Just because some feudalistic monarchy/dictatorships have called themselves communist doesn't mean that's what they were. In a true communism it would look more like a direct democracy. Marx's manifesto really shocked me in how he described communism because I thought communism was a failed system. It turns out we believe anything media says and they say every failed government is a communism. The closest thing we see to communism is among tribal people although they still select leadership, which goes against communist beliefs. I really believe that communism actually has a chance in the future once we've realized capitalism and representative democracy are systems that oppress those without capital.
When someone claims it can't work because it's not capitalism is not a viable argument towards communism. Communism can work but has not been use in a way where it's not abused by dictators oppressing their people. Capitalism is not done well in the U. S so saying that communism can't work anywhere is not viable.
True communism has never actually been implemented, as it requires vast amounts of wealth, In the first stage of communism a government controls the internal economy through subsidy etc and thus the internal economy is in fact stable, as for the external one well that depends on how many friends you have
A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a aa aa a aa a
A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a aa aa a aa a
Every time communism has been attempted by a government, it's ended poorly, but that's only because assholes have been in charge of those governments. If a good person, someone who believes in the system were put in charge, there's no doubt in my mind that the system would work. We just need someone who cares about the well being of everyone, not just themselves.
Capitalism is a very inefficient, wasteful, and exploitative system.
It's inefficient because there are jobs in the workforce that are incentivized and encouraged to slow down the work of others. For example vendors that are assigned to retail stores have an incentive to do their jobs quickly because they are paid on commission. But they leave a huge mess in the back room which slows down the work of the store.
Another example would corporate practices like customer rewards programs that slow down checkout time and punish consumers for shopping at different stores.
It's wasteful because the resources and capital of corporations that go out of business are immediately destroyed and thrown away instead of reused.
It's exploitative because there are millions of people who work full time that can't afford to survive on their own. Many people are debt slaves.
If we worked toward sharing more resources and working together instead of having this fake competition between companies then maybe our economy would improve from that.
Communism is a state of society in which the workers own the means of production, the state is withered away, products and services are either distributed through a market system or decentralized planned economy and everyone owns the product of ones labor.
The Soviet Union was not communist and neither was China. They were authoritarian states that oppressed their people. The workers had next to no power which is what socialism and communism is all about.
In closing socialism and communism are completely viable, they have just never been tried (with the possible exception of Yugoslavia or the Paris commune.
Communism is a system of evolutionary economics. Now, Marx didn't necessarily see capitalism as something that brings no progress. On the contrary, within the first few pages of the Communist Manifesto, Marx speaks about how the bourgeoisie have been revolutionary in their own sense, bringing humanity leaps and bounds forward (at the expense of the proletariat, of course).
What communism is meant to be, is a system that would replace capitalism after it's collapse. Which, like all systems, it will. Communism, on the other hand, was theorized by Marx as being the final step for human socio-economics. Communism requires capitalism to live out it's life, then die, so that the system within which we live can evolve. Much like how feudalistic societies evolved into capitalist ones.
If anything, communism would put humanity on an equal playing field. It is, in every sense, a viable economic system for the future. The rapid development of the means of automation are making communism more achievable, and capitalism more harmful.
Think of it this way, compare capitalism to the process of eating so much fast food that you have a heart attack, afterwards, the period of abstaining from fast food could be considered communism.
The only reason to ever consider communism is to promote an equality with less impact on resources. There are no examples where communism will provide a higher standard of living for those that are willing to work.
Communism gives the government to much control over it's people, and unchecked governments seem to go rough.
Defining my terms to be in economic efficiency and the amount of goods and services produced. In capitalism, every person is motivated to work and invest in order to produce profit. Now, profit is generally seen by the left as an evil, yet it should be noted that profit comes out of voluntary exchange, and any voluntary exchange must help the two parties that conduct this exchange (otherwise the exchange would never have occurred). But the most simple argument is that capitalism rewards people who help others (by giving others things that they want, others will give them things that they want, this is known as trade), whilst socialism redistributes wealth and lacks incentive to work, invest, trade and other activities which are beneficial for society.
