Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Pre-Marxist communism
View on Wikipedia
| Part of a series on |
| 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]- ^ Perkins, Anne (2014). Trailblazers in Politics. New York: Rosen Publishing. p. 88. ISBN 9781477781449.
- ^ Marx, Karl (2004). "Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists". In Blunden, Andy (ed.). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marxist Internet Archive.
- ^ Chambre, Henri; McLellan, David T. (24 March 2020). "Marxism/Analysis-of-society". Britannica. Britannica.com Inc. Retrieved 20 August 2021.
- ^ Musée de Préhistoire Terra Amata. "Le site acheuléen de Terra Amata" [The Acheulean site of Terra Amata]. Musée de Préhistoire Terra Amata (in French). Retrieved 10 June 2022.
- ^ a b Trigger, Bruce; Washburn, Wilcomb E., eds. (1996). The Cambridge history of the Native Peoples of the Americas. Vol. 1: North America, Part 1. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521573924. ISBN 9781139055550.
- ^ Feinman, Gary M. (June 2003). "The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Vol. 2: Mesoamerica, Part 1.; The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas: Vol. 2: Mesoamerica, Part 2". American Anthropologist (book review). 105 (2): 380. doi:10.1525/aa.2003.105.2.380.
- ^ Felluga, Dino (1 January 2011). "Introductory Guide to Critical Theory – Modules on Marx: On the Stages of Economic Development". Purdue University. Archived from the original on 28 February 2021. Retrieved 3 February 2021.
- ^ Saitta, Dean J. (1988). "Marxism, Prehistory, and Primitive Communism". Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society. 1 (4): 145–168. doi:10.1080/08935698808657836.
- ^ "Primitive communism: life before class and oppression". Socialist Worker. 28 May 2013. Archived from the original on 14 March 2021. Retrieved 3 February 2021.
- ^ a b Laidler, Harry W. (4 July 2013). History of Socialism: An Historical Comparative Study of Socialism, Communism, Utopia. Routledge. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-136-23143-8 – via Google Books.
- ^ van Ree (2015), p. 17: "Diodorus Siculus, Virgil, Ovid, Seneca and others believed that property was originally held in common, and that private property was a late and unfortunate development."
- ^ Bookchin, Murray (1987). The Rise of Urbanisation and Decline of Citizenship. pp. 18–22. ISBN 978-0087156067.
- ^ Khan, Lal (18 February 2014). "The Essence of the Legacy of Mohenjo-daro". In Defence of Marxism. International Marxist Tendency. Archived from the original on 13 March 2021. Retrieved 2 February 2021.
- ^ Miller, Daniel (1985). "Ideology and the Harappan Civilization" (PDF). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 4 (4): 34–71. doi:10.1016/0278-4165(85)90013-3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 October 2021. Retrieved 2 February 2021.
- ^ Cork, Edward (2005). "Peaceful Harappans? Reviewing the evidence for the absence of warfare in the Indus Civilisation of north-west India and Pakistan (c. 2500–1900 BC)". Antiquity. 79 (304): 411–423. doi:10.1017/S0003598X0011419X. S2CID 160617108.
- ^ Pierson, Christopher (15 August 2013). Just Property: A History in the Latin West. Volume One: Wealth, Virtue, and the Law. Oxford University Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-19-967328-5 – via Google Books.
- ^ Minar, Jr., Edwin L. (1944). "Pythagorean Communism". Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. 75: 34–46. doi:10.2307/283308. JSTOR 283308.
- ^ Ball 2011, pp. 284–285.
- ^ Voltaire (28 June 2017). VOLTAIRE: 60+ Works in One Volume - Philosophical Writings, Novels, Historical Works, Poetry, Plays & Letters: Candide, A Philosophical Dictionary, A Treatise on Toleration, Plato's Dream, The Princess of Babylon, Zadig, The Huron, Socrates, The Sage and the Atheist, Dialogues, Oedipus, Caesar…. Musaicum Books. ISBN 9788075835987 – via Google Books.
- ^ Ensign, Russell; Patsouras, Louis (1993). Challenging Social Injustice: Essays on Socialism and the Devaluation of the Human Spirit. The Edwin Mellen Press. p. 2. ISBN 0773493697.
- ^ Vodovozov, Vasily Vasilievich [in Russian] (1890–1907). Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar' Brokgauza i Yefrona: v 86 t. (82 t. i 4 dop.) Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона: в 86 т. (82 т. и 4 доп.) [Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional)] (in Russian). Saint Petersburg.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Lazar 2011, pp. 310–314.
- ^ Hardwick, Lorna; Harrison, Stephen (2013). Classics in the Modern World: A Democratic Turn?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 68–69. ISBN 9780199673926.
- ^ Sandle, Mark (2014). Communism. Oxon: Routledge. p. 7. ISBN 9780582506039.
- ^ "Plato's Ethics and Politics in the Republic". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 12 September 2017. Archived from the original on 20 October 2021. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
- ^ Boer, Roland (2005). "Women First? On the Legacy of 'Primitive Communism'". Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 30 (1): 3–28. doi:10.1177/0309089205057775. S2CID 144103562.
- ^ Boer, Roland (2009). Political Myth: On the Use and Abuse of Biblical Themes. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0822343691.
- ^ a b van Ree 2015.
- ^ Walton, Steve (April 2008). "Primitive communism in Acts? Does Acts present the community of goods (2:44-45; 4:32-35) as mistaken?". Evangelical Quarterly. 80 (2): 99–111. doi:10.1163/27725472-08002001.
- ^ Kautsky, Karl (1953) [1908]. "IV.II. The Christian Idea of the Messiah. Jesus as a Rebel.". Foundations of Christianity. Russell & Russell – via Marxists Internet Archive.
Christianity was the expression of class conflict in Antiquity.
- ^ Busky, Donald F. (2002). Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian socialism to the fall of the Soviet Union. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-275-97748-1 – via Google Books.
- ^ Lansford, Thomas (2007). Communism. Cavendish Square Publishing. pp. 24–25. ISBN 978-0-7614-2628-8.
