I have never seen it functioning outside of theory and doubt that it can. I like social democracy with a lot of regulation.
There are things that you shouldn’t be able to “own” as private property. We basically all agree that our fellow humans are on that list, but whether anything else is on that list is what outlines the spectrum from Capitalism to Communism. I do know that isn’t technically definitionally correct, but the simple question “What things on earth should humans not be able to privately own and profit from?” is a pretty good proxy for knowing where the person you are talking to lies on that spectrum.
We already have some communism implemented there is cooperatives, communal gardens , the fediverse. I think private companies should be allowed to exists but cooperatives should be more encouraged. I believe we should have a state and the concept of money too
Good in theory, problematic in practice. A goal to strive towards but not achieve.
The main problem is the dictatorship of the proletariat is so easily corrupted into a regular ol dictatorship. When that much power is in play, it’s hard for people to give it up - and even when they’re willing, they can just get ousted by less scrupulous people.
Making it safely through that passage is like a Great Filter of socio-economics
It’s a fairytale believed by children who don’t want to grow up only to have to make decisions for themselves.
It can work. It is just, Russia and China completely fucked it up and made it a shunned system to practice.
It can work within a species that isn’t inherently selfish. In theory it makes perfect sense. Trust a bunch of humans to keep everything just and equal and watch as the dickheads make sure they get more stuff/power than others. Iterate it for a few generations and you’ll get your average dystopia.
It’s never existed. Not in it’s pure form anyway. But neither has capitalism, or socialism either for that matter.
A theoretical system is always in some way perverted and coopted by the people implementing it. Humans are the weak part of the equation because humans are greedy and focused only on themselves and their own small group of friends/family. So scaling any political system up from theoretical to an actual national policy always ends up with a perverted form where one group ends up over another group despite the original theoretical intent of the system in question. That goes for Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, as well as religion too.
Humans suck and can’t have nice things without fucking them up.
Easier to achieve in small communities, such as the ones the human brain originally developed for (a few hundred people)
Private property =/= Personal property (nobody’s coming to take your house or your tv)
Attempts to implement something like it are actively sabotaged by the ruling class to protect their privileges, either through propaganda or through violence
I know it works. It has gotten us this far and will keep us going farther.
Hilarious!
There’s a lot of propaganda.
A communist society never existed. The USSR, China,… they are NOT communist. The closest thing to a communist society is the Star Trek era (TNG). I guess it’s nice to live in such a society.
I thought there were some native American tribes that were communist.
Communism is “work as much as you can, use as much as you need.” Society must be technologically advanced to make this possible. Native American tribes were not technologically advanced.
“work as much as you can, use as much as you need.”
You don’t need technological advancement to be sustainable if your population remains relatively small and static. Hunter Gatherers actually follow pretty much exactly the formula you described above and ended up with far more leisure time than their agriculturally “advanced” counterparts.
But that is not sustainable. We cannot all be Hunter Gatherers. Society in the broadest sense should be applicable to almost the entire human population, one state is not enough. For this purpose, technological progress is crucial. Communism is not an ideology or a political system in the context of today’s political systems. It is an inevitable evolution (not a revolution) in human progress.
Why/how “inevitable,” in your view? I find that very hard to believe. It seems to me it could just as easily (maybe more easily) be the Orwell route:
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
It is an economic theory that is a useful critique of capitalism.
It is also used as a justification to create dog shit political systems.
It works well for communes where small groups live together and are capable of holding one another accountable. It does not work when a small number of individuals control the state including power over law enforcement and the military. That concentration of power destroys communism and ok instead become exploitative and fascist.
I’m willing to try it, capitalism sucks!!!
I think it would be good if you offered a definition of communism, bc it can mean different things to different people.
