Hubbry Logo
Pre-Marxist communismPre-Marxist communismMain
Open search
Pre-Marxist communism
Community hub
Pre-Marxist communism
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Pre-Marxist communism
Pre-Marxist communism
from Wikipedia
Chiefs of the Six Nations of the Haudenosaunee, a vital influence on and precursor to Marxist communism.

While Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels defined communism as a political movement in 1848, there were similar ideas in the past which could be called communist experiments.[1] Marx himself saw the original hunter-gatherer state of humankind as primitive communism. Marx theorized that only after humanity was capable of producing surplus did private property develop.[2][3]

Pre-history

[edit]
An artist's rendering of a temporary wood house, based on evidence found at Terra Amata (in Nice, France) and dated to the Lower Paleolithic (c. 400,000 BP)[4]

Karl Marx and other early communist theorists believed that hunter-gatherer societies as were found in the Paleolithic through to horticultural societies as found in the Chalcolithic were essentially egalitarian.[5][6] He, therefore, termed their ideology to be primitive communism.[7] Since Marx, sociologists and archaeologists have developed the idea of and research on primitive communism.[8][9] According to Harry W. Laidler, one of the first writers to espouse a belief in the primitive communism of the past was the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca who stated, "How happy was the primitive age when the bounties of nature lay in common ... They held all nature in common which gave them secure possession of the public wealth."[10] Because of this he believed that such primitive societies were the richest as there was no poverty.[10] According to Erik van Ree, other Greco-Roman writers that expressed a belief in a prehistoric humanity that had a communist-like societal structure include Diodorus Siculus, Virgil, and Ovid.[11]

Due to the strong evidence of an egalitarian society, lack of hierarchy and lack of economic inequality, historian Murray Bookchin has argued that Çatalhöyük was an early example of anarcho-communism, and so an example of primitive communism in a proto-city.[12]

Bronze Age

[edit]

It has been argued that the Indus Valley civilisation is an example of a primitive communist society, due to its perceived lack of conflict and social hierarchies.[13] Others argue that such an assessment is not correct.[why?][14][15]

Classical antiquity

[edit]
The 1st century BC Roman philosopher Seneca believed that humans had fallen from a Golden Age of primitive communism[16]

There are scholars who have traced communist ideas back to ancient times, particularly in the work of Pythagoras and Plato.[17][18] Followers of Pythagoras, for instance, lived in one building and held their property in common because the philosopher taught the absolute equality of property with all worldly possessions being brought into a common store.[19]

It is argued that Plato's Republic described in great detail a communist-dominated society wherein power is delegated in the hands of intelligent philosopher or military guardian class and rejected the concept of family and private property.[20][21][22] In a social order divided into warrior-kings and craftsmen and peasants, Plato conceived an ideal Greek city-state without any form of capitalism and commercialism with business enterprise, political plurality, and working-class unrest considered as evils that must be abolished.[23] While Plato's vision cannot be considered a precursor of communist thinking, his utopian speculations are shared by other utopian thinkers later on.[24] An important feature that distinguishes Plato's ideal society in the Republic is that the ban on private property applies only to the superior classes (rulers and warriors), not to the general public.[25]

Roman imperial period to late antiquity

[edit]

Biblical scholars have argued that the mode of production seen in early Hebrew society was a communitarian one akin to primitive communism.[26][27]

The early Church Fathers, like their non-Abrahamic predecessors, maintained that human society had declined to its current state from a now lost egalitarian social order.[28] There are those who consider that the early Christian Church, as described in the Acts of the Apostles,[29][28][30] was an early form of communism.[31][32][33] The view is that communism was just Christianity in practice and Jesus Christ was himself a communist.[34] This link was highlighted in one of Marx's early writings which stated: "As Christ is the intermediary unto whom man unburdens all his divinity, all his religious bonds, so the state is the mediator unto which he transfers all his Godlessness, all his human liberty".[34] Furthermore, the Marxist ethos that aims for unity reflects the Christian universalist teaching that humankind is one and that there is only one god who does not discriminate among people.[35] Later historians have supported the reading of early church communities as communistic in structure.[36][37][38]

Pre-Marxist communism was also present in the attempts to establish communistic societies such as those made by the ancient Jewish sects the Essenes[39][40][41] and by the Judean desert sect.[clarification needed][42]

Post-classical history

[edit]
Inside the urban centre Kuélap of the Chachapoya culture

Europe

[edit]

Peter Kropotkin argued that the elements of mutual aid and mutual defense expressed in the medieval commune of the Middle Ages and its guild system were the same sentiments of collective self-defense apparent in modern anarchism, communism and socialism.[43] From the High Middle Ages in Europe, various groups supporting Christian communist and communalist ideas were occasionally adopted by reformist Christian sects. An early 12th century proto-Protestant group originating in Lyon known as the Waldensians held their property in common in accordance with the Book of Acts, but were persecuted by the Catholic Church and retreated to Piedmont.[44] Around 1300 the Apostolic Brethren in northern Italy were taken over by Fra Dolcino who formed a sect known as the Dulcinians which advocated ending feudalism, dissolving hierarchies in the church, and holding all property in common.[44] The Peasants' Revolt in England has been an inspiration for "the medieval ideal of primitive communism", with the priest John Ball of the revolt being an inspirational figure to later revolutionaries[45] and having allegedly declared, "things cannot go well in England, nor ever will, until all goods are held in common."[46]

South America

[edit]

The Chachapoya culture indicated an egalitarian non-hierarchical society through a lack of archaeological evidence and a lack of power expressing architecture that would be expected for societal leaders such as royalty or aristocracy.[47]

Asia

[edit]

Mazdak, a Sasanian prophet who founded the eponymous Zoroastrian offshoot of Mazdakism, is argued by various historical sources, including Muhammad Iqbal, to have been a proto-communist. This view originates from Mazdak's belief in the abolition of private property,[48] advocacy of social revolution, and criticism of the clergy.

Researchers have commented on the communistic nature of the society built by the Qarmatians[49] around Al-Ahsa from the 9th to 10th centuries.[50][51][52]

Early modern period

[edit]

Europe

[edit]
Woodcut from a Diggers document by William Everard

Thomas Müntzer led a large Anabaptist communist movement during the German Peasants' War.[53][54][55] Engels' analysis of Thomas Müntzer work in and the wider German Peasants' War lead Marx and Engels to conclude that the communist revolution, when it occurred, would be led not by a peasant army but by an urban proletariat.[56]

In the 16th century, English writer Sir Thomas More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property in his treatise Utopia, whose leaders administered it through the application of reason.[57] Several groupings in the English Civil War supported this idea, but especially the Diggers[58] who espoused communistic and agrarian ideals.[59] Oliver Cromwell and the Grandees' attitude to these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile.[60] Engels considered the Levellers of the English Civil War as a group representing the proletariat fighting for a utopian socialist society.[61] Though later commentators have viewed the Levellers as a bourgeois group that did not seek a socialist society.[62][63]

