Different Names for the Same (?) Thing

In my last post, I wrote about "collectivist/communalist/communitarianist" societies. That definitely is NOT an incredibly convenient and easy-to-use name. But my problem is that there isn't really a term for what I want. Here I'll discuss the definitions provided by Google for several related terms and why each doesn't work.

• COLLECTIVISM: prioritizing the group over the individual; the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.

In the type of society mentioned in Acts 4, the group is not prioritized over the individual. Prioritizing the group would mean that something that raised the welfare of the group (however you want to try to measure that) while lowering the welfare of an individual would be good. In the early Christian community, however, welfare was not aggregated. There was no single welfare function that was being maximized, but a separate function for each community member. Also, ownership still exists. (Acts 4 is incredibly brief in its description of the society, so other scriptural sources of other such societies must be used to see some of these points, and later I will introduce those texts and the societies they describe.)

• COMMUNALISM: political organization based on federated communes; allegiance to one's own ethnic group.

The first half of this definition deals more with how two or more instances of such a society would interact, not with the nature of the society itself. The second half is completely unrelated to what I want--ethnicity doesn't even begin to factor into an Acts 4 society.

• COMMUNISM: class warfare and the public ownership of all property.

This term brings with it the most baggage of any of them, but even leaving that aside, this isn't what we want. Early Christians weren't divided by class--alongside destitute followers of Christ are ones who can afford newly-finished private tombs.

• COMMUNITARIANISM: social organization based on small, self-governing communities; stressing the responsibility of the individual to the community and the social importance of the family.

This isn't so off-base, but it also leaves a lot unmentioned. While Christians in Acts 4 definitely have a responsibility to their community, and probably are organized around family units, there's a lot more involved in being of "one heart and soul" and having "everything in common."

• SOCIALISM: the means of production and exchange are regulated by the community; a stage between capitalism and communism.

The means of production aren't the concern, but the products produced. One person can control all the resources in an Acts 4 society, if they only distribute the income the resources produce.

• ZIONISM: the establishment and development of the Jewish nation.

To someone outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this term probably appears to be the least apt. Within the Church, though, an Acts 4 society is often called Zion, and so it would be tempting to call the system that creates such a society Zionism. However, like "communism," this word already has a long-established use and trying to co-opt it for something else would create more confusion than it could solve.

From a Latter-day Saint tradition, talking of "building Zion" describes the creation of an Acts 4 society, but from an economic perspective the available terms that approximate having "everything in common" all have major flaws.