- ^ Guthrie, Donald (1992) [1975]. "3. Early Problems. 15. Early Christian Communism". The Apostles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-310-25421-8 – via Google Books.
- ^ a b Houlden, Leslie; Minard, Antone (2015). Jesus in History, Legend, Scripture, and Tradition: A World Encyclopedia: A World Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. p. 357. ISBN 9781610698047.
- ^ Halfin, Igal (2000). From Darkness to Light: Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 46. ISBN 0822957043.
- ^ Renan, Ernest (1869). "VIII. First Persecution. Death of Stephen. Destruction of the First Church of Jerusalem". Origins of Christianity. Vol. II. The Apostles. New York: Carleton. p. 122 – via Google Books.
- ^ Boer, Roland (2009). "Conclusion: What If? Calvin and the Spirit of Revolution. Bible". Political Grace. The Revolutionary Theology of John Calvin. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-664-23393-8 – via Google Books.
- ^ Ellicott, Charles John; Plumptre, Edward Hayes (1910). "III. The Church in Jerusalem. I. Christian Communism". The Acts of the Apostles. London: Cassell – via Google Books.
- ^ a b Service, Robert (2007). Comrades!: A History of World Communism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 14–15. ISBN 978-0-674-02530-1 – via Google Books.
- ^ "Essenes". Archived from the original on 13 October 2021. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
- ^ Kohler, Kaufmann (1906). "Jewish Encyclopedia - Essenes". Archived from the original on 27 July 2021.
- ^ Gorni, Yosef; Oved, Iaácov; Paz, Idit (1987). Communal Life: An International Perspective. Routledge. ISBN 978-0887381508.
- ^ Kropotkin, Peter (1902). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
- ^ a b Boer, Roland (7 March 2019). Red Theology: On the Christian Communist Tradition. BRILL. pp. 15–16. ISBN 978-90-04-39477-3 – via Google Books.
- ^ Eisenman, Stephen F. (2005). "Communism in Furs: A Dream of Prehistory in William Morris's John Ball". The Art Bulletin. 87 (1): 92–110. doi:10.1080/00043079.2005.10786230. S2CID 153319221.
- ^ Brown, Archie (9 June 2009). The Rise and Fall of Communism. HarperCollins. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-06-188548-8 – via Google Books.
- ^ Dr Jago Cooper (Presenter) (2013). Lost Kingdoms of South America - People of the Clouds (video). Peru: BBC. Event occurs at 39 minutes. Archived from the original on 20 December 2021.
- ^ Crone, Patricia (28 June 2012). The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-51076-9 – via Google Books.
- ^ Fahes, Fadi A. (2018). Social Utopia in Tenth Century Islam: The Qarmatian Experiment (MA). California State University. Archived from the original on 6 October 2021. Retrieved 13 September 2021.
- ^ Hirszowicz, I. (October 1974). "Review: Der arabische Sozialismus und der zeitgenössische Islam: Dargestellt am Beispiel Agyptens und des Iraks by Wolfgang Ule". Middle Eastern Studies. 10 (3). Taylor & Francis: 354–357. JSTOR 4282544.
- ^ Bidet, Jacques (2010). "Communism: Between Philosophy, Prophecy, and Theory". Actuel Marx. 48 (2). Cairn.info: 89–104. doi:10.3917/amx.048.0089. Archived from the original on 7 October 2021. Retrieved 13 September 2021.
- ^ Rexroth, Kenneth (1974). Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century. Seabury. pp. 159–162. ISBN 978-0816492046.
- ^ Müntzer, Thomas (1988). Matheson, Peter (ed.). The Collected Works of Thomas Müntzer. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-29252-0.
- ^ Blickle, Peter (1981). The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants' War from a New Perspective. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-2472-2.
- ^ Engels, Friedrich (1969) [1850]. The Peasant War in Germany. Translated by Schneierson, Vic. Moscow: Progress Publishers. ISBN 978-0-85315-205-7.
- ^ Wolf, Eric R. (1987). "The Peasant War in Germany: Friedrich Engels as Social Historian". Science & Society. 51 (1): 82–92. doi:10.1177/003682378705100107.
- ^ Davis, J. C. (28 July 1983). Utopia and the Ideal Society: A Study of English Utopian Writing 1516–1700. Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-521-27551-4 – via Google Books.
- ^ Empson, Martin (5 April 2017). "A common treasury for all: Gerrard Winstanley's vision of utopia". International Socialism. No. 154. Archived from the original on 7 October 2021. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
- ^ Campbell (2009), p. 129; Winstanley (1649); Stearns et al. (2001), p. 290; Johnson (2013)
- ^ Bernstein, Eduard (1930). Cromwell and Communism. Archived from the original on 12 February 2020. Retrieved 12 December 2019 – via Marxists Internet Archive.
- ^ Engels, Friedrich (1970) [1880]. "I: The Development of Utopian Socialism". Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Progress Publishers – via Marxists Internet Archive.
- ^ Brandon, David (5 June 2020). "The English Civil War and the Levellers". Socialist Appeal. Archived from the original on 10 April 2021. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
- ^ Simon, Ed (22 August 2019). "Remembering the Diggers". Jacobin. Archived from the original on 6 October 2021. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
- ^ Fried & Sanders 1992, pp. 14–15.
- ^ Siroky, David S.; Sigwart, Hans-Jörg (July 2014). "Principle and Prudence: Rousseau on Private Property and Inequality". Polity. 46 (3). University of Chicago Press: 381–406. doi:10.1057/pol.2014.13. hdl:2286/R.I.27321. JSTOR 24540217. S2CID 154831080.
- ^ Fried & Sanders 1992, p. 31-33.
- ^ Priestland, David (2010). The Red Flag: Communism and the Making of the Modern World. Penguin Books. pp. 5–7. ISBN 978-0140295207.
- ^ Roche, Daniel (1993). La France des Lumières (1715-1789) [France of the Enlightenment (1715-1789)] (in French). Belin. ISBN 978-2701133652.
