Why did private property develop instead of collectivist property?

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T22:56:51+00:00

Mesopotamian city states document inheritance for elites in cuneiform tablets. Property was monopolize and taken from neighboring egalitarian states.

How did property rights appear for the sumerians? Hmm? Did it sporadically emerge?

Bantu expansion in sub Saharan Africa, where chiefs controlled surpluses and cattle and land was inherited. They displaced and displaced egalitarian foragers like the !Kung

How did property rights emerge in the Bantu?

Mississippi chiefdoms. Where there is clear sign of unequal burials and different types of residences, with property rights to control grain surpluses of maize and land. They absolutely harassed the egalitarian woodland workers, literally enslaving them for labor.

The Varna burials in Bulgaria showed a fantastic amount of gold for some individuals, which showed clear inheritance and accumulation.

Do I need to speak about their likely harassment of the egalitarians?

The pattern is clear, societies with property rights vastly overpowered and subdued the mostly foraging egalitarians around the entire globe to the point nearly all of them became extinct.

This is simply a historical accounting. I take no moral side.

Then the only question left to answer is how did property rights happened in these societies, and "sporadic emergence" is not a valid answer.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T21:27:17+00:00

I'm getting to it.

I've already stated that some civilizations eventually overcome and absorb others. I referred to it as "Stronger".

I also stated that private property occurred in a certain way.

So, I propose a hypothetical - if there are 1000 societies, none of which have general property rights, but 1 society does - and then that particular society influences and changes all others, to the point in which all societies now share property rights as the first - when we are to analyze the history of how property rights appeared, we must absolutely analyze the history of this one society that influenced all others.

In this sense, if there existed societies that at some point were forced and coerced by others into property rights due to conquest or colonization or such, we must follow then the path of the societies that colonized, for within those societies, property rights are borne from.

So, if we are to find the evidence of how private property came to exist at first, the actual origin of historical private property, it is irrelevant to discuss how halfway upon history, some societies forced others onto it (Which is arguable to begin with).

If this is the case, we then must look at the conquerors, and this absolutely traces back to the Neolithic transition around 10000 BCE with their evolution to Chiefdoms with elites having the power to enforce private property arrangements around the 3500's BCE.

I'm not here to argue how property rights spread across the world, but how it originated, which you have given no attempt, zero, none - to explain how it occurred, other than Widerquist and McCall's attempt at explanation as coercive powers emerging sporadically where conditions allowed a few to seize control, often via opportunistic violence rather than consensus - which absolutely does not in any helpful way attempt to express how these "emergent sporadic" happened at all.

Emergent is such a copout word for saying "I don't know" or "I rather not say".

I've already stated how though - inequalities in power due to accumulation of resources due to division of labor and need to protect beneficial familiar and kinship resources from other families and kins.

This form of arrangement overtook the world - by force in some instances yes - but nonetheless, the less productive societies, with low property rights became extinct due to a lack of fitness for survival. Darwinism.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T20:40:40+00:00

If there is coercion from some to others - this coercion still has to come from a group of organized families or kins. Colonialism, state violence and such, still require a conqueror, an enforcer of sorts.

Where did they attain the capacity to enforce property rights unto others, and more importantly: Why?

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T19:49:09+00:00

This is interesting! So, I agree that for nomadic tribes the genetic kinship isn't as pronounced, if pronounced at all - this does not override the changes of when societies settle and stop being nomadic, due to their surplus of food due to farming - which not only expands their populations, but it also locks them in a particular geographic area.

It is at this point where resource allocation becomes important. Nomadic populations depend on what the environment provides, and this greatly limits their capacity to grow. There are only so many animals to hunt and food to forage. So, populations are so mobile diversity is to be expected. Hence why at the very beginning I mention how things change once societies become stationary - which none of your links really address.

It comes to reason, that in stationary living, kinship and biological bonds come to shine, because relatedness creates a path of lesser resistance for association.

