It worked in pre-Roman times because tribal populations were small. Can it conceivably work in populations of over a few thousand?
Frankly even that number is way too high for a system with no central planning, consolidation of power or law-making body. These systems are inevitable once populations grow past a certain number.
This system would optimally work with a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred people per community, assuming that they're in a vacuum with no external threats to consider.
You're right that it could work if we went "back to basics" but that would also imply that the majority of the population has been wiped out. Not entirely undesirable, I'll admit.
>You would have to be dense not to know that socialism in the 21st century western world would be more successful.
You would have to be dense to think that economic inertia, and dictatorial control enjoyed by elites, in communist societies would be lessened given 21st century tech. You'd also have to be dense to forget that even Marx realised his system could only work globally.
20th century communist implementations proved that there is no such thing as equality and there never will be.
Western democracies, whose neo-liberal, globalist nature is inherently Trotskyist, have also proved that there is no such thing as equality. Power always coagulates, even more so with any attempt at socialism.
Any attempt at pursuing equality necessitates inequality.
youtube.com/watch?v=ph1Oepre4mg
youtube.com/watch?v=ph1Oepre4mg
Post-scarcity is nonsense. Scarcity is relative. Power is scarce and is the ultimate desire of all people. Control over social-relations, yes comrade?
There will always be people with more power, always people with more resources, always people who make decisions over your life that you will never be able to affect. Communism/socialism/marxism only magnifies this.
Marxism cannot eliminate the innate hierarchical laws of nature.