- ^ a b Billington, James H. (31 December 2011). Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith. Transaction Publishers. pp. 79–80. ISBN 978-1-4128-1401-0 – via Google Books.
- ^ Linebaugh, Peter (1 March 2014). Stop, Thief!: The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance. PM Press. pp. 205–206. ISBN 978-1-60486-747-3 – via Google Books.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Morgan, Lewis Henry (1881). Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
- ^ Engels, Friedrich (1972) [1884]. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan. International Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7178-0359-0.
- ^ Darmangeat, Christophe (2009). Le Communisme primitif n'est plus ce qu'il était [Primitive Communism is not what it used to be] (in French). Collectif d'édition Smolny.
- ^ Morgan (1964); Service et al. (1981); Hersey (1993); Smith (2009); Haller Jr. (1971); Hume (2011); Yang (2012)
- ^ Arthur, Stephen (7 January 2008). "An Anarchist Study of the Iroquois". Archived from the original on 13 April 2021.
- ^ Yang 2012.
- ^ Noon, John A. (1949). Law and Government of the Grand River Iroquois. New York: The Viking Fund.
- ^ a b Speck, Frank G. (1945). Iroquois. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Cranbrook Press.
- ^ a b Stites, Sara Henry (1905). Economics of the Iroquois. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: The New Era Printing Company.
- ^ Wallace, Anthony F.C. (1972). The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca.
- ^ Ratner, Carl (2012). Cooperation, Community, and Co-Ops in a Global Era. Springer. p. 40. ISBN 9781461458258 – via Google Books.
- ^ Pritzker, Barry M. (October 1998). Native Americans: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Peoples. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. Archived from the original on 20 April 2021.
- ^ Graeber, David (October 2010). "Les fondements moraux des relations économiques. Une approche maussienne" [On the Moral Grounds of Economic Relations: A Maussian Approach] (PDF). La Revue du MAUSS semestrielle (in French). 36 (2). Paris: 51–70. doi:10.3917/rdm.036.0051. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 October 2021.
- ^ Stein, Stephen (1994). The Shaker Experience in America: A History of the United Society of Believers. pp. 42–44.
- ^ a b c d e f Corcoran, Paul E. (1983). Before Marx: Socialism and Communism in France, 1830-48. The Macmillan Press Ltd.
- ^ a b c d e f Weisbord, Albert (1937). The Conquest of Power: Liberalism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism.
- ^ Braudel, Fernand (1979). The Wheels of Commerce: Civilization and Capitalism 15th–18th Century. Harper and Row.
- ^ Hodgson, Geoffrey (2015). Conceptualizing Capitalism: Institutions, Evolution, Future. University of Chicago Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-226168-00-5 – via Google Books.
- ^ Muravchik, Joshua (2003). Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. Encounter Books. ISBN 978-1-893554-78-8 – via Google Books.
- ^ "Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism". Public Broadcasting Service. Archived from the original on 30 October 2014. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
- ^ "Utopian socialism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
- ^ Engels, Friedrich (1970) [March, April, and May issues of Revue Socialiste in 1880]. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Progress Publishers.
- ^ Wilczynski, J. (1981). "Communism". In Wilczynski, Jozef (ed.). An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism and Communism. The Macmillan Press. p. 91. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-05806-8. ISBN 978-1-349-05806-8.
- ^ McNeil, Gordon H. (April 1945). "The Cult of Rousseau and the French Revolution". Journal of the History of Ideas. 6 (2). University of Pennsylvania Press: 197–212. doi:10.2307/2707363. JSTOR 2707363.
- ^ Harkins, James (Winter 1990). "The Socialism of Gracchus Babeuf on the Eve of the French Revolution". Science & Society. 54 (4). Guilford Press: 427–441. doi:10.1177/003682379005400404. JSTOR 40403100.
- ^ Priestland, David (2010). The red flag: communism and the making of the modern world. Penguin Books. pp. 18–19. ISBN 978-0-14-029520-7. OCLC 762107381.
- ^ Fried & Sanders 1992, pp. 17–20.
- ^ Billington 2011, p. 84.
- ^ Blaisdell, Bob (5 March 2012). The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings: Marx, Marat, Paine, Mao Tse-Tung, Gandhi and Others. Courier Corporation. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-0-486-11396-8 – via Google Books.
- ^ Billington 2011, p. 81-82.
- ^ Billington 2011, p. 71.
- ^ Higonnet, Patrice (1979). "Babeuf: Communist or Proto-Communist?". The Journal of Modern History. 51 (4): 773–781. doi:10.1086/241990. JSTOR 1877166. S2CID 143780192.
- ^ Rose, Robert Barrie (1978). Gracchus Babeuf: the first revolutionary communist. Arnold. pp. 32, 332. ISBN 0-7131-5993-6. OCLC 780996378.
- ^ Hodges, Donald C. (1 February 2014). Sandino's Communism: Spiritual Politics for the Twenty-First Century. University of Texas Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-292-71564-6 – via Google Books.
- ^ Harper, Douglas. "communist". Online Etymology Dictionary.
- ^ Woolsey, Theodore Dwight (1880). Communism and Socialism in Their History and Theory: A Sketch. C. Scribner's Sons. pp. 98–102. ISBN 978-1313830591 – via Google Books.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - ^ Jordan, David P. (2013). Revolutionary Career of Maximilien Robespierre. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-147-672-571-0.
- ^ Hampson, Norman (1974). The Life and Opinions of Maximilien Robespierre. Duckworth. ISBN 978-0715607411 – via Google Books.
- ^ Bakunin, Jack S. (September 1976). "Pierre Leroux on Democracy, Socialism, and the Enlightenment". Journal of the History of Ideas. 37 (3). University of Pennsylvania Press: 455–474. doi:10.2307/2708809. JSTOR 2708809.
- ^ a b Corcoran, Paul E.; Fuchs, Christian (25 August 1983). Before Marx: Socialism and Communism in France, 1830–48. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 3–5, 22. ISBN 978-1-349-17146-0 – via Google Books.
