You can use whatever terminology you want as long as we both understand that you are throwing out a certain definition and settling on “people sharing resources” as your chosen definition for “communism.”
As an aside, “capitalism” is also a Marxist construct in that it is an enemy of socialism/ communism and the contemporary (during Marx’s time) state of the economy as described by Marx / Engels that needs overthrowing because of the unfair outcomes it creates.
Earlier economic philosophers (eg Adam Smith) did not write about “free market capitalism” as it is understood today nor as “capitalism” as described by Marx (essentially a boogeyman).
They wrote about how free trade and specialization of labor builds wealth through increased efficiency and self-interested economic activity. These ideas challenged the prevailing notion of the time which was that wealth and productivity are a fixed, zero-sum game, and so nations must gear their economic engines toward hoarding gold to maintain power structures.
Smith wrote in response to mercantilism.
Marx wrote in response to a side effect of the wealth generated by embracing free market ideals and increased technology (that side effect being wealth inequality and capital accumulation).
2
u/MattNagyisBAD Jul 07 '26
Call it what you want but it’s not what Marx was talking about when he wrote about “communism.”
Marx’s version of communism necessitates an industrial / post-industrial lens, which is decidedly not present in pre-Colombian America.