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.Nope. Ancient evidence shows the earliest of humans had private living quarters and lived in families and not hippy communes.
Nope. Ancient evidence shows the earliest of humans had private living quarters and lived in families and not hippy communes.
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.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
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.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.
BASED ALERTWhat if you nationalize industries as a King?
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.
View attachment 3419661
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.BASED ALERT
I had this idea before but never could find a real world instance of somebody advocating it.