- ^ van Ree 2015, p. 10.
- ^ "What is America's French Icarian Village?". French Icarian Colony Foundation. Archived from the original on 9 July 2021. Retrieved 11 September 2019.
- ^ Little, Daniel (2009). "Marx and the Taipings". Archived from the original on 4 June 2021. Retrieved 23 December 2012.
- ^ Anderson, Kevin B. (2010). Marx at the Margins: On nationalism, ethnicity, and Non-Western societies. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226345673.
- ^ Rougerie, Jacques (2004). Paris libre - 1871 [Paris free - 1871] (in French). pp. 264–270.
Bibliography
[edit]- Ball, Terence (2011). "Communism". In Kurian, George Thomas; Alt, James E.; Chambers, Simone; Garrett, Geoffrey; Levi, Margaret; McClain, Paula D. (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Political Science. CQ Press. pp. 284–285. ISBN 978-1-933116-44-0.
- Campbell, Heather M., ed. (2009). The Britannica Guide to Political Science and Social Movements That Changed the Modern World. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 127–129. ISBN 978-1-61530-062-4.
- Fried, Albert; Sanders, Ronald (1992). Socialist Thought: A Documentary History. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-08265-5 – via Google Books.
- Haller Jr., John S. (1971). "Race and the Concept of Progress in Nineteenth Century American Ethnology". American Anthropologist. 73 (3): 710–724. doi:10.1525/aa.1971.73.3.02a00120.
- Hersey, Mason (1993). "Lewis Henry Morgan and the Anthropological Critique of Civilization". Dialectical Anthropology. 18 (1). Springer: 53–70. doi:10.1007/BF01301671. JSTOR 29790527. S2CID 144701125.
- Hume, Brad D. (January 2011). "Evolutionisms: Lewis Henry Morgan, Time, and the Question of Sociocultural Evolutionary Theory". Histories of Anthropology Annual. 7 (1): 91–126. doi:10.1353/haa.2011.0009. S2CID 170478166. Archived from the original on 28 October 2021.
- Johnson, Daniel (1 December 2013). "Winstanley's Ecology: The English Diggers Today". Monthly Review. Archived from the original on 6 October 2021. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
- Lazar, Marc (2011). "Communism". In Badie, Bertrand; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Morlino, Leonardo (eds.). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Vol. 2. SAGE Publications. pp. 310–314. doi:10.4135/9781412994163. ISBN 9781412959636.
- Morgan, Lewis H. (1964) [1877]. Ancient Society. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674865662.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - van Ree, Erik (22 May 2015). Boundaries of Utopia - Imagining Communism from Plato to Stalin. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-48533-8 – via Google Books.
- Service, Elman R.; Barnard, Alan; Bodemann, Y. Michal; Fleuret, Patrick; Fried, Morton; Harding, Thomas G.; Köcke, Jasper; Krader, Lawrence; Kuper, Adam; Legros, Dominique; Makarius, Raoul; Moore, John H.; Pilling, Arnold R.; Skalník, Peter; Strathern, Andrew; Tooker, Elisabeth; Whitecotton, Joseph W. (February 1981). "The Mind of Lewis H. Morgan". Current Anthropology. 22 (1): 25–43. doi:10.1086/202601. JSTOR 2742415. S2CID 163464337.
- Smith, Stuart (2009). "Lewis Henry Morgan". University of California, Santa Barbara. Archived from the original on 13 April 2021. Retrieved 3 February 2021.
- Stearns, Peter; Fairchilds, Cissie; Lindenmeyr, Adele; Maynes, Mary Jo; Porter, Roy; Radcliff, Pamela; Ruggiero, Guido, eds. (2001). Encyclopedia of European Social History: From 1350 to 2000. Vol. 3. Charles Scribner's Sons. p. 290. ISBN 0-684-80577-4.
- Winstanley, Gerrard (2002) [1649]. The True Levellers Standard ADVANCED: or, The State of Community opened, and Presented to the Sons of Men. R.S. Bear.
That we may work in righteousness, and lay the Foundation of making the Earth a Common Treasury for All, both Rich and Poor, That every one that is born in the Land, may be fed by the Earth his Mother that brought him forth, according to the Reason that rules in the Creation. Not Inclosing any part into any particular hand, but all as one man, working together, and feeding together as Sons of one Father, members of one Family; not one Lording over another, but all looking upon each other, as equals in the Creation.
- Yang, Manuel (September 2012). "Specter of the commons: Karl Marx, Lewis Henry Morgan, and nineteenth-century European stadialism". Borderlands. 11 (2). Gale Academic OneFile.
