• SupraMario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because there is not a way for communism to work… sounds great on paper but always ends the same.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        You can doubt it all you want, but communism’s fatal flaw is humans. They will always want more.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Why is it bad for people to want more in Communism? Do you think once a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society would be reached, people would want to regress?

          • StellarExtract@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            This is an aspect I’m genuinely curious about (as someone who is relatively uneducated on this subject) because my answer would be that yes, there will definitely be people who want to regress. There have always been individuals who are willing to sacrifice absolutely anything to obtain more material wealth or power. They’re a minority, but their existence has to be assumed and accounted for. For all of capitalism’s failings, one of its strengths is that it does give these people a path to follow that produces (some) benefit to society. How does a fully-implemented communist society deal with these individuals without them subverting and corrupting the system?

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              I think a big misconception on your own part is that Communism would put a ceiling on people. It would, perhaps, in the sense that it wouldn’t let people lord over others, but it would absolutely not prevent people from working to improve their own material conditions. In fact, that’s one of the base assumptions made by Marx when proposing a Communist system!

              The goal is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, where you can get what you need from what you can give. It isn’t a society where everyone lives in a 700 Sq ft 2 bedroom apartment made of concrete, it’s a complex system meant to be built up towards, that would allow people to work on whatever they want and get whatever they want by working for it, as long as what they want isn’t a business to lord over people.

              • StellarExtract@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Thanks, I guess it’s the “get whatever they want” part that doesn’t make much sense to me. What if what I want is astronomical, and I want to get it by doing as little work as possible? Who says whether I can or can’t have it?

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  What’s an example? A gigantic mansion? You’d probably have to build that yourself, society likely can’t prop up everyone who wants a mansion, but if you build it yourself it would probably be seen as fine.

                  Again, Communism is an extremely democratic form of economic organization, so if the community deems it necessary to give you a mansion and has the Means to do so, then it can happen.

                  Communism is a far-future society, however, which is why Socialism is more known about and defined. Socialism however still has issues like having a state at all, so it’s not the end of history either.

                  • StellarExtract@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Interesting, thanks. I guess a major element in how feasible that would be is in the administrative structure a community would use in deciding who gets what materials. Obviously if it’s a representative democracy, there’s huge incentive for corruption of the representatives if they have absolute control of who gets what. Wouldn’t this be considered a state, though? I guess statelessness is another aspect that doesn’t make much sense to me.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s not how human nature works. You really think you can sit there and tell me that someone who did 10 years of school and has the knowledge to operate and save people should be getting the same as someone who’s job is to cook you fast food? You live in a fantasy land where the Star Trek replicators exists. No one is going to do more work for the same amount as someone who does less. Society doesn’t work this way.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              That’s not what Communism is, though. Even Marx says that Skilled labor is represented in value by that which labor power is required to recreate it, ie training adds value to labor.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Cool, so what is that value then? Bigger home? More land? Larger car? You see where I’m going with this right? Cause if you’re not going to reward someone for doing more, then they’ll just do the least…and if you do reward them, then isn’t that just capitalism with more steps?

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  In earlier stages of Communism, they can receive more labor Vouchers as representative to the value they create, ie in comparison to Socially Necessary Labor Time. In higher stages, the effect of training is more diminished as production must be even higher to reach such a status in the first place.

                  Either way, you hint at thinking Capitalism is when people are paid wages, which is incredibly wrong.

                  Capitalism is a Mode of Production by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Capital, and pay Workers wages to use said Capital to create commodities. It is not the only form of economy where people can be paid, it’s a specific model that arose alongside the Industrial Revolution.

                  People get paid in Worker Co-operatives, yet those are Socialist entities. You don’t need a Capitalist to be paid to work.

                  Not trying to be rude, it’s just a huge misconception here.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    You’re first paragraph just described basically capitalism though, just instead of money it’s work vouchers. The other issue is you’ve now just told that doctor he has to work even harder to get slightly more than the guy who flips burgers.