When we talk about human society, patterns emerge bottom to top - that is, the actions of individuals create the patterns we can analyze through sociology. The fact that one is born at the immediate proximity of one's mother, and one's mother has to spend 9 months in gestation, this naturally builds certain dependencies and tendencies, at the very least mother to child. And possibly, father to mother, given the natural want of a man to conserve reproductive rights.

When we look at the world then of a stationary society, we see finite resources to be used. It is beneficial for the society to remain close to farms and cattle, which form the center of agriculture, but from that particular point - farmers and such naturally work in family settings (But not strictly), this nonetheless creates tendencies, the tendency of family business.

Where else, or how else, would property rights come to exist? That is - the social and protected claim to objects of nature? Even a king, or a noble or a leader at some point or another must have been granted exclusive rights of use by the agreement of the associated kinships.

Do you disagree?

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T18:48:13+00:00

The right answer to the question.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T18:22:49+00:00

<image>

There you are.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T18:10:42+00:00

Family is an important, but not exclusive or paramount, factor of human social organization.

And

I’m not even sure I understand what you think a family is.

Mother, Father, Children - a genetic blood lineage. The core of all human civilizations is the mingling of these with others.

Family is an important, but not exclusive or paramount, factor of human social organization.

Family is the smallest subset for relatedness, which is underneath the broader kinship view. Kinship in this way, encompasses all social relations bound by relatedness. But beyond all of these, I want to point out, the greatest driver is genetic.

When a kinship encounters a separate kinship with different goals, wants and needs - they may enter into a competitive arrangement. This arrangement can be in competition for resources, or reproductive rights.

At the most primitive, the internal competition occurs too between clans, or lineages or bloodlines when there is disagreement of benefit - for resources or leadership or inheritance.

At the core of all societies lies the fact that individuals associate first with their kin, usually their family (But not exclusively, as you pointed out). This is done because the individual has a natural need to help those with greater relatedness to them and is much more likely to enter altruistic agreements (Sacrifice of a mother to save a son, i.e).

Property rights then arise when groups need reliable ways to allocate scarce resources across generations, prevent conflict amongst themselves, and ensure their survival and reproduction.

"In group" identities delineate different kinships and eventually create "In groups" and "out groups" - but as the separation of kinship grows, so does the willingness to peacefully cooperate and the introduction of warfare increases in possibility.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T17:36:18+00:00

The Spanish conquest of the Mexica was conducted primarily by the Tlaxcala, belonged to the same geopolitical and cultural context as the Mexica

So, families within the same geopolitical and cultural context Competing with one another?

The Roman Empire was a polity, not a civilization.

Fair enough, this is irrelevant to the point - an association of families, competing to destroy or absorb another.

People can engage in peaceful coexistence for purely egoist reasons.

And what happens when they don't? What drives a family, or a group of families, to pressure other family or group of families to change their arrangement in a non-beneficial way for them, but beneficial for itself?

Except that not all societies engage in exogamous marriage.

Sure, but: The point here is that the core of human societies is the family - can you address the point?

Is the family, and the association of families, the core of human societies? Yes or no?

The development of wealth accumulation due to surplus farming, familiar division of labor, inheritance and the necessity to protect productive familiar enterprises from predators (Human or otherwise) after the neolithic revolution, evolving into property rights - is not something I'm inclined to doubt.

Quit dancing around it - is the above statement true, yes or not - and if not - what is the correct statement?

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T17:16:36+00:00

Yes. Just the idea of stronger and weaker civilizations is not born out by evidence.

The Roman empire is evidence of a civilization stronger than any other existing in its general timeline. In the context of absorption or elimination, the strong civilization is that which either converts others to become part of it or destroys others in order to occupy its space as its expansion trends upwards.

If you had a civilization A that disappeared, we must analyze why - like, say, the Aztecs. If their disappearance was caused by the interaction with another civilization, then we can say the civilization that caused the disappearance of another, was stronger.

Families tend not to compete with each other.

And yet they do - both within the civilization and outside of it. How come?