Pre-Marxist communism
View on GrokipediaConceptual 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 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels's formulation of communism as a scientific theory of proletarian revolution in The Communist Manifesto (1848). These pre-Marxist forms typically lacked a systematic analysis of historical materialism 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 The Republic (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 French Revolution, 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 private property to guarantee equal shares for all citizens, enforced by a revolutionary dictatorship until equality was achieved.[6] 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 coercion absent in purely voluntary pre-modern models.[7] 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 property and anti-inequality—while underscoring causal differences: pre-Marxist variants arose from ethical or crisis-driven impulses, not predicted stages of capitalist collapse.[8]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 Marxist theory. Whereas Marxism 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 surplus value and proletarian immiseration. Friedrich Engels critiqued such approaches as "utopian socialism," 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.[9] In contrast, Marxist communism frames the transition to a classless society as an inevitable outcome of capitalism's internal contradictions, requiring the proletariat's revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie.[10] Implementation methods further diverge: pre-Marxist communism typically emphasized voluntary association, philanthropic appeals, or small-scale communal models, as seen in 19th-century Owenite villages or Anabaptist sects like the Hutterites, 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 moral suasion.[10] This reflects Marxism's insistence on violent revolution 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 Christian community 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. Marxism, atheistic and materialist, rejects such foundations, with Karl Marx describing religion as "the opium of the people" that alienates workers from their exploitation, incompatible with communist consciousness. Pre-Marxist forms thus integrated spiritual motivations, whereas Marxism seeks to eradicate religious ideology as a superstructure 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 feudalism through capitalism. Engels noted that utopian schemes ignored "the history of all hitherto existing society" as "the history of class struggles," treating social problems as ahistorical puzzles solvable by rational design.[10] This renders pre-Marxist variants more akin to aspirational egalitarianism than the predictive, economistic program of Marxism.Philosophical and Religious Roots
In ancient Greek philosophy, Plato's Republic (circa 375 BCE) outlined a system of communal property and family for the guardian class—rulers and warriors—to eliminate self-interest 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 loyalty to the polis over kin. Aristotle, in Politics 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 Pythagorean school, founded by Pythagoras around 525 BCE in Croton, Italy, 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.[11] Pre-Christian religious communalism appeared in the Jewish Essene sect (circa 2nd century BCE–1st century CE), whose ascetic communities, including the Qumran settlement linked to the Dead Sea Scrolls, practiced collective ownership of property, daily communal meals, and renunciation of private wealth to achieve purity and eschatological preparation, as described by the historian Josephus.[12] 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.[13]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 agriculture 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 southern Africa, 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.[14] This reciprocal exchange system, including practices like hxaro gift-giving among the !Kung, ensured group survival in unpredictable environments but relied on kinship ties and social pressure rather than institutionalized common ownership.[15] Personal property, however, was recognized and defended, encompassing tools, weapons, clothing, and shelters constructed from individual or family labor. For instance, among Australian Aboriginal groups, individuals owned specific hunting implements like boomerangs or spears, which were inherited or exchanged but not communally held.[16] Territorial claims over foraging ranges were also maintained through cultural boundaries and occasional conflict, contradicting stateless ideals; the Hadza of Tanzania, 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.[17] Anthropological analyses reveal inequality within these systems, with Gini coefficients for wealth (e.g., tools, food 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 egalitarianism.[18] [19] Critiques of labeling these as "primitive communism" 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.[4] [20] Prehistoric inferences from such analogies remain tentative, as direct evidence is limited to indirect proxies like tool distributions in sites such as Blombos Cave, South Africa (circa 100,000 BCE), showing specialized individual craftsmanship.[14]Archaeological Evidence Against Primitive Communism
Archaeological evidence from Upper Paleolithic sites, dating between approximately 40,000 and 10,000 years ago, reveals disparities in burial treatments that suggest social differentiation among hunter-gatherer groups, contradicting claims of uniform egalitarianism. At Sungir in Russia, circa 34,000 years BP, three richly furnished graves stand out: an adult male interred with over 3,000 ivory beads, 289 Arctic fox tooth pendants, and flint tools; a juvenile male with more than 5,000 beads, ivory 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.[21] Similar patterns appear at other European sites, such as Saint-Germain-la-Rivière in France (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 ochre 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 private property or status markers posited in primitive communism models, as personal adornments and tools exhibit individualized ownership patterns. In the Near East, the Natufian culture (15,000–11,500 years BP), representing late hunter-gatherers with semi-sedentary settlements, yields burials with prestige items like dentalium shell beads, gazelle 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 agriculture, driven by ecological pressures rather than universal sharing.[22] Skeletal trauma provides additional counter-evidence to pacific communalism. At Jebel Sahaba, Sudan (~13,400–12,600 years BP), a cemetery of 61 individuals shows 40–50% bearing healed or perimortem projectile injuries from microliths embedded in bones, indicative of repeated interpersonal violence or raids over scarce resources in a Nile Valley foraging context. This pattern of conflict, spanning multiple episodes rather than a single war, underscores competition and territoriality inconsistent with frictionless resource pooling.[23] 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.[24][25]Ancient Civilizations
Bronze Age and Early Agrarian Societies
In early agrarian societies transitioning to the Bronze Age (circa 3300–2000 BCE), the adoption of intensive agriculture and irrigation enabled surplus production, which facilitated social stratification rather than egalitarian communalism. Archaeological evidence from sites like Çatalhöyük in Anatolia and early Mesopotamian settlements indicates that while kinship-based resource sharing persisted in some village contexts, the emergence of specialized labor and trade introduced differential access to wealth, undermining claims of primitive communism. For instance, grave goods from the Ubaid period (c. 6500–3800 BCE) in Mesopotamia show varying levels of material investment, suggesting nascent inequalities tied to control over fertile land and livestock.[26][27] In Mesopotamia, particularly Sumerian city-states such as Uruk (flourishing c. 4000–3100 BCE), economic organization blended temple-controlled redistribution with private property rights. Temples and palaces managed large estates, allocating land to dependents in exchange for labor and tribute, a system often termed a "palace economy" where elites directed production of barley, textiles, and metals. However, cuneiform tablets document individual ownership of fields, houses, and slaves, with sales, inheritance, and contracts enforceable under early legal codes like those predating Hammurabi (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.