During the Age of Enlightenment in 18th century France, some liberal writers increasingly began to criticize the institution of private property even to the extent they demanded its abolition.[64] Such writings came from thinkers such as the deeply religious philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.[65] In his hugely influential The Social Contract (1762) Rousseau outlined the basis for a political order based on popular sovereignty rather than the rule of monarchs, and in his Discourse on Inequality (1755) inveighed against the corrupting effects of private property claiming that the invention of private property had led to the, "crimes, wars, murders, and suffering" that plagued civilization.[66][67] Raised a Calvinist, Rousseau was influenced by the Jansenist movement within the Roman Catholic Church. The Jansenist movement originated from the most orthodox Roman Catholic bishops who tried to reform the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th century to stop secularization and Protestantism. One of the main Jansenist aims was democratizing to stop the aristocratic corruption at the top of the Church hierarchy.[68][page needed]

Victor d'Hupay's 1779 work Project for a Philosophical Community described a plan for a communal experiment in Marseille where all private property was banned.[69][70] d'Hupay referred to himself as a communiste, the French form of the word "communist", in a 1782 letter, the first recorded instance of that term.[69]

North America

[edit]
Ely S. Parker, co-author of The League of the Ho-dé-no-sau-nee or Iroquois

Lewis Henry Morgan's descriptions of "communism in living" as practiced by the Haudenosaunee of North America, through research enabled by and coauthored with Ely S. Parker, were viewed as a form of pre-Marxist communism.[71] Morgan's works were a primary inspiration for Marx and Engel's description of primitive communism,[72] and has led to some believing that early communist-like societies also existed outside of Europe, in Native American society and other pre-Colonized societies in the Western hemisphere. Though the belief of primitive communism as based on Morgan's work is flawed[73] due to Morgan's misunderstandings of Haudenosaunee society and his, since proven wrong, theory of social evolution.[74] This, and subsequent more accurate research, has led to the society of the Haudenosaunee to be of interest in communist and anarchist analysis.[75][76] Particularly aspects where land was not treated as a commodity,[77] communal ownership[78][79] and near non-existent rates of crime.[78][79][80]

Primitive communism meaning societies that practiced economic cooperation among the members of their community,[81] where almost every member of a community had their own contribution to society and land and natural resources would often be shared peacefully among the community. Some such communities in North America and South America still existed well into the 20th century. Historian Barry Pritzker lists the Acoma, Cochiti and Isleta Puebloans as living in socialist-like societies.[82] It is assumed modern egalitarianism seen in Pueblo communities stems from this historic socio-economic structure.[5] David Graeber has also commented that the Inuit have practiced communism and fended off unjust hierarchy for "thousands of years".[83]

Age of Revolution

[edit]
Louise Michel, a communard who supported the 1878 Kanak insurrection whilst exiled from France.

The Shakers of the 18th century under Joseph Meacham developed and practiced their own form of communalism, as a sort of religious communism, where property had been made a "consecrated whole" in each Shaker community.[84]

Many Pre-Marx socialists lived, developed, and published their works and theories during this period from the late 18th century to the mid 19th century, including: Charles Fourier,[85][86] Louis Blanqui,[85][86] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,[85][86] Pierre Leroux,[85] Thomas Hodgskin,[87][88] Claude Henri de Saint-Simon,[85][86] Wilhelm Weitling,[86] and Étienne Cabet.[85][89] Utopian socialist writers such as Robert Owen[86] are also sometimes regarded as communists.[90][91][92] The use of the term "communism" in English was popularised by advocates of Owenism.[93]

The currents of thought in French philosophy from the Enlightenment from Rousseau and d'Hupay proved influential during the French Revolution of 1789 in which various anti-monarchists, particularly the Jacobins,[94] supported the idea of redistributing wealth equally among the people, including Jean-Paul Marat and Francois Babeuf.[95] The latter was involved in the Conspiracy of the Equals of 1796 intending to establish a revolutionary regime based on communal ownership, egalitarianism and the redistribution of property.[96] Babeuf was directly influenced by Morelly's anti-property utopian novel The Code of Nature and quoted it extensively, although he was under the erroneous impression it was written by Diderot.[97] Also during the revolution the publisher Nicholas Bonneville, the founder of the Parisian revolutionary Social Club used his printing press to spread the communist treatises of Restif and Sylvain Maréchal.[98] Maréchal, who later joined Babeuf's conspiracy, would state it his Manifesto of the Equals (1796), "we aim at something more sublime and more just, the COMMON GOOD or the COMMUNITY OF GOODS" and "The French Revolution is just a precursor of another revolution, far greater, far more solemn, which will be the last."[99] Restif also continued to write and publish books on the topic of communism throughout the Revolution.[100] Accordingly, through their egalitarian programs and agitation Restif, Maréchal, and Babeuf became the progenitors of modern communism.[101] Babeuf's plot was detected, however, and he and several others involved were arrested and executed. Because of his views and methods, Babeuf has been described as an anarchist, communist and a socialist by later scholars.[102][103][104] The word communism was first used in English by Goodwyn Barmby in a conversation with those he described as the "disciples of Babeuf".[105] Despite the setback of the loss of Babeuf, the example of the French Revolutionary regime and Babeuf's doomed insurrection was an inspiration for French socialist thinkers such as Henri de Saint-Simon, Louis Blanc, Charles Fourier and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[39] Proudhon, the founder of modern anarchism and libertarian socialism would later famously declare "property is theft!" a phrase first invented by the French revolutionary Brissot de Warville.[106]

Maximilien Robespierre and his Reign of Terror, aimed at exterminating the monarchy, nobility, clergy, conservatives and nationalists was admired among some anarchists, communists and socialists.[107] In his turn, Robespierre was a great admirer of Voltaire and Rousseau.[108]

By the 1830s and 1840s in France, the egalitarian concepts of communism and the related ideas of socialism had become widely popular in revolutionary circles thanks to the writings of social critics and philosophers such as Pierre Leroux[109] and Théodore Dézamy, whose critiques of bourgeois liberalism and individualism led to a widespread intellectual rejection of laissez-faire capitalism on economic, philosophical and moral grounds.[110] According to Leroux writing in 1832, "To recognise no other aim than individualism is to deliver the lower classes to brutal exploitation. The proletariat is no more than a revival of antique slavery." He also asserted that private ownership of the means of production allowed for the exploitation of the lower classes and that private property was a concept divorced from human dignity.[110] It was only in the year 1840 that proponents of common ownership in France, including the socialists Théodore Dézamy, Étienne Cabet, and Jean-Jacques Pillot began to widely adopt the word "communism" as a term for their belief system.[111] Those inspired by Étienne Cabet created the Icarian movement, setting up communities based on non-religious communal ownership in various states across the US, the last of which disbanded in 1898.[112]

The participants of the Taiping Rebellion are viewed by the Chinese Communist Party as proto-communists.[113] Marx referred to the communist tendencies in the Taiping Rebellion as "Chinese socialism".[114]

