Can Communism be Modified to Work?

[Travis B]

So, I ask, can communism be modified to work?

The answer of course is yes, but it will never happen as long as the capitalist pigs control the means of production.

[Zython]

Well, do you think slavery could be reworked to be acceptable?

No?

Yeah, neither can capitalism

FTFY

What makes you think that people don't benefit from others labor under communism? lol

Because the entire point of socialism is that people are compensated based on their labor rather than their ownership of capital.

Edit: Basically, the main argument for the socialization/democratization of capital (i.e. "the means of production"/"private property") is that the wealthy should not be able to profit off the labor of others based on their possession of capital and their existing wealth. Or, to put it more simply, their angry about welfare queens. Except instead of welfare, it's dividends. And instead of being a phony racial dog whistle, it's real.

[Gaaz]

Communist ideas can work, did work, and will work in some scenarios. Mormon communities are very close to pure communist ideology. I probably should not remind you that they were key in establishing what US is today. Vatican is also an example of an organization that is extremely communist like in structure. Of course, in order not to stray in a different direction, they used faith as an anchor. It is not my cup of tea, but denying that communism can be a successful system is pointless. It requires a different mentality, the one that most will find difficult to accept, because we are being taught differently from birth. But for someone who is from these communities from a very young age, our ideology may seem equally strange.

[Runenwächter]

The Soviet Union style of communism failed, but does that mean we should give up on the idea entirely?

I like the idea of communism because at its core it reflects the idea of community and collectivism that are central to the human experience. Capitalism tends to focus on greed, individualism and hierarchies, but I cannot see how long this system can last as the world is populated with more and more people. As the global population grows, there must be more sharing of resources. This runs contrary to the capitalistic vices greed, individualism, and hierarchies. It is impossible to have an increasing population while wealth and resources becoming concentrated on fewer and fewer. Doing so risks political division, race war, class war, civil war, and potentially world war.

Although, the original Marx design of communism doesn't work, it is based on a better foundation, and that foundation is altruism. So, I ask, can communism be modified to work?

The best chance you have for communism to work is to kill yourself and hope you get reincarnated as a bee or an ant. I am not giving it my recommendation.

[Feronar]

For communism to work, it would have to be modified to the point where it can no longer be called communism.

[Sama-81]

No. It's not. That's fucking ridiculous. One ideology literally wants to exterminate people.

While nazis are obviously more flagrant and to the point about it, not to mention more...thorough, so to say, it would be absolutely ridiculous to claim anything other than that both ideologies involves pre-meditated mass murder. I'm sure some fanatic can come to the conclusion that communism could be achieved without it, but that is literally on par with saying that nazism could as well (by way of deportations, for example).

[Antiganon]

Communism works great on a small enough scale where every individual contributing to the system has a personal relationship with every other person contributing to the system.

As soon as there is enough separation that people start to say "Bob who? I don't know any Bob. What has he done to contribute?" The system falls apart.

Socialism on the other hand (which we already have in practice, just not to the degree it would actually be useful) works just fine. Take 50% from everyone's income and use it to pay for services and infrastructure that everyone benefits from. Everyone has basic needs covered, everyone has enough disposable income to do what they want, everyone keeps enough of their earned income to incentivize actually working over sitting on your butt eating government cheese.

[Deleted]

It's fucking retarded to put Nazism and communism on equal footing.

Yeah the correct analogy would be fascism and communism, or Stalinism and Nazism. Even the latter is questionable - you have to consider the Kulaks were keeping the peasantry in a state close to slavery only a few decades before and had genuine counter-revolutionary threat potential-German Jews weren't a threat to any one.

[Gaaz]

While nazis are obviously more flagrant and to the point about it, not to mention more...thorough, so to say, it would be absolutely ridiculous to claim anything other than that both ideologies involves pre-meditated mass murder. I'm sure some fanatic can come to the conclusion that communism could be achieved without it, but that is literally on par with saying that nazism could as well (by way of deportations, for example).

Dude, you have some wires crossed. Communism has nothing to do with extermination of people in any shape or form. In the core, communism is about ownership of means of production. Saying that communism is about exterminating people is like saying that christian religion is about mass murders, war crimes and atrocities, bonfires and witch hunts (visit your local priest now and get 2 spiked flails for a price of one).

[Floopa]

it already has. it's called social democracy.

it uses public banks working alongside goverment and private banks in order to properly invest in infrastructure and education. it uses publicly provided and publicly owned health services, utilities and transport in order to provide well paying jobs at low costs to consumers (or zero cost to people in the case of health services) and stops an ever expensive monopoly forming via private sector. it uses rent controls to manage mortgage rates and rent rates so that everyone can find cheap housing when required and uses state housing and benefits to house those who cannot legitimately work/function on their own

this is a thing which exists. europe is where this happens most.

