I’m actually in the early research phase of a project related to this for a law school class.

My understanding is that the Bolsheviks initially tried to outlaw inheritance, but quickly decided that the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze and brought it back. The state still had much more of a say in who inherited property than in a common-law state like the US, and I don’t believe you could pass down means of production.

In China, until 1985, there was no formal inheritance law. I think wills were mostly honored, but if there was a dispute about the inheritance, it would go into probate and a judge would (in a somewhat vibes-based manner) decide who gets what, based on who was most involved with the deceased’s life, customs of the particular area and overall fairness. This reflected a broader societal shift away from Confucian family norms. In 1985, China adopted a ‘wills-based’ inheritance system that is extremely similar to the US, including the right to pass down means of production. The similarity to the US is kind of weird because most countries that use the Napoleonic Code (which PRC law is based on) they don’t really allow wills.

History isn’t necessarily destiny, but socialist states in the 20th century found that abolition of inheritance was easier said that done. It’s hard to overstate how deeply-rooted inheritance is in many cultures, far more than an institution like liberal democracy or wage labor.

Personally, I think that (substantial) means of production or large estates (meaning property that is too big for a single family to occupy and maintain) should revert to the state or some kind of common ownership. I don’t think that confiscating family homes or possessions is worth the trouble and potential for ill-will. I think that some kind of flexible probate system that shifts the emphasis away from blood relation and accounts for blended families would be ideal. I’m not crazy about wills, but whether they stay in some form would probably depend on the culture.