[28][29] Ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2181 BCE) exemplified centralized control under pharaohs, who nominally owned all arable land along the Nile, granting usufruct rights to nobles, priests, and peasants in return for corvée labor and taxes. Private transactions, including land sales and mortgages, are attested in papyri and tomb inscriptions, with elites accumulating hereditary estates that exacerbated wealth disparities, as evidenced by pyramid-building projects reliant on coerced surplus extraction. Inequality metrics from skeletal remains and settlement sizes reveal a Gini coefficient approaching 0.4–0.5 by the Bronze Age, reflecting elite dominance over resources rather than communal equality.[31][32] The Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1900 BCE), with urban centers like Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, 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 Mesopotamia or Egypt, though intra-settlement wealth variation indicates property-based distinctions. Overall, Bronze Age agrarian systems prioritized hierarchical coordination for irrigation and defense, yielding stratified polities incompatible with classless communal production.[33][34][32]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.[35] 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.[36] 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.[37] Aristotle, in his Politics (circa 350 BC), critiqued Plato's scheme as impractical and contrary to human nature, contending that communal ownership of property led to neglect and disputes over usage, as people cared less for shared items than personal ones. He advocated moderate private property tempered by generosity, observing that even close kin rarely shared everything without conflict, and empirical examples like Spartan practices showed mixed results.[38] Aristotle's analysis drew from observed failures in attempts at total commonality, emphasizing incentives for stewardship inherent in ownership.[39] Practical approximations appeared in Sparta, where from the 8th century BC, full-citizen Spartiates resided in communal barracks after age 20, contributing fixed shares to syssitia—mandatory mess halls for collective meals—to enforce discipline and equality among equals, though land was privately held and worked by helot serfs.[40] This militarized communalism prioritized collective martial readiness over economic leveling, sustaining a rigid oligarchy rather than egalitarian ownership.[41] Similarly, Pythagorean communities in southern Italy, founded around 525 BC by Pythagoras, practiced ascetic communal living with shared property under the maxim "all things in common among friends," blending mysticism, mathematics, and vegetarianism in secretive sects that influenced local politics until their decline amid violence by 450 BC.[11][42] In classical Rome, no equivalent theoretical or institutional advocacy for abolishing private property existed among major thinkers; republican and imperial society emphasized patrician landholding, client-patron ties, and agrarian laws like the Licinian-Sextian reforms of 367 BC, which redistributed public land but preserved individual ownership to avert unrest without challenging property norms.[43] 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.[43] Overall, Roman precedents favored hierarchical property relations over Greek-style utopian experiments, reflecting pragmatic adaptation to imperial scale and conquest-driven wealth.[44]Non-Western Ancient Examples
In the Inca Empire, which spanned from approximately 1438 to 1533 CE across the Andes region of South America, land was not subject to private ownership but allocated collectively to ayllus—kin-based communities—and the state, with portions dedicated to the Sapa Inca, the sun deity, and communal use. [45] 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 public works, reflecting a system of mutual obligation rather than market exchange. [46] The mita 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 socialism, 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. [47] [45] However, this system maintained stark class divisions, with the Sapa Inca and nobility exempt from mita while enjoying luxuries from tribute, and coercion via relocation (mitmaq) to suppress rebellion, underscoring that communal elements served autocratic stability rather than egalitarian ends. [45] No evidence indicates democratic control over these arrangements; instead, centralized planning from Cusco dictated allocations, limiting individual initiative and innovation. [47] In ancient Mesoamerica, 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 communism. Limited archaeological data from sites like Teotihuacan (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. [48] Ancient South Asian societies, such as those in the Vedic period (c. 1500–500 BCE), featured joint family units (kul) and village assemblies (sabha) managing common pastures and irrigation, with some scholars noting remnants of tribal communalism in early Aryan pastoralism before private property solidified under monarchies. [49] However, textual evidence from the Rigveda describes cattle raids and inheritance divisions, signaling emerging inequalities, and no widespread abolition of private holdings occurred, distinguishing these from stateless communism. [50] Buddhist sanghas (monastic communities, established c. 5th century BCE) practiced strict communal ownership of robes, alms, and shelter among monks, enforcing equality via vinaya rules against personal accumulation, though this applied only to religious orders within broader stratified kingdoms. [49]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."[51][52] This arrangement addressed immediate needs amid persecution and economic pressures on Jewish converts in Jerusalem, where many pilgrims had remained after Pentecost, straining resources.[53] 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.[54] 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.[55][56] 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.[57] Archaeological evidence for these practices is indirect, with house churches in Jerusalem and surrounding areas suggesting small-scale gatherings conducive to shared meals and support, but no direct artifacts confirm widespread property liquidation.[58] The arrangement proved unsustainable long-term; by the 40s–50s CE, famine in Judea prompted relief collections from Pauline churches in Antioch and elsewhere, indicating the Jerusalem community's economic distress and dispersal due to persecution under figures like Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12).[52] This model influenced later monastic traditions but did not become normative across early Christianity, which emphasized individual stewardship and almsgiving over communal ownership.[59] 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.[57] Unlike Marxist frameworks, it lacked class antagonism as a driver and affirmed hierarchical elements, such as apostolic oversight.[56] Some analyses draw parallels to Greco-Roman philosophical ideals of friendship and golden-age myths, where Luke may have idealized the community to appeal to educated audiences, but empirical communalism remained localized and temporary.[60][61]Monastic and Millenarian Movements
Monastic communities in medieval Europe, 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 monastery," with all goods held in common and distributed by the abbot to meet needs such as clothing and necessities.[62] This vow of poverty extended to Benedictine orders, which dominated medieval monasticism and emphasized manual labor, prayer, and shared resources within self-sufficient enclosed communities, often producing agricultural surpluses for trade while shunning personal possessions.[63] By the 10th century, reformed Benedictine branches like the Cluniacs and later Cistercians (founded 1098) reinforced these practices, with monks surrendering all prior wealth upon entry and relying on collective monastic estates for sustenance.[64] Such arrangements reflected a hierarchical yet communal economic model grounded in spiritual discipline rather than egalitarian ideology, 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 life adhered to collective ownership to foster detachment from worldly goods. This system persisted through the Middle Ages, influencing thousands of communities across Europe until secularizations like the Dissolution of the Monasteries in England (1536–1541) disrupted many.[65] 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 private property. In 15th-century Bohemia, the Taborites—a radical Hussite faction founded around 1419 in the fortified settlement of Tábor—enforced shared ownership of possessions, including control of local gold mines operated on a collective basis, alongside demands to reduce noble privileges and redistribute wealth.