 99% controlled and 1% free to 99% free and 1% controlled.  Only in this future state will he be justifiably accountable to all the laws and codes which authorities have applied to him throughout the evolution of civilization. ³²

-------------------------------------------------------------------

³¹ "The history of mankind is one of continuous development from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom."
Source 50 , page 203
³² (Add) "Then for the first time man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones....  The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself.  Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history--only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him.  It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom."
Source 4 , pages 388-389

Because of deceptive teachings people have always viewed persons displaying anti-social behavior as if the latter had already attained this future state of 99% freedom and, consequently, were almost completely responsible for their activities.  Wayward individuals have been observed and preached to with little or no regard for the infinite variety of negative and positive material factors affecting, indeed dominating, their behavior and philosophy.  They have been approached as if they were in a vacuum devoid of any contact with outside forces, pressures, or other material influences. In reality, the opposite has been true.  The laboring people have been anything but free.  Even today the masses are infinitely closer to the 99% controlled than the 99% free stage.  Any realistic approach to the alteration and improvement of ideas and behavior involves restructuring material conditions rather than changing thought processes and subsequently returning wayward individuals to their prior conditions.  Once material changes are realized a new direction in thought patterns and behavior will become evident. ³³   Unfortunately, the laboring masses have not developed conditions as much as the latter have formulated themselves.³⁴   The masses have been more of an unconscious agent of historical change than its conscious director.³⁵   Modern laboring people have corrected this situation only slightly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

³³ (a) "Any given material change is, sooner or later, inevitably followed by a corresponding ideal change."
Source 73 , page 24
(b) "...the development of the ideal side, the development of consciousness, is preceded by the development of the material side, the development of external conditions: First the external conditions change, first the material side changes, and then consciousness, the ideal side, changes accordingly."
Source 73 , page 21
(c) "In social life, too, first the external conditions change, first the material conditions change and then the thoughts of men, their habits, customs, and their world outlook change accordingly."
Source 73 , page 23
(d) "Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?"
Source 59 , page 77
(e) (Add) "The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure;...the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in man's better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in modes of production and exchange.  They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics (material conditions--Ed.) of each particular epoch."
Source 10 , page 94

(f) (Add) "The same men who establish their social relations in conformity with their productivity, produce also principles, ideas and categories, in conformity with their social relations.  Thus, these ideas, their categories, are as little eternal as the relations they express.  They are historical and transitory products."
Source 53 , page 105
³⁴ "...social movement (is--Ed.)...a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intentions, but, rather, on the contrary, determining the will, consciousness and intentions of men....  If the conscious element plays so subordinate a part in the history of civilization, it is self-evident that a critique whose subject is civilization, can least of all take as its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness.  That is to say, that not the idea, but the external, objective phenomenon alone can serve as its point of departure."
Source 20 , Vol. 1, page 166
³⁵ "According to Marx's views all history up to now, in the case of big events, has come about unconsciously, that is the events and their further consequences have not been intended."
Source 63 , page 480