Are there Ancient Roots to Socialism

Since Karl Marx and others began to advocate for societies to develop more equitable economic systems in the form of socialism and even communism, there have been those that advocated that capitalism and, by extension, economic and social inequality evident in societies reflect a deviation from natural or even original human societies. Evidence for more equal societies is often difficult to determine in the distant past, but there have been arguments that social and economic inequality we are witnessing is more recent.

Early Forms of Socialism?

Perhaps the most "equitable" forms of societies are often hunter-gatherer societies. Such societies, ostensibly, often do not display any major social hierarchy. Even if there is a "leader," of the group, often social power is limited and can be easily reversed. Wealth differences are also not usually very different between members of such societies. Based on this, and archaeological evidence, some archaeologists and historians have argued that a form of socialism or at least classless societies. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles advocated that hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian and represent a type of primitive communism.

Many archaeologists and anthropologists today, in one form or another, have indicated that early and even some modern band or hunger-gather societies are not only classless, but they even display no sexual inequality in that women and men wield comparable power. Such groups usually number between 20-50 individuals. Some have argued that the size of these groups make it easier to maintain relatively flat hierarchies, as individuals and families have almost comparable abilities to accrue food and resources.

While modern groups often do show limited differences in classes and even sexes in cases, it is not clear how prevalent this was in the past. Nevertheless, few hunter gatherer groups have been found to have direct evidence where a person would have greater authority or access to resources. One argument is that agriculture likely created the circumstances for inequality to emerge more easily. In this case, with agriculture, the ability to raise resources through the land is not equal. This could be because not all land is equal in productivity and some simply may be better. Once specific individuals were able to accrue more resources than this opened the possibility for socially unequal societies to emerge.

One possibility is that, although agricultural societies may have fostered greater inequality, a type of egalitarian and, even a form of socialist societies, did exist in a type of "vertical egalitarianism." In these cases, kinship and social networks were likely not equal for these communities, which were often larger as they utilized agriculture. However, on the surface, there may have been limited power or no real differences in power between family heads. Wealth may have been similar among families. In essence, such societies display hierarchy, in that not all members are the same and power is unequal; however, authority would be limited in that no central leader or wealthier individuals can easily emerge. What could have limited power for any central authority is that population was still relatively limited and larger groups may divide or fission.

Later Developments in Socialism

With the emergence of towns and cities, it has been commonly seen that classes begin to emerge more clearly and this type of lifestyle spreads in many regions of the world. However, there were still societies that were relatively egalitarian. Nevertheless, all of these relatively equal societies were small, often hunter-gatherer groups such as some Native American societies or those in Africa and South America. Examples of agriculturally-based egalitarian or something more similar to socialist societies, that is societies with a collective form of rule and ownership of resources, are very rare.

There are cases where agricultural societies, within states, did form a type of socialist or even relatively equal societies, although often they were more similar to vertical egalitarian societies that displayed familial or kinship variation in their access to resources and power. In Middle East, so-called agricultural cooperatives, which shared land, did form in the Medieval and early modern periods from the 19th century and lasted even until today in places. These were villages that collectively owned land, where annually families who shuffle to different plots of land, so that no family could have sole access to the most productive areas. Similar collective agriculture existed in the Lake Huron region among the Iroquois and Aztecs. However, these societies were never fully equal. Among the Aztecs, power difference were evident among the elites. For the Iroquois, matrilineal decent sometimes meant that women yielded more power in society, where wealth could be transferred through the female line. Nevertheless, the Iroquois, relative to colonists they encountered in the 17th-18th centuries, often displayed relatively more limited wealth disparities and showed evidence of equality towards the sexes. However, even Iroquois did keep slaves and wealth differences among leading families and chiefs were evident.

There is evidence that ancient societies often debated wealth inequality and how much should socialist ideals be integrated in society. Both Plato and Aristotle advocated checks to fully market-based societies, as they felt a more communal approach would better harness societies potential. Sparta in ancient Greece has, at times, been seen as a type of socialist society that treated citizens as equals and that even the leaders lived austere lives that were not that different from average citizens. There is some truth to this, as Sparta's ideals were reflected by values of limiting the self and honor, but this often had to do with military preparation than an economic system. The fact the state was often in perpetual war may have meant that it had to develop an austere approach to its economy and individuals could not flaunt wealth when sacrifice to the state was required during political difficult times.

Modern Socialism

In many respects, socialism is a modern concept, as no large-scale society that is agriculturally-based in the ancient or more recent past can be called socialist. However, examples of the Iroquois and collective farming communities indicates a form of consensus building and limitation of power and wealth accumulation is possible by pooling resources. In fact, in those case, where societies tend to best pool resources, it is evident that these societies also formed a type of democratic system in that consensus building had to be developed through agreement or voting. The main problem has likely been that it is hard to have a large-scale society that is socialist, in its true sense, because large-scale societies are often held together by power structures. In effect, society is large-scale because there are people who are dependent on others through economic or power relationships. If that was not the case, very likely small communities that could potentially disassociate from a central authority could emerge.

For modern states, what is intended by socialism is not so much a classes society, even if that is what is stated as the ideal by the state, but rather there is an extensive social welfare program that includes health care, transport, access to work, housing, and other aspects. Examples, including Denmark, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand, are not fully socialist but they have wide ranging welfare systems that lower wealth disparities often evident. They are, in effect, capitalist societies but with a socialist structure that assists in key areas or if people fall on harder times.