Isn't that more like anarchism?

Before agriculture people were like that, but as people settled down it created a class system. Then people got more powerful and such and states began to be created.

During this time (Around 4000bce and 400ce) feudalism wasn't really a thing, but after the Western Roman Empire fell around 400ce the power vacuum it created lead to the creation of feudalism. This was because of several factors, but I can't remember them all right now.

But money did exist even before the creation feudalism, since the Romans and the Egyptians did have money. Even in Mesopotamia currency was used. And even if money didn't exist trade was still being done with valueable things like resources and other commodities, which lead to those things becoming a de-facto currency.

So basically pre-agriculture was like tribes that shared their stuff and such, but after agriculture not so much. Of course this isn't a one-answer-fits-all thing, since there are always exceptions.

Sorry for the long ramble. I just got really into writing this thing. Also I could be wrong on some things, since I am writing from memory.

Even in tribe, people did not share everything. Hunting weapons (means of manufacturing ) were most likely in personal possession. There was also rudimentary trade between the tribes. But as soon as real economy started to appear (and here I use the word “real economy” as system that requires cooperation of large number of people and labor separation) the means of manufacturing (wind mill, pack animals, etc) were mostly in private ownership, could be bought and sold. So, no, not communism.

Questionable on both accounts. There are people who are saying this, and I am not sure that this is the best system that we (as in biological humans with our desires) could ever have. The experimentations so far (e.g. USSR) shows the opposite, that having more material incentive help humans to be more productive.