Non-Marxist Communisms
When we talk about communism, we often think of the various regimes that in the last century were inspired, more or less directly, by Marx's ideas. However, the concept of communism is as old as the world itself. Here, communism refers to the idea that property is attributed not to an individual, but to the community, except obviously for strictly personal items (clothing, ornaments).
Family
Communism
Within the family, property is collective, starting with the home, which belongs
to all its members, even if someone manages it. The structure of the family has
varied over time. Currently, it has a nuclear structure, composed of parents and
children, although there are still close relationships with other relatives.
Legally, in the modern world, property is assigned to individual members, but in
essence, it belongs to all: the parents manage it, but it also belongs, perhaps
especially, to the children. When a child leaves home, they form their own
family, often with a spouse, and thus another family is formed; the property
remains with the parents, although the children will eventually inherit it. In
the past, the family was extended, meaning that when a child married, they
stayed with their parents, and especially the land belonged to everyone. It
could therefore have many members, and leadership belonged to the patriarch, the
head of the family.
Primitive
Communism
We speak of communism among primitive people, those living in a state of nature,
sometimes contrasting the "noble savage" with the birth of private property as
the source of all evil (Rousseau), and more elaborately in Marx. More recently,
we refer not to primitives or savages but to gatherer societies that live off
the products of the land, hunting, and fishing. Indeed, they consider the land
(or the sea, river, etc.) as the mother that nurtures and do not conceive of
owning a piece of land; the Native Americans are particularly well-known in this
regard. However, in reality, there is no property because there is nothing to
own. It is with agriculture that property is born because the land is no longer
something natural available to everyone, like air or water, but is cultivated
with the labor of generations, painstakingly farmed, and therefore its products
are obviously the property of the producers. Moreover, products can be stored;
with the new organization, cities, palaces, temples, roads, and so on are built,
and thus all goods can be either communal or private. Primitive communism is
therefore, in fact, the absence of goods to own, and property issues arise when
such goods begin to be produced.
Agricultural
Societies
In agricultural society, some goods are considered public (roads, city walls,
temples), while others are private, particularly the land, the primary source of
all wealth. The issue of land ownership arises: sometimes it belongs to those
who cultivate it (direct farmers), but over time, almost inevitably, ownership
becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, often who do not farm it, and it is
cultivated by others in exchange for a share of the products, a wage, and even
by slaves, who are also considered property. Society is therefore divided into
the rich (aristocrats, patricians, feudal lords), landowners, and workers, the
vast majority of whom are poor, often very poor. The situation thus appears as
an injustice, and a communist order is envisaged in which it is thought that, by
abolishing property, a just society can be built, a concept that remains alive
to this day. It is noted that in agricultural societies, there is also
craftsmanship and trade, which have different characteristics, sometimes very
important (as in medieval Italian communes): in this case, the owners do not
live off the income produced by others but are themselves promoters of their own
wealth, thus foreshadowing a modern society. However, in general, the entire
structure of agricultural civilization was characterized by wealthy landowners
and poor workers. The landowners took a portion of the products from the
peasants, and given the small number of landowners, they amassed great wealth,
lived in luxury, and, let’s say, in ostentation, while the vast majority lived
in misery. It should also be considered that the amount taken by the landowners
could either maintain or disrupt the general balance. There were also
independent farmers assisted by laborers (in Russia, kulaks). In this situation,
throughout history, popular revolts were recurring, especially in China.
However, such revolts did not have a proper economic-political model to propose
and implement, and therefore, even when successful, they quickly exhausted
themselves. It must be taken into account that the general poverty was due to
the scarcity of production; even without the luxuries of the few aristocrats,
the production was always the same, and in fact, the disorder and chaos created
by the revolts further reduced production and therefore increased poverty.
