When I was talking about it’s communist nature I meant more the Andean civilizations. They were communist in the sense that ownership of the means of production (land) was held in common by a community or commune, in the Andean case an ayllu . Labor was organized around reciprocity and obligations to your community, and the state rather than around the market and exchange within the community. You can read more about it here
Also I was wrong about them paying tribute / taxes with produce to the state, they didn’t. They were required to work for the state / nobles a set amount each year as there tribute.
It is my understanding that meso america also had similar communal ownership, and that system is what groups like the zapatistas are harkening back to.
Also, while money as a whole isn’t natural, it develops naturally as a necessity for commodity production
Not necessarily, the inca didn’t have money but they were still able to produce commodities like cloth.
When I was talking about it’s communist nature I meant more the Andean civilizations. They were communist in the sense that ownership of the means of production (land) was held in common by a community or commune, in the Andean case an ayllu . Labor was organized around reciprocity and obligations to your community, and the state rather than around the market and exchange within the community. You can read more about it here
Also I was wrong about them paying tribute / taxes with produce to the state, they didn’t. They were required to work for the state / nobles a set amount each year as there tribute.
It is my understanding that meso america also had similar communal ownership, and that system is what groups like the zapatistas are harkening back to.
Not necessarily, the inca didn’t have money but they were still able to produce commodities like cloth.