Communism is an abstraction, which "works" only for abstract Socratic and Platonic ideal societies.
In 2020 it should be understood that abstractions (and models) are fundamentally different from what we call real world.
In 2020 it should be understood that abstractions (and models) are fundamentally different from what we call real world.
It might not be possible in the real world, but it's something to strive for.
Whereas capitalism has only existed as the predominant economic system anywhere for a few centuries. In the US, with two economic crises in the past decade, Covid at a peak, global warming, racial strife, riots on streets etc., I am not sure what is working in the real world with the economic system here.
No, it wasn't.
Some of it was vaguely communitarian in non-communist ways.
> Whereas capitalism has only existed as the predominant economic system anywhere for a few centuries
Capitalism has been displaced by modern mixed economies as the dominant economic system of the developed world for close to a century. How long it was dominant is debatable because it's not really clear where to draw the line between pre-capitalist systems and emergent capitalist systems. I tend to say early capitalist systems were around 16th C,
The natural order of the world appears to more closely resemble capitalism via the "eat what you kill" philosophy.
I imagine you are imagining close-knit tribes that would share resources freely internally. If so, would you agree that tribe members that leech off of the tribe and don't contribute were likely expelled from the group?
We certainly all do seem to have this innate fear of being abandoned by our group, so I think it's fair to say that we're adapted to avoid this outcome.
Returning to humans, extant hunter gatherer groups observe property rights, both at a personal level, with their ownership of tools and clothes:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2999363/
>>Moveable material property, such as tools, clothing, and valuables, is generally treated as individual property
And on the inter-tribal level, with tribes asserting exclusive control over the territory that they exploit.
Food sharing is common in hunterer gatherer societies, but almost all of it is intra-tribal, meaning to relatively close kin. Even within the tribe, such sharing is heavily biased by kin selection.
Food sharing is often very reciprocal as well, with an expectation of a return in exchange for the 'gift'. This is also demonstrated to some extent experimentally:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1740/2930
No, it hasn't. “Private property”, in the sense in which it is a defining institution of capitalism (ownership of the means of production by an individual as marketable property distinct from. ownership of or personal jurisdiction over land), requires the conceptual separation of individual property and public authority that is one of the characteristic features of the transition from pre-capitalist (specifically feudal in most of the West) to capitalist property relations. It is not something that universally existed from prehistoric times. You seem to be confusing the particular sense of “private property” associated with capitalism with the more generic concept of individual property, which is necessary to capitalism but not distinctly capitalist.
Modern capitalism's private property is based on exactly the same principle of exclusive control over a mass of matter as pre-modern society's private property. It is a more sophisticated version of it, that incorporates the advances of modern civilization to its enforcement and utilization, but that is to be expected with any institution as it evolves with the times.
>>requires the conceptual separation of individual property and public authority that is one of the characteristic features of the transition from pre-capitalist (specifically feudal in most of the West) to capitalist property relations.
I don't know what this means. Can you elaborate?
The term "personal property" is mostly used by Marxists.
Now to your point: private property intended for personal use, which socialist ideology claims is not problematic, is the direct progenitor of private property used for other purposes, like earning an income for the owner from being rented out, or from being utilized in an enterprise that employs other people to operate the private property.
The differences between private property intended for personal use, and private property intended for business or commercial use, are completely superficial with respect to the basic principles that society operates on.