The people who are pro-socialism or pro-communism often talk about the "exploitation of the weak". However, one must first define what they must mean by exploit. The argument of the "exploitation of the weak" cannot mean that the "weak" do not gain from this so called "exploitation", otherwise they would never have conducted the exchange (whether of goods or of labour), as all exchange in a capitalist society is voluntary. So, the "exploitation of the weak" argument must be stating that the "weak" benefit yet don't get a fair share. But if you create any law that tries to limit what the market can or cannot do, this will inevitably result in people leaving the market due to their lack of benefit (whether it be the producer or the consumer), and will create deadweight losses in which the market creates less resources than it otherwise would. Thus, the decrease in incentives to engage in mutually beneficial transactions leads to less goods/services provided, and thus leads to a decrease in the average quality of life.
I must also further ask one thing of the pro-communists or pro-socialists. Is there any logic in what they are saying? Can they provide a logical reason for why their society will be more efficient? Can they provide a logical argument why the redistribution of wealth will motivate people to work more (and I provide the argument that it demotivates people to work more, as it reduces the gains and losses, and thus the incentives to work)? Or are their arguments simply based on ideals and wishful thinking, and just simply employ meaningless words and phrases such as "unfair" or "exploitation of the weak" to try and support their cause.
I would just like to point out a sentence in the original communist manifesto by Marx that really caught my attention. That sentence being "if communism could be summed up in a single sentence, it would be 'the dissolution of private property.'" such an idea goes against human nature.
I would also like to point out that the early pilgrims attempted a governing system that was very similar to communism where all property was communal. That summer, very few people did any work because they could profit off of the fruits of other peoples labor. That winter, more than half of the people died. Those that had worked hard all summer were forced to give all their food they had to the community thus ensuring that everyone would face the same end: death.
The only reason communism does not work is because of human nature. If humans could negate our natural mindset, it would work, but that will never happen.
As much as I hate the company on this side of the isle (USSR was not communism people, read a book) I have to admit that communism doesn't seem very viable to me in all reality.
In order for a a true communism envisioned my Marx and Lenin to exist, it really requires a global classless and stateless society. If a single Communist society has access to a market with private property, which seems likely given globalized markets, then it places the entire project at risk and substantially increases the chances of failure and infection of capitalism into the communist society. Marx himself talked about the resilience and adaptability of capitalism, which he saw as something that made it even more heinous.
Thinking practically, a classless and stateless society wouldn't fare well against a capitalist nation in terms of military, and therefore really leaves itself without any strong centralized form of defense against invasion. Non-communist nations would likely invade and conquer the communist society, therefore rendering it as a society that is no longer classless or stateless.
Because the idea of the dissolution of all private property on a GLOBAL scale seems entirely impossible and farfetched (especially considering all of the different value systems communism would have to combat, Marx was somewhat ethnocentric) communism doesn't seem very viable, and is likely nothing more than a pipe dream.
One of the founding tenants of Communism is that every able-bodied person will work their hardest, while only taking what they need from the collective results. In the small scale, Communism might be viable. But with large groups of people, it will never work. There will always be the cheat of the group who prefers to live off the hard work of others instead of providing for himself. Once more people realize they can live like the lazy person, their productivity will drop until no one is producing anything anymore.
Best example: UdSSR. It ignores the market, the desieres and demands of the people and instead dictates a demand and at the same time provides the supply for this artificial demand. In the mean time, capitalist economies surpass the communists in regards of technology, science, wealth, .... In my eyes China will fail too, the gov builds cities where 3/4 are emtpy, bridges where there are no roads... Again, artificial demand which slowly but surely gets a problem. Why do you think a new law now allows municipialities to issue bonds too? ;)
Communism not simply ignores human nature, but nature period. All life forms have evolved to acquire the greatest resources for the least effort. This is a basic survival mechanism that happened because those that had this mechanism were more likely to survive due to their unwillingness to overexert themselves. Thus, if one were to try to implement communism which is, by the manifesto, "From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs," all those living within the society will be inclined to say, "I'm not very able, but I need a lot." Thus the whole thing collapses in on itself.