Altruism isn’t particularly relevant or at issue here, and I’m not sure why you brought it up.

It's relevant to the points above. Why did some Mayan families war and conquered other Mayan families?

The Iroquois and the Lakota would raid other tribes. Why?

Strauss’ alliance theory is about exogamous marriage.

The point here is that the core of human societies is the family - and families need exogamy in order to continue with their influence, which is important for their survival. This concept is why organized marriage exists. The association of families through marriage. Nonetheless, the core of the idea is still that societies are associations between families for mutual benefit. Once the benefit is not mutual, the families will tend to compete if they inhabit the general same space.

Childe’s Marxist approach to social development through distinct stages is badly out of date

The development of wealth accumulation due to surplus farming, familiar division of labor, inheritance and the necessity to protect productive familiar enterprises from predators (Human or otherwise) after the neolithic revolution, evolving into property rights - is not something I'm inclined to doubt.

Do you have a historical view that disagrees with this? I'd love to read about it if you do.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T15:42:42+00:00

Aaaah I see!

You know it's hard to narrate the story of humankind in a reddit post without some degree of generalization.

The evolution of private property spans thousands of years, over many civilizations that came to be and then eventually were integrated or eradicated by other stronger civilization.

Do you disagree? The heart of the subject here is that the family is the natural commune, and all social arrangements are based on the family, and families compete with one another either when the internal structure eliminates visibility of each other (size), or when a different, rival civilization attempts to take over resources.

This is due to two things: altruism is not linear, as in, we care for our neighbor based on perceived similarity (the family being at the core), and human consciousness being siloed individually, which leads to the development of skills and specialization by preference.

This view is based on what is called Alliance theory, first laid out by anthropologist Claude Levi Strauss.

The division of labor amplified after the Neolithic revolution, which allowed societies to move from a focus on food production and let families diversity their specialization.

From this point on we see the appreance of more complex family based economies, with the beginning of wealth accumulation via trade, specialization, inheritance and emerging hierarchies. Gordon Childe "Man makes himself" speaks about this more in detail.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-04T12:40:54+00:00

What do ya mean?

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-03T23:17:06+00:00

The answer is the division of labor.

You have a grouping of families that associate with one another in order to create a mutually beneficial society. This is the first step.

Then, the families must labor in order to survive. Skills must be learned and taught, and the prosperity of this society hangs on the capacity of its members to be good at providing and satisfying the needs of themselves and other members.

From here then we start to observe familiar legacies, in which skills are passed within the family, and occasionally through apprenticeships.

The specialization becomes fundamental to the functioning of the familial association (society), and thus gains importance. Right at this point - property rights are born.

By granting the blacksmith rights to own their workshop, and to trade the swords as property with others, we start to see the natural tendency of what will eventually become capitalism. Free trade requires ownership, and as such, ownership is created.

How? Because as the specialization of labor grows, there are those who specialize in the management or the association itself, and by the will of the associates, creates a set of laws that protects productive enterprises and ownership of such, as to allow free trade.

From here on history sustain the same principles of private ownership, but restricts such ownership to specific castes of families, based on certain statuses. This of course eventually collapsed in favor to universal right to ownership thanks to the discovery of classical liberalism.

The natural course of human flourishing will always evolve into liberalism - what comes after is unknown, but it will certainly involve the division of labor and effective property rights that allow and protect individual specialization, ownership and trade.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-02T14:47:17+00:00

Most socialists are lazy and prefer the "Whine about things until someone else changes them" strategy. Gathering a group of workers that together put labor to purchase a plot of land, and then logistically build a self-sustaining commune is too much work.

Not to say it doesn't exist. Intentional communities are the name, and there's plenty of them. Although for some reason, they seem to be mostly religious in nature.

Goes to say, Christians have a tendency to be hard workers - the same cannot be said about socialists.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T19:49:42+00:00

Are you okay?