The Communards and the Paris Commune are often seen as proto-communists, and had significant influence on Marx, who described it as an example of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".[115]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Pre-Marxist communism refers to a variety of doctrines, communal experiments, and social practices advocating shared ownership of resources and egalitarian organization that preceded the economic and historical theories developed by and in works such as (1848). These encompassed ancient philosophical ideals like Plato's communal guardians in The Republic, medieval religious sects such as the during the who sought common land use, and early nineteenth-century utopian socialist proposals by figures including , , and , who envisioned cooperative communities to replace competitive through and rational planning. Distinct from Marxism's emphasis on and the inevitable overthrow of via class struggle, pre-Marxist communism typically relied on ethical persuasion, small-scale implementation, or religious motivation rather than , often critiqued by Marx himself as "utopian" for lacking empirical grounding in production relations. Notable characteristics include the prevalence of voluntary, localized communes—such as Owen's New Harmony settlement in Indiana (1825–1828), which aimed at collective labor and education but dissolved due to internal conflicts and economic inefficiencies—and religious groups like the Shakers, whose celibacy and property-sharing sustained longer-term viability but remained marginal to broader society. Claims of "primitive communism" in prehistoric hunter-gatherer bands, popularized by Engels drawing on Lewis Henry Morgan's anthropology, posit egalitarian sharing as a baseline human condition before class society; however, archaeological and ethnographic evidence reveals significant variation, with hierarchies, resource hoarding, and leadership emerging even in foraging groups, undermining notions of universal pre-class harmony. Controversies surrounding these pre-Marxist forms center on their scalability and sustainability: while inspiring later radicals, most experiments failed to endure or expand, illustrating causal challenges like free-rider problems and incentive misalignments absent coercive enforcement, in contrast to post-Marxist states that imposed communism through centralized power.

Conceptual Foundations

Defining Pre-Marxist Communism

Pre-Marxist communism refers to historical doctrines, practices, and social arrangements advocating communal ownership of property, egalitarian resource distribution, or classless organization prior to and Friedrich Engels's formulation of communism as a of in (1848). These pre-Marxist forms typically lacked a systematic analysis of or inevitable class struggle, instead drawing from philosophical ideals, religious ethics, or revolutionary equalitarianism, often on small scales or as utopian visions. Examples span ancient proposals like Plato's communal guardianship in (c. 375 BCE), where philosopher-rulers share property to avoid corruption, to early Christian communities described in Acts 4:32–35 (c. 80–90 CE), where believers held "all things in common" through voluntary sharing rather than enforced abolition of private ownership. In the modern era, François-Noël Babeuf (1760–1797), leader of the Conspiracy of Equals during the , represented a pivotal pre-Marxist communist program. In 1796, Babeuf's group demanded the implementation of an agrarian law inspired by ancient Roman reformers, abolishing land inheritance and to guarantee equal shares for all citizens, enforced by a revolutionary dictatorship until equality was achieved. Babeuf explicitly used egalitarian rhetoric, declaring "the aim of society is the common happiness" and viewing luxury as theft from the poor, though his scheme relied on state absent in purely voluntary pre-modern models. Such pre-Marxist ideas frequently emphasized moral regeneration or divine mandate over economic laws of motion; for instance, Babeuf's influences included Enlightenment critiques of inequality but not dialectical progress toward communism. Marx and Engels later praised Babeuf as a precursor while critiquing his "conspiratorial" methods as insufficiently rooted in mass proletarian action. This retrospective labeling highlights superficial resemblances—shared and anti-inequality—while underscoring causal differences: pre-Marxist variants arose from ethical or crisis-driven impulses, not predicted stages of capitalist collapse.

Distinctions from Marxist Communism

Pre-Marxist communism, encompassing early religious communes, utopian experiments, and anthropological observations of egalitarian societies, lacked the dialectical materialist framework central to theory. Whereas posits historical development as driven by class antagonisms arising from modes of production, pre-Marxist forms often relied on moral, religious, or speculative ideals detached from economic analysis of and proletarian immiseration. critiqued such approaches as "," arguing they sought to "evolve out of the human brain" solutions to social ills without grounding in the "production of the means to support human life" as the basis of social structure. In contrast, communism frames the transition to a as an inevitable outcome of capitalism's internal contradictions, requiring the proletariat's revolutionary overthrow of the . Implementation methods further diverge: pre-Marxist communism typically emphasized , philanthropic appeals, or small-scale communal models, as seen in 19th-century Owenite villages or Anabaptist sects like the , which practiced shared property without coercive state mechanisms. Marxist communism, however, mandates a transitional "dictatorship of the proletariat" to expropriate capital and suppress counter-revolution, viewing peaceful reform as illusory under bourgeois dominance. Engels emphasized that proletarians achieve mastery of production "except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation," through organized class struggle rather than . This reflects Marxism's insistence on in advanced industrial contexts, absent in pre-Marxist visions tied to agrarian or pre-industrial settings. Religion's role highlights a fundamental antagonism: many pre-Marxist communal practices, such as the early in Acts 4:32–35 where "no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything," derived legitimacy from theological imperatives of charity and eschatological equality. , atheistic and materialist, rejects such foundations, with describing religion as "the " that alienates workers from their exploitation, incompatible with communist consciousness. Pre-Marxist forms thus integrated spiritual motivations, whereas seeks to eradicate religious as a perpetuating class rule. Finally, pre-Marxist communism operated without Marxism's global, industrialized scope or precise class analytics, often envisioning localized harmony achievable immediately through ethical reform, rather than as the culmination of historical stages from through . Engels noted that utopian schemes ignored "the of all hitherto existing society" as "the of class struggles," treating social problems as ahistorical puzzles solvable by rational design. This renders pre-Marxist variants more akin to aspirational egalitarianism than the predictive, economistic program of Marxism.

Philosophical and Religious Roots

In , Plato's (circa 375 BCE) outlined a system of communal property and family for the guardian class—rulers and warriors—to eliminate and foster civic unity. Guardians were prohibited from owning private land, housing, or gold beyond basic provisions supplied by the state, with all earnings directed to communal use; this extended to women and children held in common to prevent factionalism and ensure to the over kin. Aristotle, in Book II (circa 350 BCE), critiqued this as impractical, arguing that communal ownership neglects resources since "what belongs to nobody seems to be cared for by nobody," breeds covert selfishness through disputes over usage, and fails to promote virtue, which requires personal stewardship; he advocated private property tempered by generosity as superior for harmony and efficiency. The , founded by around 525 BCE in Croton, , exemplified early communal practices within a philosophical-religious brotherhood, where members renounced personal possessions, lived ascetically in shared quarters, and adhered to the maxim "all things in common among friends" to pursue mathematical and spiritual harmony. Pre-Christian religious communalism appeared in the Jewish Essene sect (circa 2nd century BCE–1st century CE), whose ascetic communities, including the settlement linked to the Dead Scrolls, practiced of property, daily communal meals, and renunciation of private wealth to achieve purity and eschatological preparation, as described by the historian . These arrangements, limited to voluntary initiates rather than universal application, emphasized ritual discipline over economic redistribution and contrasted with broader societal norms by prioritizing separation from material corruption.

