this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
1573 points (96.3% liked)
memes
10477 readers
3271 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Depending entirely on the form of communism. Right now the worlds richest 400 have a combined wealth amounting near 7 trillion. In a communist society world wide we could distribute that wealth globally to install water infrastructure, food infrastructure, vaccinate everyone and still have change in the bank to support other large projects.
And this is speaking purely finance. Here in the UK we have more than enough empty home to house all of our homeless.
The amount we work to the resources produced are wildly high, we could work a lot less if not for the bosses ever demanding more.
Well, I am referring to actual communism, not the fantasy kind.
Wealth distribution is not equal under communism. Most is owned by the state, the privileged class still exists. The underprivileged class also exists.
Communism tends to be inefficient and less productive than capitalism, so a lot less is produced. This is demonstrated time and again. People just don't have a personal motivation to increases production for the state. Distribution is also inefficient. Historically it leads to hunger because central planning is less effective than a decentralized system where individuals are able to make decisions.
So while I agree that the current level of wealth inequality is not good, communism is certainly not the solution. All it does is change where the lines of inequality are drawn. It usually kills a few million people for no good reason, too.
Given that we now have a track record of communism, it's hard to imagine why anyone would choose it.
well i say if we can go from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism then why not capitalism to socialism to communism? its again distributing power from the top to the lower status classes, we saw similar in feudalism to mercantilism.
so your a reformist?
Are you familiar with twentieth century Chinese or Soviet history? If you are impressed by communism, you really should read up on what happened in nations that implemented it, or attempted to implement it, in the last hundred years.
Communism doesn't redistribute power to the lower classes. It redistributes power to the Communist Party members - usually an inner circle. The people who are running the massive government that is required to operate a nation with all the central planning that communism requires. The new privileged class becomes the top technocrats and their families.
It's impossible for wealth distribution to be equal. Wealth is not just money, it is also assets. Say you strip all the assets away from people - let's say housing - and redistribute it. OK - Now everyone has a house. But all houses are not created equal. Some houses are nicer than others. Some locations are nicer than others. Everyone will want to move into the nicest house in the nicest city, but obviously they can't all fit. So what do you do? Someone has to work on the farm and grow wheat. How do you force people to work on a collective farm? What about people who don't want to work? Do they get the same housing as the workers who contribute to society? Even if you house everyone, including providing free housing for those who won't pay, what about the people who don't WANT to live in a house? Do you force them to live in a detention center? What about their kids? They keep having more kids... Do you forcibly sterilize them, or do you put their kids into an orphanage, hoping that the state can do a better job raising workers than their lazy parents? And then, what about the homeless? The people who actually prefer living outside? Obviously if they refuse to live in their house, they have fewer assets than others. Now your society isn't equal anymore, it's just made some changes in who have wealth.
Yes, socialism can be made more efficient. The trick to it is my introducing a mix of capitalism so you have a mixed market economy. Like in China.
Am I a reformist? It depends on what you want to reform, and what kind of reform you're talking about. I'd like to see more direct democracy, which I believe can be achieved in my home country through reforms. But in some other countries, it can only be achieved via revolution. For economic systems, a mix of capitalism and socialism seems to be the best thing we've found so far. No doubt a better economic system will be discovered someday. But it is not communism. Communism is too extreme. It's not a good system, and it has failed everywhere it's been tried.