But states didn't develop until about 3,000 BC and they didn't encompass most of humanity until much later.
Anthropologists usually divide human societal structure into bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states.
Bands are generally found among pre-agricultural peoples. They are essentially an extended family. Little real structure.
Tribes are found in some hunter-gatherer societies, but mostly in agricultural societies. They are much larger than bands and usually have a headman. He leads by persuasion rather than having true authority.
Chiefdoms are the next step up. Almost exclusively among agricultural societies. They have a chief with real, quite often absolute, authority. The chief and his family and retainers are essentially aristocrats.
States are the most complex human societies. Early ones were generally ruled by God-Kings. Probably because the absolute authority was needed to hold the society together when other bonds were not yet developed.
But none of these societies are communistic in any real sense. The notion of a primitive communism, a golden age from which man fell when he developed the notion of private property, is a Marxist idea that I’m surprised to see conservatives promoting.
The only true “primitive communism” was among primitive bands. They essentially HAD no property, so it’s not surprising there was no social conflict over controlling it.
IOW, bands are egalitarian. Tribes are semi-aristocratic. Chiefdoms and (early) states are almost always aristocratic.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/pol_3.htm
Anthropologists generally hate to admit it, but the driving force behind moving from tribes to chiefdoms to states was generally war. When a larger and better organized chiefdom came into conflict with a neighboring tribe, the tribe lost. Same with chiefdoms and states.
This is seen in stark form in 1 Samuel 8, when the Israelites decide to move from a loose alliance of tribes/chiefdoms to a state.