Prehistoric Claims

Hunter-Gatherer Societies

Hunter-gatherer societies, predominant from the emergence of anatomically modern humans around 300,000 years ago until the advent of circa 10,000 BCE, are frequently invoked in discussions of pre-Marxist communalism due to observed practices of resource sharing within small, mobile bands typically numbering 20-50 individuals. Ethnographic accounts of contemporary foragers, such as the !Kung San (Ju/'hoansi) of , document "demand sharing" of hunted game and gathered foods, where successful hunters distribute meat to avoid spoilage and foster social bonds, reducing individual risk from variable yields. This reciprocal exchange system, including practices like hxaro gift-giving among the !Kung, ensured group survival in unpredictable environments but relied on ties and social pressure rather than institutionalized . Personal property, however, was recognized and defended, encompassing tools, weapons, , and shelters constructed from individual or family labor. For instance, among Australian Aboriginal groups, individuals owned specific implements like boomerangs or spears, which were inherited or exchanged but not communally held. Territorial claims over ranges were also maintained through cultural boundaries and occasional conflict, contradicting stateless ideals; the Hadza of , for example, patrol and defend core habitats against outsiders. Leadership often emerged via skilled hunters or elders exerting informal authority, as seen in Pygmy bands where headmen mediated disputes and directed migrations. Anthropological analyses reveal inequality within these systems, with Gini coefficients for (e.g., tools, shares) averaging 0.17 across studied groups—low but indicative of disparities in skill-based accumulation and heritability. Some forager societies, like the Northwest Coast Indians pre-contact, developed ranked structures with chiefs controlling resource access, challenging uniform . Critiques of labeling these as "" emphasize that sharing served pragmatic risk-pooling, not ideological abolition of property, and romanticized views often stem from selective 20th-century ethnographies overlooking variance and conflict. Prehistoric inferences from such analogies remain tentative, as direct evidence is limited to indirect proxies like tool distributions in sites such as , (circa 100,000 BCE), showing specialized individual craftsmanship.

Archaeological Evidence Against Primitive Communism

Archaeological evidence from sites, dating between approximately 40,000 and 10,000 years ago, reveals disparities in burial treatments that suggest social differentiation among groups, contradicting claims of uniform . At in , circa 34,000 years BP, three richly furnished graves stand out: an adult male interred with over 3,000 beads, 289 tooth pendants, and flint tools; a juvenile male with more than 5,000 beads, spears, and fox teeth; and a juvenile female with over 13,000 beads and similar ornaments. These assemblages, requiring thousands of hours to produce, indicate unequal access to prestige goods and labor investment, potentially reflecting inherited status or elite positioning rather than communal distribution. Similar patterns appear at other European sites, such as (Magdalenian period, ~17,000 years BP), where a child's grave contained rare pierced bear teeth and pendants absent in contemporaneous burials, signaling differential social value. Funerary variability, including use, grave architecture, and exotic artifacts, further implies hierarchies based on age, gender, or achievement, with males and select juveniles receiving disproportionate elaboration. Such practices challenge the absence of or status markers posited in models, as personal adornments and tools exhibit individualized patterns. In the , the (15,000–11,500 years BP), representing late hunter-gatherers with semi-sedentary settlements, yields burials with prestige items like beads, horn cores, and ground stone tools, concentrated in specific graves at sites such as El-Wad and Hayonim Cave. These disparities, alongside evidence of feasting and resource control, point to emerging inequality predating , driven by ecological pressures rather than universal sharing. Skeletal trauma provides additional counter-evidence to pacific communalism. At , (~13,400–12,600 years ), a of 61 individuals shows 40–50% bearing healed or perimortem injuries from microliths embedded in bones, indicative of repeated interpersonal or raids over scarce in a Valley context. This pattern of conflict, spanning multiple episodes rather than a single , underscores and territoriality inconsistent with frictionless resource pooling. Ecological analyses of global hunter-gatherer variability further refute monolithic egalitarianism, with institutionalized inequality—such as hereditary leadership—correlating to resource predictability in certain environments, as seen in archaeological proxies for status like differential tool kits and settlement layouts. While mobile foragers often enforced leveling mechanisms, the presence of private elements like stored goods and personalized artifacts in Paleolithic campsites (e.g., pre-11,000 BP plant storage) demonstrates that property concepts predated farming, undermining retroactive communist projections onto prehistory.

Ancient Civilizations

Bronze Age and Early Agrarian Societies

In early agrarian societies transitioning to the (circa 3300–2000 BCE), the adoption of intensive and enabled surplus production, which facilitated rather than egalitarian communalism. Archaeological evidence from sites like Çatalhöyük in and early Mesopotamian settlements indicates that while kinship-based resource sharing persisted in some village contexts, the emergence of specialized labor and introduced differential access to wealth, undermining claims of . For instance, from the (c. 6500–3800 BCE) in show varying levels of material investment, suggesting nascent inequalities tied to control over fertile land and livestock. In , particularly Sumerian city-states such as (flourishing c. 4000–3100 BCE), economic organization blended temple-controlled redistribution with . Temples and palaces managed large , allocating to dependents in exchange for labor and , a system often termed a "" where elites directed production of , textiles, and metals. However, tablets document individual ownership of fields, houses, and slaves, with sales, inheritance, and contracts enforceable under early legal codes like those predating (c. 1750 BCE). This coexistence of institutional and private holdings fostered creditor-debtor relations and land concentration among elites, polarizing society between landowners and tenants by the mid-third millennium BCE. Ancient Egypt's (c. 2686–2181 BCE) exemplified centralized control under pharaohs, who nominally owned all along the , granting rights to nobles, priests, and peasants in return for labor and taxes. Private transactions, including land sales and mortgages, are attested in papyri and inscriptions, with elites accumulating hereditary that exacerbated disparities, as evidenced by pyramid-building projects reliant on coerced surplus extraction. Inequality metrics from skeletal remains and settlement sizes reveal a approaching 0.4–0.5 by the , reflecting elite dominance over resources rather than communal equality. The Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1900 BCE), with urban centers like and , shows standardized weights and seals implying regulated trade and possible communal infrastructure maintenance, but private enterprise in crafts and commerce is inferred from diverse household workshops and imported goods. Limited epigraphic evidence prevents definitive reconstruction, yet the absence of palatial monuments and paltry elite burials suggest less overt hierarchy than in or , though intra-settlement wealth variation indicates property-based distinctions. Overall, agrarian systems prioritized hierarchical coordination for irrigation and defense, yielding stratified polities incompatible with classless communal production.