The Communism
of the Incas
It seems, however, that at least one large agricultural society, that of the
Incas in Peru, had communist characteristics. The government ensured the
sustenance of all by allocating land to the population based on their needs and
social class, and it took care of the weakest, such as orphans, the elderly, and
the sick. Land was assigned to each community (ayllu) to be cultivated. The land
was then divided among families according to the number of members. At the time
of marriage, a plot of land was assigned to work, which was increased with the
birth of each child. Furthermore, there was an obligation to dress the same way,
eat the same food: in practice, any economic differences were leveled. The male
population worked in rotation for the state and delivered part of the products
to it; hence, there were no landowners. The government thus managed to ensure
the sustenance of every family and all those in difficulty. If the Inca society
was founded on the idea of collective land ownership, it should be noted that
the fruits of labor remained with those who produced them. The ruling classes
were still maintained by the workers, but they also performed work. More than a
communist state, it seems that it could be considered a welfare state, similar
to modern ones, where taxes (about 40% of income) ensure not only the general
functioning of the state but also and especially welfare (healthcare, education,
subsidies, pensions, etc.). However, absolute power belonged to the Inca, the
son of the gods, and there was no trace of democracy.
Platonic
Communism
A very particular case is the communism theorized by Plato. Communal ownership
of goods is only envisaged for the upper classes, for philosophers (i.e.,
rulers) and warriors, but not for the rest of the population. For Plato,
communal ownership of goods and even of children would allow full commitment
only to the state, because the upper classes would have no opportunity to
accumulate wealth or even leave it to their children. We can compare this to the
personal poverty of Christian monks, which allows them to devote themselves to
God's cause. The theory, in stark contrast to the reality of the time, where
rulers were rich men, had no implementation.
Religious
Communism
Often, small religious communities practice communal ownership of goods: this
was the case in the early Christian communities and is still practiced today in
monastic orders, where personal property is not allowed, but everything belongs
to the religious community. The aim was to free the individual from economic
concerns so that they could devote themselves solely to the service of God. It
is therefore not a way to organize production, but simply a way of living off
the income from property, sometimes considerable, other times only from the
simple alms of the faithful (mendicant orders). These are groups that consider
themselves families, and therefore, like any family, the goods are communal. It
should also be noted that these groups have their highest aspirations in the
goods of heaven and disdain for earthly goods: it is a completely different
issue from the modern struggle against the poverty of the lower classes.
Conclusion
It seems to us that the essential point to be drawn from the entire discussion
is that communal ownership of goods is possible and actually exists only in
communities where individuals have very close emotional ties, practically in
nuclear or extended families. The system can then be extended to religious
groups, which indeed also have a family structure and are moreover oriented
towards spiritual needs rather than improving their economic conditions. The
recurring revolts against the rich in agricultural societies, even the
pauperistic ones (medieval heresies, Taiping in China), aim to correct excessive
social inequalities, ensuring everyone a sufficient economic base. In the Inca
Empire, the project seems to have actually been realized: however, it is not a
matter of a communion of produced goods, which remain with the producers, but of
a balance where all members of the population are guaranteed a sufficient plot
of land, and it is not possible to own more, nor to have a higher standard of
living than others. In the last century, there have been large experiments
inspired more or less by the communism theorized by Marx (and also by others),
but they have all tragically failed. It seems to us, then, that the central
point is this: in reality, it is not possible to think that everyone can work
solely for the common good, except in families and similar communities, bound by
natural and close emotional ties. In economics, each person pursues their own
interest, and if they cannot enjoy the fruits of their labor, effort and
initiative diminish, and therefore the economy does not function. It is not
true, as Marx claimed, that property creates selfishness in man and that by
abolishing it, the chains of selfishness would fall. On the contrary, it is the
natural selfishness of man that creates property, and it is insuppressible;
indeed, it is the basis of all material and economic progress. Without the
desire to improve their life, or rather that of their family, man would have
remained in the caves. What is possible, and indeed happens in modern Western
societies, is that a portion of income is progressively taken (about 40% in our
case) and redistributed to those in need. In this way, on the one hand, effort
and initiative, which create prosperity, are preserved, but somehow a certain
balance, if not justice, is also maintained in society. And indeed, we can
observe that our Western societies are, on the one hand, the most prosperous
and, on the other, those with the fewest people in poverty.