[66] Taborite ideology, drawing from Old Testament egalitarianism and eschatological urgency, viewed private property 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 Hussite Wars (1419–1434).[67] A stark example occurred in the Anabaptist rebellion at Münster in 1534–1535, where radicals under leaders like Jan van Leiden seized the city to establish a theocratic "New Jerusalem." They decreed the abolition of money, mandatory surrender of private property 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.[68] This system, enforced amid polygamy and authoritarian rule, collapsed after a 16-month siege by princely forces in June 1535, with leaders executed, highlighting the fragility of such millenarian experiments amid external opposition and internal extremism.[69] 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), Mazdakism advocated communal ownership of property and resources to mitigate greed and social strife, positioning it as an early example of egalitarian reform within Zoroastrianism.[70] Mazdak, 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 classless society through vegetarianism and non-violence toward animals.[71] 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.[71] 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 Asia exemplified religious communalism through strict adherence to the Vinaya rules, which prohibited personal property ownership among monks and nuns, mandating collective holding of robes, alms, and shelter. Established from the 5th century BCE but persisting into medieval periods in China, India, and Southeast Asia, 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 clergy, excluding laity and reinforcing social divisions rather than societal communism, with economic viability tied to royal patronage rather than self-sustaining production. In the Islamic world, the Qarmatians, an Isma'ili Shi'i sect active from the late 9th to 11th centuries in eastern Arabia (centered in Bahrain), implemented a proto-communist polity by abolishing private property, enforcing communal distribution of goods, and guaranteeing welfare from birth to death without taxes or tribute.[72] Under leaders like Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi (d. 913 CE), they established agricultural collectives, promoted gender equality in labor, and rejected hierarchical wealth, sustaining the system for over a century through raids and internal discipline.[72] Their utopian experiment, however, involved coercive elements, including the 930 CE sack of Mecca 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.[72] Sufi orders (tariqas), emerging from the 12th century in regions like Persia and Central Asia, practiced limited communalism through khanqahs (lodges) where initiates shared meals, dhikr rituals, and modest endowments (waqf), but retained personal property and hierarchical sheikh-disciple structures, diverging from full communism.[73] These variants prioritized spiritual detachment over material abolition, with economic support from elite patrons, rendering them adaptive to Islamic legal norms rather than revolutionary alternatives. Overall, Asian and Islamic pre-modern communal experiments emphasized religious ethics in resource sharing but faltered on scalability, often clashing with state authority and private incentives.Early Modern Experiments
European Utopian Communities
In the early modern period, various religious and radical groups in Europe 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 social order. While some achieved temporary stability through agricultural self-sufficiency, most dissolved amid internal divisions, external persecution, or unsustainable practices.[74][75] One prominent example occurred in England during the interregnum following the Civil War. In April 1649, Gerrard Winstanley and about a dozen followers, known as the Diggers or True Levellers, occupied St. George's Hill in Surrey, claiming common land for collective cultivation to address poverty and enclosure. 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 Winstanley abandoned the effort. The Diggers' venture highlighted tensions between communal ideals and private property enforcement but failed to inspire widespread replication due to legal and coercive opposition.[74][76] In Central Europe, Anabaptist sects pursued more enduring communal models. The Hutterites, emerging from Swiss and South German Anabaptists under Jakob Hutter's leadership from 1528, migrated to Moravia for tolerance and established over 100 colonies by the late 16th century, housing 20,000–30,000 members. They practiced strict community of goods, with private property renounced upon baptism, centralized economic planning by elected elders, and agricultural production emphasizing self-reliance and pacifism. This system sustained growth through high birth rates and conversions until the Thirty Years' War (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.[77] A contrasting, short-lived radicalism unfolded in the Münster Rebellion of 1534–1535. Radical Anabaptists under Jan Matthys and later Jan van Leiden seized the Westphalian city, expelling non-adherents and instituting communal ownership of goods alongside apocalyptic theocracy, polygamy, and coercive equality measures like forced baptisms. Property was confiscated for collective distribution, and labor organized under prophetic authority, drawing thousands initially amid eschatological fervor. The regime devolved into tyranny, with executions for dissent, prompting a siege by Prince-Bishop Franz von Waldeck; the city fell in June 1535, leaders were tortured and executed, and survivors scattered, discrediting Anabaptism broadly. This episode underscored how millenarian zeal could lead to authoritarianism and collapse under siege, distinguishing it from voluntary, non-violent communes.[75] In the Netherlands, the Labadists formed pietist communes in the late 17th century under former Jesuit Jean de Labadie, who rejected Calvinist hierarchy for direct spiritual illumination and communal discipline. Establishing settlements like Wieuwerd in Friesland from 1675, followers—numbering up to 200 at peak—shared property, enforced celibacy for leaders, and practiced rigorous asceticism with collective farming 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 18th century. Their model influenced later pietist groups but proved unsustainable without charismatic leadership, revealing communalism's dependence on ideological cohesion over economic innovation.[78]North American Settlements
In the early modern period, 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 collective ownership.[79][80] The Plymouth Colony, 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 London 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 commonwealth would make... men careful upon all occasions to provide for their own... families," leading to bountiful harvests.[80][81][82] The Labadists, a Dutch pietist sect following Jean de Labadie's teachings on apostolic simplicity, established a commune at Bohemia Manor in Cecil County, Maryland, 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 celibacy among an elite "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 1720s as members abandoned communalism for individual holdings amid declining adherence.[83][79] In Pennsylvania, 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 asceticism, 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.[79] The Moravian Brethren, or Unitas Fratrum, created communal settlements in Pennsylvania starting with Bethlehem 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 marital status for efficient allocation. This structure supported missionary work, crafts, and agriculture across thousands of acres, but financial strains from expansion and member dissatisfaction prompted a transition to private property and family-based economies by 1762, allowing the communities to persist longer than most predecessors.[84][85]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 commercialism and inequality, drew on rationalist assumptions about human nature and societal engineering, positing that self-interest and property rights inherently bred vice and division. Unlike later practical schemes, these were abstract blueprints emphasizing legislative enforcement of communalism to align human behavior with natural law.[86][87] Étienne-Gabriel Morelly's Code de la Nature (1755) presented one of the most systematic early modern arguments for communism, advocating a legal code that prohibited private property from birth, mandating communal storage and distribution of goods based on need, and instituting universal education to inculcate selfless habits. Morelly argued that property ownership caused crime, 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 individualism.