Classical Greece and Rome

In ancient Greece, philosophical proposals for communal property emerged primarily in Plato's Republic, composed around 380 BC, where the guardian class—intended as the city's rulers and warriors—was to forgo private ownership of land and goods beyond necessities, holding resources in common to prevent corruption and factionalism. This arrangement extended to communal rearing of children and sharing of spouses, aiming to foster unity and impartiality among the elite, while the producer class retained private property. Plato justified this by arguing that individual attachments bred self-interest, undermining the state's harmony, though the system applied selectively to a small stratum rather than universally. Aristotle, in his Politics (circa 350 BC), critiqued Plato's scheme as impractical and contrary to , contending that communal of led to neglect and disputes over usage, as people cared less for shared items than personal ones. He advocated moderate tempered by generosity, observing that even close kin rarely shared everything without conflict, and empirical examples like Spartan practices showed mixed results. Aristotle's analysis drew from observed failures in attempts at total commonality, emphasizing incentives for inherent in . Practical approximations appeared in , where from the , full-citizen Spartiates resided in communal after age 20, contributing fixed shares to —mandatory mess halls for collective meals—to enforce discipline and equality among equals, though land was privately held and worked by helot serfs. This militarized communalism prioritized collective martial readiness over economic leveling, sustaining a rigid rather than egalitarian ownership. Similarly, Pythagorean communities in , founded around 525 BC by , practiced ascetic communal living with shared property under the maxim "all things in common among friends," blending , , and in secretive sects that influenced local politics until their decline amid violence by 450 BC. In classical , no equivalent theoretical or institutional advocacy for abolishing existed among major thinkers; republican and imperial emphasized patrician landholding, client-patron ties, and agrarian laws like the Licinian-Sextian reforms of 367 BC, which redistributed but preserved individual to avert unrest without challenging norms. Stoic philosophers such as Seneca (4 BC–AD 65) promoted cosmopolitan ethics and voluntary simplicity, critiquing luxury's excesses, yet upheld personal estates as means for virtuous liberality rather than communal mandates. Empirical data from Roman agrarian crises, such as the Gracchi's 133 BC proposals, reveal redistributive efforts amid latifundia concentration, but these aimed at stabilizing the republic through limited access to state-held ager publicus, not systemic communalism. Overall, Roman precedents favored hierarchical relations over Greek-style utopian experiments, reflecting pragmatic adaptation to imperial scale and conquest-driven wealth.

Non-Western Ancient Examples

In the , which spanned from approximately 1438 to 1533 CE across the region of , land was not subject to private ownership but allocated collectively to ayllus—kin-based communities—and the state, with portions dedicated to the , the sun deity, and communal use. Within ayllus, families received hereditary plots for subsistence, but agricultural labor was organized reciprocally, with produce stored in state warehouses for redistribution during shortages or for , reflecting a system of mutual obligation rather than market exchange. The labor draft required adult males to contribute periodic service to state projects like road construction and terrace farming, mobilizing communal workforces without monetary compensation, though this was enforced hierarchically by imperial officials. Historians such as Louis Baudin characterized the Inca economy as a form of , emphasizing top-down control over production and distribution alongside evolved communal agricultural practices in rural ayllus, where communities cared for the vulnerable through shared resources. However, this system maintained stark class divisions, with the and nobility exempt from while enjoying luxuries from , and via (mitmaq) to suppress , underscoring that communal elements served autocratic stability rather than egalitarian ends. No evidence indicates democratic control over these arrangements; instead, centralized from dictated allocations, limiting individual initiative and innovation. In ancient , communal labor practices existed among groups like the Maya (c. 2000 BCE–1500 CE), where kin groups collectively maintained milpas (swidden fields) and contributed to civic projects such as temple construction, but these were embedded in stratified polities with divine kings extracting tribute, precluding classless . Limited archaeological data from sites like (c. 100 BCE–550 CE) suggest apartment compounds housing multi-family units with shared facilities, potentially implying cooperative resource pooling, yet elite oversight and craft specialization indicate hierarchical distribution rather than pure communalism. Ancient South Asian societies, such as those in the (c. 1500–500 BCE), featured joint family units (kul) and village assemblies (sabha) managing common pastures and , with some scholars noting remnants of tribal communalism in early before solidified under monarchies. However, textual evidence from the describes cattle raids and inheritance divisions, signaling emerging inequalities, and no widespread abolition of private holdings occurred, distinguishing these from stateless communism. Buddhist sanghas (monastic communities, established c. 5th century BCE) practiced strict communal ownership of robes, , and shelter among monks, enforcing equality via rules against personal accumulation, though this applied only to religious orders within broader stratified kingdoms.

Post-Classical Religious Communalism

Early Christian Communities

The early Christian communities, particularly the Jerusalem church described in the New Testament book of Acts, practiced a form of voluntary communal sharing of possessions in the decades following Jesus' crucifixion around 30–33 CE. According to Acts 2:44–45, believers "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer... All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need." This arrangement addressed immediate needs amid persecution and economic pressures on Jewish converts in Jerusalem, where many pilgrims had remained after Pentecost, straining resources. Acts 4:32–35 further depicts the community as unified in purpose, with "no one claiming that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had," distributing proceeds from sales to ensure no one was needy. However, this was not a mandatory abolition of private property but a charitable response rooted in religious conviction, as evidenced by the incident of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1–11, where they sold land but withheld part of the proceeds; the apostle Peter affirmed their right to retain ownership prior to sale, stating, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" Their punishment stemmed from deceit against the Holy Spirit, not failure to share fully. Scholars note this underscores the voluntary nature, contrasting with coercive systems; private property rights persisted, and sharing reflected mutual aid among kin-like believers rather than enforced equality. Archaeological evidence for these practices is indirect, with house churches in and surrounding areas suggesting small-scale gatherings conducive to shared meals and support, but no direct artifacts confirm widespread property liquidation. The arrangement proved unsustainable long-term; by the 40s–50s CE, famine in prompted relief collections from Pauline churches in Antioch and elsewhere, indicating the Jerusalem community's economic distress and dispersal due to under figures like Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12). This model influenced later monastic traditions but did not become normative across , which emphasized individual stewardship and almsgiving over communal ownership. Critiques of labeling this as "proto-communism" highlight its religious motivation—driven by eschatological expectations of Christ's return and commands to love one's neighbor—absent materialist dialectics or state control. Unlike Marxist frameworks, it lacked class antagonism as a driver and affirmed hierarchical elements, such as apostolic oversight. Some analyses draw parallels to Greco-Roman philosophical ideals of and golden-age myths, where Luke may have idealized the community to appeal to educated audiences, but empirical communalism remained localized and temporary.

