What precapitalist societies were the closest to communism or socialism?

What precapitalist societies were the closest to communism or socialism?

I'd argue that the Inca Empire was. They had a central planning economy where the public owned everything. No currency existed either.

Other urls found in this thread:


Rashidun Caliphate. The closest society has ever been to FALC.

Small villages all over Europe up until the industrial revolution.

This. Read Varg.

The Diggers.

So was marx retarded, was his conception of history super wrong?

iffy here and there but not wrong.

Shouldn't have allen for Cromwells bulshitting though. Other than that they were pretty based.


It is a comically reductive conception that becomes even more wrong when you try to apply it universally to every region. It is honestly the thing I most disagree with Marx on.

Marx said the driving force of history is class conflict, he didn't say that level of technology determines everything about the mode of production. Also, it's largely about European civilization.

Sick of this Inka socialism shit, like all feudal empires they preached some benevolent dictator fuckery but it was a hierarchical society and behaved as such.

It also had nobility that were exempt from the labor-as-tax policy of the empire.

I thought it was the Aztecs that everyone says had an authoritarian socialist monarchy?

Aztecs had capitalism. They even had a god who watched over merchants, unironically called the "lord of noses".

I'm sick of this textbook definition socialism shit. Socialism is an economic system, there are no political connotations to it, only that the government seizes the MOP and no companies or merchants exist on their own behalf. Inca were true socialism, end of story. They were not a utopia, so they weren't true communism, but since no capital or tax existed it qualifies entirely as socialism, especially compared to Europe and Asia at that time period. The Inca state was not perfect, but it was socialism.

wew, literally impossible as long as there are actors (humans) who value things and have wants and needs

On an unrelated note, according to wikipedia;
In Aztec Mythology, Yacatecuhtli (pronounced Ya-te-coo-tli) was the patron god of commerce and travelers, especially business travelers. His symbol is a bundle of sticks (a fag, a fascist). Merchants would carry an uttal cane as they moved from village to village peddling their wares, and at night-time would tie them together into a neat bundle before sprinkling them with blood from their ears. It was believed that this ritual in Yacatecuhtli's honor would guarantee success in future business ventures, not to mention protection from vicious beasts and robbers on their journeys.
His name means "lord of the nose" (Nahuatl yacatl, nose and tecuhtli, lord).

They used labor instead of capital for payment, and if peope wanted a prize for being great they handed them rare cloth. No money existed.

Don't know much about Inca but i do know they had some really fierce pretender wars, kings brutally murdered each other over throne. They also practiced damnatio memoriae, so i guess that kinda equates them with Stalinist regime.

I've heard that Varg's books about European paganism are quite good, is that true? Has anyone read any of his works?

money is a form of capital, but it isnt the only form of capital friendo

Capital has no use on its own. Cloth and labor do.

Do you have more specific info on whoever this is?


You fellas do know what Marx wrote about pre-capitalist communistic societies again and again right you pair of dummies



More of dis pls

Proof please.

Arigato Varg-sama

What is this shit? The Incan empire was an extremely elitist slave society, where most production that was not for immediate survival, such as food and shelter, was production of luxuries ordered by the elites of the land. The public did not 'own everything', much of it was practically enslaved and forced to work upwards of 18 hours a day on farms. The king technically owned all property and distributed it to his will with elements of central planning; this is a palace economy, a system which was found in multiple noteworthy societies, including Ancient Egypt, its nothing new or special except for the total lack of markets and, according to the Spanish, general lack of starvation. In the king's absence it was mostly held by slave owners and regional authorities who, IIRC, ordered production. It's less a planned economy and more an economy run by aristocratic mandate, even though elements of central planning were certainly there.