[88][87][89] 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 private property as a postlapsarian invention that fostered envy and tyranny, though he inconsistently upheld property's sanctity in other contexts as a bulwark against despotism. Mably's communism was ascetic and moralistic, prioritizing frugality and equality to sustain small-scale republics, but he deemed full implementation impractical in large states due to human frailty, favoring gradual reforms over revolution.[86][90][91] Sylvain Maréchal's Manifesto of the Equals (1796), drafted amid the French Revolution, demanded a "republic of equals" through the "general restitution" of wealth, abolishing servitude, hereditary distinctions, and property-based inequality to achieve de facto equality satisfying all needs without sacrifice. Influenced by revolutionary radicalism, Maréchal envisioned a society where goods were shared per capacity and requirement, education universalized, and governance simplified to prevent elite capture, framing equality as the "final goal of the social art" derived from Condorcet's rationalism. This tract, circulated secretly by conspirators like Gracchus Babeuf, highlighted tensions between philosophical idealism and political agitation, as its calls for upheaval clashed with observed failures of enforced uniformity in practice.[92][93][94]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 New Lanark 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.[95] 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.[96] 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.[97] Attracting about 1,000 settlers by early 1826—including scientists, educators, and laborers of varied ideologies—the community emphasized voluntary association, preliminary "no-constitution" phase without mandatory labor, and communal resources.[98] Discord arose from freeloading, skill mismatches, and rejection of Owen's environmental determinism 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.[97] [99] Subsequent Owenite efforts in Britain, such as the Queenwood (Harmony Hall) community in Hampshire (1839–1845), housed up to 500 members in a former estate but collapsed due to financial mismanagement, internal disputes over secularism, and agricultural underperformance despite initial cooperative farming and craft production.[100] In the United States, Owen's visit inspired satellite groups like the Kendal Community in Ohio (1825) and Yellow Springs in Illinois (1830s), 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.[98] 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.[101] 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.[102] 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.[103] Notable examples include Brook Farm, Massachusetts (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 North American Phalanx, New Jersey (1843–1855), sustaining 120 residents through diversified milling and orchards until a cyclone destroyed infrastructure.[104] In France, 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.[105] Later adaptations, such as Godin's Familistère at Guise (built 1859 onward), echoed phalanstery principles in cooperative housing for 1,800 but incorporated profit-sharing, diverging from pure communalism.[106]Scholarly Debates and Critiques
Applicability of the "Communist" Label
The application of the "communist" label to pre-Marxist communal practices remains contentious among historians and social theorists, primarily due to definitional discrepancies between modern Marxism and earlier forms of shared resource arrangements. Marx and Engels conceptualized communism 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 dialectical materialism. Pre-Marxist examples, including early Christian koinonia (fellowship) in Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–35 or monastic vows of poverty, involved localized, voluntary redistribution motivated by religious eschatology or asceticism, without theoretical commitment to class struggle, surplus value critique, or universal property abolition.[107] These differed fundamentally from Marxism's atheistic, industrial-era focus on wage labor exploitation, rendering the label anachronistic as it conflates disparate phenomena under a 19th-century economic ideology. 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, Private Property 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 Inuit, where sharing served reciprocity and survival rather than egalitarian ideology.[4] Similarly, movements like the Diggers (1649) or Taborites (15th century) 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.[108] This labeling can obscure causal factors like theological voluntarism versus materialist determinism, with voluntary property sales in early Jerusalem communities (e.g., Ananias retaining land in Acts 5:4) affirming residual private ownership incompatible with communist tenets.[109] 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.[108] 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.[110]Economic Viability and Failures
Pre-Marxist communist experiments, particularly secular utopian schemes in the early 19th century, 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 Indiana, 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.[111] [112] 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 bankruptcy.[113] Fourierist phalansteries, envisioned as self-contained cooperative units of 1,600–1,800 people blending agriculture 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.[114] Brook Farm, a Massachusetts 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.[115] 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.[116] Religious variants, such as the Shakers or Amana Inspirationists, achieved longer durations—Shaker communities 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 communism, often reverting to quasi-private incentives for survival.[117] 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.[118] Historical analyses attribute these outcomes not to contingent errors but to structural mismatches between communal property and individual agency, prefiguring broader critiques of incentive incompatibility in collective ownership systems.[112]Marxist Retrojections and Modern Misinterpretations
Marxists, beginning with Friedrich Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884), retrojected the concept of "primitive communism" onto prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies, positing a universal stage of classless, stateless equality without private property as the origin of human social organization. This framework, drawn from Lewis Henry Morgan's anthropological studies of the Iroquois and other groups, framed history as a dialectical progression from communal origins through class antagonism to eventual proletarian communism, serving to legitimize Marxism as the culmination of historical laws.[4] However, this application anachronistically imposes 19th-century economic categories onto foraging economies lacking the surplus production or state forms central to Marxist analysis; Engels' reliance on limited ethnographic data overlooked variability in social structures.[20] Empirical critiques from archaeology and modern ethnography undermine these retrojections, revealing that Paleolithic and Neolithic societies exhibited private ownership of tools, hunting territories, and personal adornments, alongside status hierarchies based on skill, kinship, or prowess rather than egalitarian collectivism. For instance, Upper Paleolithic burials with grave goods indicate accumulation and inequality, contradicting the notion of propertyless communism; such interpretations by Marxists often selectively emphasized cooperative foraging while ignoring competitive resource control and leadership dominance observed in groups like the !Kung San.[119] Similarly, applications to pre-capitalist modes like the "Asiatic" or ancient communal villages retroject class struggle dynamics absent in primary sources, where land tenure was often kin-based or tributary rather than ideologically communal.[4] 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 critique capitalism 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 invasion) to external feudalism rather than inherent economic incentives. Academic tendencies, influenced by entrenched ideological commitments, amplify such views despite contradictory evidence from economic anthropology, framing pre-Marxist variants as vindication for communism while minimizing their voluntary, localized, and non-revolutionary character.[20][4]References
- https://www.[encyclopedia.com](/page/Encyclopedia.com)/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/property-and-ownership