[Mihalik]

sip

One week you are a libertarian, next week a live in the forest sovereign citizen, the week after an anarchist, then a week later a communist. What's the next edgy bandwagon you'll be jumping on?

[Runenwächter]

One week you are a libertarian, next week a live in the forest sovereign citizen, the week after an anarchist, then a week later a communist. What's the next edgy bandwagon you'll be jumping on?

Probably posing as an oil mangnate after the strangles his current boss and hides the bodies. Last name Ripley, First name the talented Mr.

[Sama-81]

No. That is not an inherent belief of communist. That's authoritarian governments being shit. Their ideology at that point is irrelevant. It's fucking retarded to put Nazism and communism on equal footing. You don't even have to deport people or whatever if they don't want to adhere to the communist views of a country, again, that's an authoritarian aspect, not communism.

My mistake, I thought we were talking about practical/factual realities, and not philosophical/ideological fantasies. In the latter case, you are of course completely right.

[Player Twelve]

No. That is not an inherent belief of communist. That's authoritarian governments being shit. Their ideology at that point is irrelevant. It's fucking retarded to put Nazism and communism on equal footing. You don't even have to deport people or whatever if they don't want to adhere to the communist views of a country, again, that's an authoritarian aspect, not communism.

"Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."

[Sama-81]

Dude, you have some wires crossed. Communism has nothing to do with extermination of people in any shape or form. In the core, communism is about ownership of means of production. Saying that communism is about exterminating people is like saying that christian religion is about mass murders, war crimes and atrocities, bonfires and witch hunts (visit your local priest now and get 2 spiked flails for a price of one).

If you think that communism can be introduced without massive bloodshed, or if communist revolutionaries would have even prefered such a scenario to a more...cleansing option, then I have a beachfront treehouse with a race car-bed to sell to you. Not to mention what would need to be done to keep the populace in check, which in turn would be an absolute necessity in order to keep the system of governance in place over an extended period of time.

In regards to your example, you could absolutely state that in order to make the entire world christian/muslim (or a muslim country christian, and vice versa), by way of revolution, then yes, you would most assuredly be required to involve mass murder and exterminations. In that sense, it's very much similar to what would be required to make a country communist (and keeping it thusly).

[Zython]

"Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."

You say this is a bad thing, but you live in a country that has fought wars. Hypocrite.

[Vash The Stampede]

The thing about communism and capitalism is how you gain power. With communism the power is gained by being in political power and staying in political power. In a truly communist country you can't have wealth, but that doesn't mean you can't have power. This is where communism breaks down as majority of communist countries have no democracy. It's either a dictatorship disguised as a democracy, or just a straight up dictatorship.

Capitalism solves this problem with human greed by giving everyone the opportunity to acquire power equally. That way, everyone is so busy being greedy that there's no one dominant force in play. And this is generally held in check with democracy. I say generally cause there are capitalist countries that are also communist. China is a good example of this as the economic system is now partially capitalist, but the ruling power is still communist.

In western societies we keep capitalism in check with a lot of government regulation and social services. Without these a single individual could be in a similar seat of power like you would see in communist countries. At that point democracy breaks down cause with enough money you can circumvent any system put in place. Like how campaign contributions are legal form of bribery that is the reason why majority of Americans are about to lose net neutrality even though 98% are against removing it. This is why we have crony capitalism and not true capitalism.

[Gaaz]

If you think that communism can be introduced without massive bloodshed, or if communist revolutionaries would have even prefered such a scenario to a more...cleansing option, then I have a beachfront treehouse with a race car-bed to sell to you. Not to mention what would need to be done to keep the populace in check, which in turn would be an absolute necessity in order to keep the system of governance in place over an extended period of time.

In regards to your example, you could absolutely state that in order to make the entire world christian/muslim (or a muslim country christian, and vice versa), by way of revolution, then yes, you would most assuredly be required to involve mass murder and exterminations. In that sense, it's very much similar to what would be required to make a country communist (and keeping it thusly).

Same can be said for absolutely any other ideology. It does not mean that communism is inherently violent though. Let me rephrase:
1. If you think that capitalism can be introduced to a (Mormon for example, they are pretty much communists) society without massive bloodshed... or if capitalist revolutionaries would have even preferred such a scenario...
2. If you think that buddhism can be introduced to a (any religion basically) society...
3. If you think that monarchism can be introduced...
4. ... anarchism...
5. ... any other form of control or social structure...
Any of that does not change the fact that neither capitalism, nor communism is inherently about bloodshed. Communism is about common ownership of means of production, with no money, state, or social classes.

[Hooked]

Can communism be modified to work?, How is this even allowed?

[Elba]

Capitalism will eventually collapse. The following will be either corporatist fascism or anarcho communism.