Were ancient societies ancap-communism?
- Thread starter Skitarii
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
Nope. Ancient evidence shows the earliest of humans had private living quarters and lived in families and not hippy communes.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
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.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2022
People are inherently ancap, at least big dick having people
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
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:
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
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:
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2014
What 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.
Ughubughughughughughghlug
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
BASED ALERT
I had this idea before but never could find a real world instance of somebody advocating it.
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
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.
- 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.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
Individual hunter-gatherers are expected to share their game and forage with the tribe making accumulation and concentration of resources impossible. Even after the invention of agriculture, early farming societies were very egalitarian.
In both cases this condition is at least partially technological. In nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, transport of hoard is difficult. So sharing is less a choice and more a need. And early agriculture was so inefficient that each family could only scrape together just enough for themselves and perhaps a little to help a neighbour in need. Again making accumulation of food impossible and everyone just about equal.
Hunter-gatherer societies do always have social taboos, often harsh, that are enforced, without the help of a government, by each individual on everyone else. That makes them a practical example of anarcho-totalitarianism.
But food egalitarianism and same size or communal houses was very much the norm.
In both cases this condition is at least partially technological. In nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, transport of hoard is difficult. So sharing is less a choice and more a need. And early agriculture was so inefficient that each family could only scrape together just enough for themselves and perhaps a little to help a neighbour in need. Again making accumulation of food impossible and everyone just about equal.
Hunter-gatherer societies do always have social taboos, often harsh, that are enforced, without the help of a government, by each individual on everyone else. That makes them a practical example of anarcho-totalitarianism.
The earliest European farmers lived in communal houses that would have accommodated for at least multiple families. Even when early societies did have individual houses, they were always of the same size.
In the aforementioned Catal Huyuk there is some evidence (based on dental identification) that children didn't live with their biological parents. Unsure how widespread a lack of family lines wass in early societies.
But food egalitarianism and same size or communal houses was very much the norm.
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
AnotherOne
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2021
That quote is actually from the play Assemblywomen and is meant to mock utopian political solutions.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2020
This gets into a few autistic discussions like "how 'ancient' are we talking here?" "What really qualifies as 'property?'" "What is 'The State?'"
I mean, is the king's realm the property of the king? Maybe. Few would argue that Elon Musk buying a plot of land, declaring national sovereignty and himself king, and running the whole thing as a massive industrial complex isn't AnCap as fuck. Or would they?
Wherever there is a monopoly of force, that monopoly is indistinguishable from The State. If a singular entity has the capacity to dictate when/how force is permissible and the capability to enforce it, with a force of their own, we see all the practical makings of a government with its decrees as law. Property of this government is now government property. Ownership refers to that which you, as an individual, are entitled to by this government under protection of the force which it is the sole arbiter of.
Ownership of things which produce wealth is private property. Ownership of things for personal health and fulfillment are personal property.
Analyses of various government systems should bear these basic principles in mind.
I mean, is the king's realm the property of the king? Maybe. Few would argue that Elon Musk buying a plot of land, declaring national sovereignty and himself king, and running the whole thing as a massive industrial complex isn't AnCap as fuck. Or would they?
Wherever there is a monopoly of force, that monopoly is indistinguishable from The State. If a singular entity has the capacity to dictate when/how force is permissible and the capability to enforce it, with a force of their own, we see all the practical makings of a government with its decrees as law. Property of this government is now government property. Ownership refers to that which you, as an individual, are entitled to by this government under protection of the force which it is the sole arbiter of.
Ownership of things which produce wealth is private property. Ownership of things for personal health and fulfillment are personal property.
Analyses of various government systems should bear these basic principles in mind.