Monastic and Millenarian Movements

Monastic communities in medieval , particularly those following the Rule of St. Benedict established around 529 AD, institutionalized communal ownership of property as a core principle of religious life. The Rule's Chapter 33 explicitly prohibited private ownership among monks, mandating that "above all, this evil practice must be uprooted and removed from the ," with all goods held in common and distributed by the to meet needs such as clothing and necessities. This vow of poverty extended to Benedictine orders, which dominated medieval and emphasized manual labor, prayer, and shared resources within self-sufficient enclosed communities, often producing agricultural surpluses for trade while shunning personal possessions. By the , reformed Benedictine branches like the Cluniacs and later (founded 1098) reinforced these practices, with monks surrendering all prior wealth upon entry and relying on collective monastic estates for sustenance. Such arrangements reflected a hierarchical yet communal grounded in spiritual discipline rather than egalitarian , where abbots managed resources amid vows of stability and obedience. Monasteries functioned as economic hubs, employing lay workers and amassing lands through donations, but internal adhered to to foster detachment from worldly goods. This system persisted through the , influencing thousands of communities across until secularizations like the Dissolution of the Monasteries in (1536–1541) disrupted many. Millenarian movements, anticipating an imminent apocalyptic transformation, often adopted radical communalism as a precursor to the expected divine kingdom, implementing community of goods to abolish . In 15th-century , the —a radical Hussite faction founded around 1419 in the fortified settlement of —enforced shared ownership of possessions, including control of local gold mines operated on a basis, alongside demands to reduce noble privileges and redistribute . , drawing from and eschatological urgency, viewed as sinful in the end times, leading to practices where goods within city walls were held communally, though military necessities and internal divisions tempered full implementation during the (1419–1434). A stark example occurred in the Anabaptist rebellion at in 1534–1535, where radicals under leaders like Jan van Leiden seized the city to establish a theocratic "." They decreed the abolition of money, mandatory surrender of to communal stores, and equal distribution of goods by deacons, aiming for a war communism-like economy justified by prophecies of Christ's imminent return. This system, enforced amid and authoritarian rule, collapsed after a 16-month by princely forces in June 1535, with leaders executed, highlighting the fragility of such millenarian experiments amid external opposition and internal . These movements, while sharing anti-property tenets, were transient and religiously motivated, differing from monastic stability by their revolutionary zeal and frequent violent ends.

Asian and Islamic Variants

In Sassanid Persia during the reign of Kavadh I (r. 488–531 CE), advocated communal ownership of property and resources to mitigate greed and social strife, positioning it as an early example of egalitarian reform within . , the movement's prophet, promoted the shared use of land, goods, and even spouses among adherents, drawing followers from lower classes amid economic distress and aiming for a through vegetarianism and non-violence toward animals. However, the doctrine's radical communalism provoked elite opposition, leading to Mazdak's execution around 524 CE and the movement's suppression, though its ideas influenced later Iranian revolts like the Khurramite uprising (8th–9th centuries), which echoed demands for wealth redistribution and communal living against Abbasid rule. These efforts prioritized moral reform over scalable economic structures, ultimately failing due to reliance on charismatic leadership and resistance from entrenched hierarchies. Buddhist monastic communities, or sanghas, across post-classical exemplified religious communalism through strict adherence to the rules, which prohibited ownership among monks and nuns, mandating collective holding of robes, , and shelter. Established from the 5th century BCE but persisting into medieval periods in , , and , these sanghas operated on principles of mutual support and equal access to essentials, funded by lay donations, fostering internal equality absent private accumulation. Yet, this model applied solely to celibate , excluding and reinforcing social divisions rather than societal , with economic viability tied to royal patronage rather than self-sustaining production. In the Islamic world, the , an Isma'ili Shi'i sect active from the late 9th to 11th centuries in (centered in ), implemented a proto-communist by abolishing , enforcing communal distribution of goods, and guaranteeing welfare from birth to death without taxes or tribute. Under leaders like (d. 913 CE), they established agricultural collectives, promoted in labor, and rejected hierarchical wealth, sustaining the system for over a century through raids and internal discipline. Their utopian experiment, however, involved coercive elements, including the 930 CE and enslavement of pilgrims, contributing to its isolation and eventual overthrow by Abbasid forces in 1077 CE, highlighting tensions between ideological purity and pragmatic governance. Sufi orders (tariqas), emerging from the 12th century in regions like Persia and , practiced limited communalism through khanqahs (lodges) where initiates shared meals, rituals, and modest endowments (), but retained personal property and hierarchical sheikh-disciple structures, diverging from full communism. These variants prioritized spiritual detachment over material abolition, with economic support from elite patrons, rendering them adaptive to Islamic legal norms rather than alternatives. Overall, Asian and Islamic pre-modern communal experiments emphasized religious ethics in resource sharing but faltered on , often clashing with state authority and private incentives.

Early Modern Experiments

European Utopian Communities

In the , various religious and radical groups in attempted communal living arrangements involving shared property and labor, typically as expressions of apocalyptic or pietist beliefs rather than systematic economic theory. These experiments were small-scale, often transient, and frequently met with violent suppression due to perceived threats to established property rights and . While some achieved temporary stability through agricultural self-sufficiency, most dissolved amid internal divisions, external , or unsustainable practices. One prominent example occurred in during the following the Civil War. In April 1649, and about a dozen followers, known as the or True , occupied in , claiming for collective cultivation to address and . They promoted egalitarian principles, with all produce held in common and labor shared without hire, publishing manifestos like The True Levellers Standard Advanced to justify their actions as restoring pre-enclosure freedoms. The group expanded briefly to other sites but faced harassment from local landowners and military eviction by armed forces under General Fairfax by January 1650, after which abandoned the effort. The ' venture highlighted tensions between communal ideals and private property enforcement but failed to inspire widespread replication due to legal and coercive opposition. In , Anabaptist sects pursued more enduring communal models. The , emerging from Swiss and South German Anabaptists under Jakob Hutter's leadership from 1528, migrated to for tolerance and established over 100 colonies by the late , housing 20,000–30,000 members. They practiced strict community of goods, with renounced upon , centralized by elected elders, and agricultural production emphasizing and . This system sustained growth through high birth rates and conversions until the (1618–1648) brought devastation, reducing numbers via persecution and migration; nonetheless, core practices persisted in scattered groups. Their success relative to other experiments stemmed from geographic isolation and disciplined governance, though reliant on feudal lords' protection rather than autonomous scalability. A contrasting, short-lived radicalism unfolded in the of 1534–1535. Radical under and later Jan van Leiden seized the Westphalian city, expelling non-adherents and instituting communal ownership of goods alongside apocalyptic , , and coercive equality measures like forced baptisms. was confiscated for distribution, and labor organized under prophetic authority, drawing thousands initially amid eschatological fervor. The regime devolved into tyranny, with executions for dissent, prompting a by Prince-Bishop Franz von Waldeck; the city fell in June 1535, leaders were tortured and executed, and survivors scattered, discrediting broadly. This episode underscored how millenarian zeal could lead to and collapse under , distinguishing it from voluntary, non-violent communes. In the , the Labadists formed pietist communes in the late under former Jesuit Jean de Labadie, who rejected Calvinist hierarchy for direct spiritual illumination and communal discipline. Establishing settlements like Wieuwerd in from 1675, followers—numbering up to 200 at peak—shared property, enforced for leaders, and practiced rigorous with and craftwork. Labadie's writings emphasized separation from worldly corruption, but the group fragmented after his death in 1674 due to doctrinal disputes and declining membership, dispersing by the early . Their model influenced later pietist groups but proved unsustainable without charismatic leadership, revealing communalism's dependence on ideological cohesion over economic innovation.

