StarDestroyer.Net BBS

To the best of my knowledge, communism is when the government runs the entire economy. The question I have is wheter certain ancient governments fit under that category or wheter they were a differant case. The ones that come to mind are the Incans and the Spartans who both had the economy run by the government.

I just have a nagging feeling I am missing something. Am I right or did I screw up somewhere?

Finally, where there any other communist states (tribal groups don't count- they fall under traditional economy).

You meant "ancient command economies" surely, not "historical communism", dude

Tell you why: communism is a term from Marxist political economy that describes a classless, stateless society. Or, it's a XX century term to describe Marxism-following (at least in name) governments - a self-description of Marxists, essentially.

Now, what kind of "communist" governments could there be in the past? Considering Marx's own theory, only prime "tribal" communism, which existed before the division of labour and specialization first arose, was the form of "communism" to be discussed.

Old-age command economies - now that we a handful, could they be called "communist"? I find it highly unlikely. They are neither classless societies (Marxist definition of communism), nor do they follow Marxism as a theory (common self-definition of a communist government), since no Marxism existed in the ancient ages.

I'm mixing up communism and socialism again, aren't I?

Yeah, but you're also using social terms that arose in the XIX-XX century and apply them to ancient nations.

Not really applicable one way or other, ancient rulers were not Marxists and thus there weren't communist governments. Neither were they classless to be called "communist" by a Marxist.

They could be called "socialist" however by a Marxist, yeah, in case all production facilities were nationalized and were the property of all. However, that is unlikely. Most likely nationalized assets were property of the Czar/King/etc. and thus also did not allow for the name "socialism". And that's if we're disregarding the formation theory, which says that socialism can only come after capitalism is developed in some ways, mostly the means of production - centralized factories, large industrial machinery. Mao threw that down the toilet, of course, so it's debatable still.

Sparta may be considered "socialist" to some degree, in case nationalized property was really administered as the "people's property", i.e. it was not claimed by the higher instance as it's own private property (the case of monarchy or aristocracy).

I think I got the distinction. When all the property is communally owned by its citizens, it is socialist. When it is all owned by the king, it is feudalism (well, there is more, but it leads to feudalism) and when it is all owned by one company it is a corporate state.

Are those two the only nations that had command in the past?

Samuel wrote:I think I got the distinction. When all the property is communally owned by its citizens, it is socialist. When it is all owned by the king, it is feudalism (well, there is more, but it leads to feudalism) and when it is all owned by one company it is a corporate state.

Are those two the only nations that had command in the past?

No ancient nation ever had a command economy, with the possible exception of the egyptians and even that is debatable. Just to get that out of the way.

Also, you are dealing in absolutes. For example, Feudalism does not requre the king to own all property. In fact no feudal nation ever existed where the king owned all property.

How did the Egyptians have a command economy? From what I remember, the government just ran the mines, foreign trade and a couple other industries.

My example for feudalism was a little off. When you have one individual who owns everything you tend to get a feudal structure as they delegate areas to subordinates in return for loyalty. Historical feudalism had groups outside the system (free towns, the church, etc) as well as competing claims.

The implication I am getting is that command economies are a mostly recent invention. Is that true?

Samuel wrote:How did the Egyptians have a command economy? From what I remember, the government just ran the mines, foreign trade and a couple other industries.

As I said in my post, it is debatable. The Egyptians came closest to a command economy since the percentage of state-owned industry was the highest in antiquity.

My example for feudalism was a little off. When you have one individual who owns everything you tend to get a feudal structure as they delegate areas to subordinates in return for loyalty.

You never have one person owning everything.

A lot of people like to point to early, early "Christian communism" of essentially Antiquity communes described in Acts. It was never widespread, and didn't survive too long, but it's there.

EDIT - I seem to recall reading in Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State that the central government pretty thoroughly controlled commercial activity in the capital's immediate environs, at least during the early, pre-Manzikert period. I'll see if I can find the quote later.