Were ancient societies ancap-communism?

  • We've gotten t.me/kiwifarms set up for downtime announcements since Twitter doesn't allow us to have one.

Skitarii

Hacker on Steroids
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
One guy distributes the means of production to his subjects, but the entire kingdom is his private property anyway, so it would be like a lovecraftian mix between anarcho-capitalism and communism
 

Toolbox

Buy dat dawgs
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Nope. Ancient evidence shows the earliest of humans had private living quarters and lived in families and not hippy communes.
I am guessing op doesn't mean back that far, but to the point that basic religions had formed and people were working together to build structures related. But I don't think they would have had any form of what people consider communism now. And "one guy distributes the means of production" sounds like nonsense for that time. It's like some sort of weird mix of medieval kings together with tribal togetherness.
 

Johnny Salami

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 17, 2022
90a2b70f-e572-4d44-bf51-750bfd0e3692.jpg
People are inherently ancap, at least big dick having people
 

Queen Elizabeth II

Mommy
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Nope. Ancient evidence shows the earliest of humans had private living quarters and lived in families and not hippy communes.

This isn't a universal experience. A predominant one yes, but not universal. Sparta stands out as a prime example of a society that contained several examples of these traits if not all of them.

Çatalhöyük and the Indus Valley on the other hand, particularly the former, could be said to be anachro communist in a sense.

It was hardly a novel idea. Plato's Republic drew on ideas commies of all stripes could draw from so such ideas were tossed around before his time.

If you'd like to look further afield reading into the policies of the Xin dynasty; abolishing private property and each settlement running itself as it felt like it was happening in China long before Mao.

There was a far greater variety of governmental policies then than today, as some of then have won out as being more efficient. It doesn't mean all of them don't have some basis in history.
 
Last edited:

Rabid Northman

Coming to a window near you soon
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Skitarii said:
One guy distributes the means of production to his subjects, but the entire kingdom is his private property anyway, so it would be like a lovecraftian mix between anarcho-capitalism and communism
I mean you are comparing what sounds like Feudalism a state based system with systems that are minimal government to stateless so you have to kind of peg how ancient we are talking. Additionally, even some monarch's powers were kept in check by a consistution or having to keep their feudal lords happy.
 

ICametoLurk

SCREW YOUR OPTICS, I'M GOING IN
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
What if you nationalize industries as a King?

It was hardly a novel idea. Plato's Republic drew on ideas commies of all stripes could draw from so such ideas were tossed around before his time.
There a Greek in the BC Era that wanted only Slaves to do all the work but otherwise there would be no property and no such thing as Rich or Poor.

1451829057842.jpg
 

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid

This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
BASED ALERT

I had this idea before but never could find a real world instance of somebody advocating it.
Congratulations, it's already been done dozens of times, it was called the USSR. It failed miserably and caused millions of people to die. The other instance was Mao's China, which resulted in even more people starving to death.
 

Save the Loli

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Bronze Age palace economies aren't communism because it's all the property of the king while in communism it's all the property of the people. For instance, neither Stalin nor the CPSU were the landowners in the Soviet Union, the state in general was. I guess the bureaucrat class responsible for giving people things is similar if you squint hard enough. They definitely aren't ancap either since they are by definition the state (most rulers were literal god-kings or were also the high priest of the gods like in Mesopotamia) and there is no free market when only the ruler is permitted economic freedom.