North American Settlements

In the , North American settlements experimenting with communal property arrangements were predominantly small-scale religious communities established by European immigrants seeking spiritual purity and separation from worldly corruption. These efforts, often rooted in pietist or separatist traditions, typically involved shared labor, resources, and ascetic lifestyles, but most proved unsustainable due to internal conflicts, economic pressures, and motivational failures under . The , founded in 1620 by English Separatists, initially operated under a joint-stock system mandating communal ownership of land, tools, and produce for the first seven years, as stipulated in agreements with investors. This arrangement, which pooled all outputs into a common storehouse for equal distribution regardless of individual contribution, resulted in widespread idleness and resentment, particularly among able-bodied men who viewed it as unjustly subsidizing the infirm and children. By 1623, Governor William Bradford reformed the system to private family plots, observing that the change spurred productivity as "the taking away of property... and bringing community into a would make... men careful upon all occasions to provide for their own... families," leading to bountiful harvests. The Labadists, a Dutch pietist following Jean de Labadie's teachings on apostolic simplicity, established a commune at Bohemia Manor in , in 1683 under leader Pieter Sluyter (also known as Peter Hendrickson). Attracting up to 200 members, the settlement practiced communal property through a shared fund for profits and expenses, enforced among an "perfect" class, gender-separated living quarters, and rigorous labor in farming and crafts alongside frequent prayer. The community's ascetic regimen and authoritarian structure fostered discord, culminating in its dissolution by the as members abandoned communalism for individual holdings amid declining adherence. In , the "Woman in the Wilderness" community, founded in 1694 near Germantown by German pietist Johann Jacob Kelpius and about 40 followers, embraced full communal property ownership as part of a millenarian quest for spiritual enlightenment, incorporating Rosicrucian and alchemical studies with celibate , scriptural study, and manual labor. Expecting Christ's imminent return in 1694, the group maintained isolation and shared resources until Kelpius's death in 1708 and subsequent prophetic failures led to its dispersal by around 1750, with survivors integrating into broader society without sustaining communalism. The Moravian Brethren, or Unitas Fratrum, created communal settlements in starting with in 1741, implementing a "General Oeconomy" system from 1742 to 1762 that centralized property, labor, and production under church oversight, organizing members into "choirs" by age, sex, and for efficient allocation. This structure supported missionary work, crafts, and across thousands of acres, but financial strains from expansion and member dissatisfaction prompted a transition to and family-based economies by 1762, allowing the communities to persist longer than most predecessors.

Enlightenment-Era Precursors

Philosophical Proposals

In the Enlightenment era, several French philosophers articulated theoretical visions of societies organized around communal property ownership, strict equality, and the abolition of private possessions to foster moral virtue and social harmony. These proposals, emerging amid critiques of emerging and inequality, drew on rationalist assumptions about and societal engineering, positing that self-interest and property rights inherently bred and division. Unlike later practical schemes, these were abstract blueprints emphasizing legislative enforcement of communalism to align with . Étienne-Gabriel Morelly's Code de la Nature (1755) presented one of the most systematic early modern arguments for , advocating a legal code that prohibited from birth, mandating communal storage and distribution of goods based on need, and instituting universal to inculcate selfless habits. Morelly argued that ownership caused , inequality, and moral decay, proposing instead a state-enforced system where labor was collective, inheritance nonexistent, and resources allocated by magistrates to ensure equity without markets or monetary exchange. This framework, rooted in a deterministic view of human passions as malleable through environment, aimed to eliminate vice by removing incentives for greed, though Morelly acknowledged implementation required authoritarian oversight to suppress . Gabriel Bonnot de Mably, in works such as Doutes proposés aux philosophes économistes (1768), endorsed communal ownership of land and goods as aligned with reason and ancient republican virtues, critiquing luxury and commerce for eroding civic solidarity. He proposed agrarian laws to cap wealth accumulation and redistribute surpluses communally, viewing as a postlapsarian invention that fostered envy and tyranny, though he inconsistently upheld property's sanctity in other contexts as a bulwark against . Mably's was ascetic and moralistic, prioritizing and equality to sustain small-scale republics, but he deemed full implementation impractical in large states due to human frailty, favoring gradual reforms over . Sylvain Maréchal's Manifesto of the Equals (1796), drafted amid the , demanded a " of equals" through the "general restitution" of , abolishing servitude, hereditary distinctions, and property-based inequality to achieve equality satisfying all needs without sacrifice. Influenced by revolutionary radicalism, Maréchal envisioned a society where goods were shared per capacity and requirement, universalized, and governance simplified to prevent , framing equality as the "final goal of the social art" derived from Condorcet's . This tract, circulated secretly by conspirators like Gracchus Babeuf, highlighted tensions between philosophical and political agitation, as its calls for upheaval clashed with observed failures of enforced uniformity in practice.

Owenite and Fourierist Schemes

Robert Owen, a Welsh-born industrialist active in Scotland, formulated cooperative community schemes in the early 19th century to address industrial poverty through environmental reform rather than individual moral change. At the cotton mills, which he managed from 1800, Owen implemented worker welfare measures including schools for children, reduced working hours to 10 per day for adults, and a cooperative store offering goods at cost, achieving profitability while improving conditions for over 2,000 residents. These reforms informed his 1813–1816 "A New View of Society" essays, advocating communal villages of 1,000–1,200 people on 1,000–2,000 acres, with shared property, collective labor tracked by notes, and education to foster cooperation over competition. Owen's most prominent experiment began in 1825 when he purchased the abandoned Rappite settlement at Harmony, Indiana, for approximately $150,000 and renamed it New Harmony. Attracting about 1,000 settlers by early 1826—including scientists, educators, and laborers of varied ideologies—the community emphasized , preliminary "no-constitution" phase without mandatory labor, and communal resources. Discord arose from freeloading, skill mismatches, and rejection of Owen's by religious settlers, leading to economic shortfalls and factionalism; by mid-1827, after Owen's return to Britain, the core community dissolved, with remnants persisting as private holdings. Subsequent Owenite efforts in Britain, such as the Queenwood (Harmony Hall) community in (1839–1845), housed up to 500 members in a former estate but collapsed due to financial mismanagement, internal disputes over , and agricultural underperformance despite initial farming and craft production. , Owen's visit inspired satellite groups like the Kendal Community in (1825) and Yellow Springs in (), but these small ventures, emphasizing joint-stock ownership and mutual labor, similarly faltered from leadership voids and economic pressures, underscoring challenges in enforcing communal discipline without coercion. Charles Fourier, a French theorist, outlined phalanstery schemes in his 1808 Theory of the Four Movements, positing that societal harmony arises from organizing human "passions" (12 fundamental drives like friendship and ambition) into attractive, rotating work roles to eliminate drudgery. The phalanstery envisioned a single, palace-like structure housing 1,620 individuals (81 "series" of 20) on 5,000 acres, integrating agriculture, industry, and education in hierarchical yet voluntary bands, with waste recycling and global federation of units yielding abundance without private ownership or state intervention. Fourier's ideas gained traction post-1830 via disciples like Albert Brisbane, prompting over 40 U.S. phalanxes in the 1840s, though most enrolled fewer than 100 and lasted under three years due to funding shortages and interpersonal conflicts. Notable examples include , (1841–1847), which shifted from transcendentalist roots to Fourierist organization with 150 members farming and crafting before a 1846 fire and debt forced closure; and the , (1843–1855), sustaining 120 residents through diversified milling and orchards until a destroyed infrastructure. In , early trials like the 1834 Condé-sur-Vesgre settlement (dozens of adherents) dissolved within months from leadership failures and rural isolation, with Fourier himself witnessing no viable prototypes before his 1837 death. Later adaptations, such as Godin's Familistère at (built 1859 onward), echoed phalanstery principles in cooperative housing for 1,800 but incorporated profit-sharing, diverging from pure communalism.