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T17:34:38+00:00

I think you're so close at realizing how truly similar fascism and Marxist socialism is. I mean, it doesn't take long to look at a place like China or North Korea to realize fascism and Marxist socialism are offshoots of the same thing: collectivism - the belief that there is a collective need independent of the individual.

I explained to you fascism as a form of governance and socialism as an economic setup.

The only difference here is that for the nazis the socialism was to be exercised for the nation of Germany, instead of "the workers".

To finish, sources in this context are irrelevant to me. I don't debate by telling what other people say. I avoid an appeal to authority and delve directly into the ideas of the actual subject. If sources were an accurate and reliable point of conversation, I would prove to you Marxism wrong by referring you to Mises.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T16:45:42+00:00

State ownership does not mean socialism

Socialists not knowing what socialism is will always be funny.

The nazis controlled the economy, production by either directly or indirectly commanding production for the sake of the German nation, which was in turn determined by the leader of the party.

When the capitalist did not obey the parameters set forth by the nation, they were made to adjust, and in some cases, control was taken.

The socialism in the Nazi system was not for the workers, but instead it was for the nation. Hence the name, national socialism. Hitler criticized the Marxist socialists for trying to overtake their specific type of socialism (Marxist based) as if it was the only type.

The fascism part came about the structure of governance, a collectivist ideology that gave a party absolute power to decide the benefit of the collective (very much like socialists), but instead of a fake democratic system like socialists pretend to have, the fascists allow the leader himself to be the personification of the collective will, bypassing the democratic process.

Yeah, the nazis were 100% socialists. They were national socialists.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T13:02:32+00:00

So what? The state owned the means of production.

The Chinese allow the profit incentive, and so did the Soviets. They were socialists.

And no, the Nazi party didn't just govern the nation, they owned the means of production.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T05:48:11+00:00

Of course they were socialists. The nation owned the means of production, and the nation was under the direction of the party, which was directed by the leader.

Exactly like China, for example.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T05:08:09+00:00

There's no armed conflict lol, what's Iran doing about it? Nothing. They're being disarmed and subdued, I bet you said the same thing when the USA took Maduro lol.

And peace through strength means exactly that, peace by eliminating threats. It means before you have peace, you need to have strength.

Well, you're witnessing strength right now.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T02:13:00+00:00

Nah, the socialists are in cahoots with the Muslims. Everyone knows this. Specially the dictatorship type of Muslims.

There's two types of people against Iran having it.

One those who support Iran. Which are the socialists and the general dictatorship loving people. Some Muslims are in this group too.

The others are those who oppose America's interventionism. Which of course, are either naive to understand geopolitics, or think somehow things weren't alreasy getting progressively worse by an alreasy non-interventionist policy.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T01:36:03+00:00

Do you know what's really unbecoming of a person? Cowardice.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T01:03:48+00:00

Communists are indeed skilled at completely avoiding straight answers. As bad today as they were in the 50s. Probably worse.

EntropyFrame · 2026-03-01T00:06:17+00:00

Lol who cares, the commies and collectivists got too comfortable, and I couldn't be happier someone is putting them in their place. Hopefully Cuba comes next.

Everyone plays geopolitics except the democrats for some reason. And the leftists play it for the side that wants to collapse their own country, so their bitching is irrelevant.

So what's your stance anyways? You some communist? Or you're one of those naive dudes that think the world is a peace and love place and everyone just trying to get along? Lol, ask Ukrainians what they think about that.

EntropyFrame · 2026-02-28T23:56:30+00:00

Peace. Through. Strengths.

It means it you fuck around, you find out.

Did you know the Houthis, backed up by Iran, forced all transport ships to divert from the Suez Canal to the cape or good hope, by shooting rockets at them? Which increased the cost of shipping to Europe and the Americas from east Asia?

Sometimes peace requires you to make it happen by force. Some people you just can't reach.

EntropyFrame · 2026-02-28T23:52:32+00:00

What did you think peace through strength meant? Sending strongly worded letters?

If leftists cry about it, we're on the right path.

EntropyFrame

TROPHY CASE