It sounds like whoever managed to get political support in that community is making the economic decisions, rather than “themselves”. Individual property rights simply devolves that control to the individual or the family. Communal property rights would place control of property into the hands of the elites. I’m not saying the current system is perfect, but I’m the system to you’re describing I don’t see how someone gets a new technology to market without the support of the elites. It’s at least possible today, and leads to the collective increase in standards of living.
The system we live in is one in which everything is in the control of the elites. Who makes all the decisions about technology? The CEOs of massive tech firms. Who makes all the political decisions in government? To a person almost exclusively the rich, those who hoard capital.
I’m not going to argue that our political and social economic systems don’t have flaws. I do think directly merging political and economic power into the same institutions would only make it worse.
Have you seen the footage coming out Chicago, New York and Portland of police beating people in the streets? You might want to ask what country is putting the jackboot on people's necks to maintain social order
Which countries have tried to distribute wealth? Most countries that people usually claim that about have actually done the opposite - they were trying to put the jack boot to a few million people's necks, and found that claims about redistribution of wealth can win you enough followers to actually do that. This is certainly true of Lenin and Stalin and Mao.
* everybody has equal control of the nothing,
* no value → no economy → no economic decisions made for you by others,
* anarchy → no political decisions made by others
yet is clearly inferior to what we've got now.