Scholarly Debates and Critiques

Applicability of the "Communist" Label

The application of the "" label to pre-Marxist communal practices remains contentious among historians and social theorists, primarily due to definitional discrepancies between modern and earlier forms of arrangements. Marx and Engels conceptualized as a historically determined stage emerging from capitalist contradictions, characterized by the revolutionary overthrow of bourgeois property relations, a transitional proletarian state, and ultimate abolition of classes, state, and money through . Pre-Marxist examples, including early Christian (fellowship) in Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–35 or monastic vows of , involved localized, voluntary redistribution motivated by religious or , without theoretical commitment to class struggle, critique, or universal property abolition. These differed fundamentally from Marxism's atheistic, industrial-era focus on labor exploitation, rendering the label anachronistic as it conflates disparate phenomena under a 19th-century . Critics argue that retrojecting "communism" onto primitive or ancient societies—such as Engels' portrayal of hunter-gatherers as inherently classless in The Origin of the Family, and the State (1884)—ignores empirical anthropological evidence of status hierarchies, kinship-based inequalities, and competitive resource allocation in groups like the !Kung San or , where sharing served reciprocity and survival rather than egalitarian ideology. Similarly, movements like the (1649) or () pursued agrarian communalism amid religious fervor or anti-feudal revolt, but lacked Marxism's predictive science of history or rejection of markets; their small-scale, often coercive experiments collapsed due to internal conflicts and external suppression, contrasting Marx's vision of global proletarian triumph. This labeling can obscure causal factors like theological voluntarism versus materialist determinism, with voluntary property sales in early communities (e.g., Ananias retaining land in Acts 5:4) affirming residual private ownership incompatible with communist tenets. Marxist historiography, dominant in mid-20th-century academia, often emphasized continuities—e.g., identifying "proto-communist" traits in Spartan syssitia or Incan ayllu—to legitimize communism as a recurrent human aspiration, yet such interpretations have faced scrutiny for selective evidence and ideological bias, prioritizing narrative over verifiable causal mechanisms like technological preconditions for large-scale collectivism. Non-Marxist scholars contend that terms like "communalism" or "utopian socialism" better capture pre-Marxist variants, as in Robert Owen's New Harmony (1825), which Marx critiqued as idealistic and non-scientific for lacking proletarian agency. Empirical failures of these experiments—e.g., Hutterite colonies sustaining isolation through religious homogeneity rather than economic universality—underscore that pre-Marxist sharing was adaptive to specific cultural contexts, not a blueprint for stateless society, thus questioning the label's analytical utility beyond rhetorical continuity.

Economic Viability and Failures

Pre-Marxist communist experiments, particularly secular utopian schemes in the early , demonstrated limited economic viability, with most collapsing due to internal inefficiencies, inadequate incentives for labor, and failure to generate sustainable output. Robert Owen's New Harmony settlement in , founded in 1825 with an initial investment of over $150,000 from Owen's personal fortune, dissolved by 1827 amid mounting debts exceeding $13,000 and chronic shortages of food and goods, as the community of roughly 1,000 heterogeneous residents—many lacking practical skills or commitment—produced insufficient value to cover costs. The absence of individual property rights and profit motives fostered free-riding and disputes over labor allocation, with Owen's later concessions to private enterprise coming too late to avert . Fourierist phalansteries, envisioned as self-contained units of 1,600–1,800 people blending and industry, fared no better in practice, with American attempts like the 1843 Dallas commune incurring heavy financial losses from poor land choices and speculative failures, dissolving shortly after inception. , a Fourier-influenced community operational from 1841 to 1847, initially thrived on intellectual appeal but collapsed following a costly 1846 fire and persistent underproduction, as voluntary labor proved unreliable without market-driven specialization or remuneration, leaving only ruins by the end. These ventures highlighted a core economic flaw: centralized planning without competitive prices led to misallocation of resources, as planners could not rationally compute needs or efficiencies absent voluntary exchange. Religious variants, such as the or Amana Inspirationists, achieved longer durations— persisting into the early 20th century through rigorous discipline and craft production—but even these incorporated hierarchical authority and selective exit mechanisms that deviated from egalitarian , often reverting to quasi-private for survival. Empirical patterns across dozens of 19th-century American utopian groups reveal that secular models rarely exceeded five years without external subsidies or dissolution, attributable to human tendencies toward shirking under equal sharing and the infeasibility of non-monetary coordination in complex production. Historical analyses attribute these outcomes not to contingent errors but to structural mismatches between communal and agency, prefiguring broader critiques of incompatibility in systems.

Marxist Retrojections and Modern Misinterpretations

Marxists, beginning with in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884), retrojected the concept of "" onto prehistoric societies, positing a universal stage of classless, stateless equality without as the origin of human social organization. This framework, drawn from Lewis Henry Morgan's anthropological studies of the and other groups, framed history as a dialectical progression from communal origins through class antagonism to eventual proletarian , serving to legitimize as the culmination of historical laws. However, this application anachronistically imposes 19th-century economic categories onto economies lacking the surplus production or state forms central to Marxist analysis; Engels' reliance on limited ethnographic data overlooked variability in social structures. Empirical critiques from and modern undermine these retrojections, revealing that and societies exhibited private ownership of tools, hunting territories, and personal adornments, alongside status hierarchies based on skill, , or prowess rather than egalitarian collectivism. For instance, burials with indicate accumulation and inequality, contradicting the notion of propertyless ; such interpretations by Marxists often selectively emphasized cooperative while ignoring competitive resource control and dominance observed in groups like the !Kung San. Similarly, applications to pre-capitalist modes like the "Asiatic" or ancient communal villages retroject class struggle dynamics absent in primary sources, where was often kin-based or rather than ideologically communal. In modern scholarship, these retrojections persist through misinterpretations that equate any pre-modern communal practice—such as medieval open fields or indigenous reciprocity—with proto-Marxist ideals, often to as a deviation from a supposed egalitarian baseline. This overlooks causal factors like environmental scarcity, which enforced sharing in small bands but precluded scalable abolition of property, and attributes failures of historical communes (e.g., due to free-rider problems or ) to external rather than inherent economic incentives. Academic tendencies, influenced by entrenched ideological commitments, amplify such views despite contradictory evidence from , framing pre-Marxist variants as vindication for communism while minimizing their voluntary, localized, and non-revolutionary character.

References

  1. https://www.[encyclopedia.com](/page/Encyclopedia.com)/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/property-and-ownership
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.