Communism does not propose a system of government. It is an economic system.
Merriam Webster, as a starting point:
a**:** a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
b**:** a theory advocating elimination of private property
Definition of socialism
1**:** any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a**:** a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b**:** a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3**:** a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Any āismā sucks ass (IMO).
First, libraries have been around forever (an idea of sharing property). And community gardens (free land area to grow your own veggies- but hands off the others) ā¦ and some societies are toying with veggies and fruit trees in public places.
We all chip in and use roads and bridges (unless these are āsoldā off and tolled).
Credit unions - a system of members who are directed by members and they all benefit by shares when they open an account.
Or co-operatives for selling and again, benefiting from profit.
Public health and crime (policing and incarceration), education is for the public good and should be paid for and managed by the public, ie govt.
Commerce, internationally- having a government, embassies, military (alliances) trade agreements all move products around the world safely - and corporations NEED this from their countries system of governance. (Unless each corporation wants to pay Private Armies to safeguard them through hostile waters - imagine the cost)ā¦
To allow private home/land ownership and business gives the individual and small families a small piece - BUT one they can build ācapitalā and manage and pass along to their offspring.
I hate isms.
I see all aspects of all ideas in almost every area of the earth. Some extreme some much more balanced.
I get it but if you hate all isms then what is your solution for making a better world?
Or maybe you just donāt GAS?
I think we have to look at what we have and think about how to make it better.
Yes.
IMO the best for of government is no government (anarchy)
The Australian aboriginal culture is the oldest on earth, at about 60,000 years. It is also anarchic, having no formal government. There are of course rules, customs, laws, and punishments as well as a rich spiritual tradition. Tradition, custom and laws are maintained by the group, usually by the elders. An individual cannot possess power. The phrase āaboriginal spokesmanā only has meaning for a specific issue, where such a spokesman may be chosen by consensus.
Imo aboriginal society only works because it is traditionally composed of nomadic family groups of around 20 people. Anarchy isnāt a complex idea. However, imo it cannot work in a society as complex as ours, especially with such complicated division of labour together with consumerism.
ā¦uh ā¦ people communicating and, uh pretty much doing things as policy evolves (whether itās their personal preference or not)ā¦ forms of democracy have survived for thousands of years.
And by the way, my interest is in making my life and the life of my kids better - then my community and outward from there.
I have no idea what a ābetter worldā is as an ideal. I just know each generation deals with the lack of foresight from the previous ones; and adds their own ābettermentāā¦
Communism is not a system of government. Itās an economic system.
Me, I donāt have one. Why should I?
Up to now. I have never come across any workable idea for a better world. Many have been tried, on a macro level: From absolute monarchies, to Athenian democracy, to Marxist-Leninism, to Stalinism and Maoism to Parliamentary and Republican democracy.
On a smaller scale there were the Hippy communities of the 1960ās, I have known two families who made an āalternative lifestyleā work for them. That 's not for me. Iām a happy little urban capitalist consumer.
Capitalism is predicted on the concept of infinite growth. Our resources are finite.(some more than others) Sooner or later capitalism **must ** collapse. An alternative might be that people are smart enough evolve capitalism into something else. In either case, I expect to be dead before either happens.
Yes. Which is why I accepted your previous correction and stated that what I should have said is communism doesnāt work as a system of government. It is an economic system but has been used, unsuccessfully, as government. The USSR declared itself to be communist as well as the natural successor of Marx. It purported to employ communist ideals but simply replaced one form of tyranny with another, using oppression to try to achieve its goals.
Do you think communism, as an economic system, could work with another, less totalitarian, form of government? Iām not sure the ideals of communism are even feasible without overall government control as an integral part, if it worked at all.
Communism is too complex. In a free market, there is an agreement between the employeer and the employee as to how much work is to be done and for what price. The employer hires employees that it can train and watch and ensure they are earning their pay. If they do not, they are fired.
The government has no ability at all to do such a thing. Everyone is a government employee. Who is going to watch whom? Who decides how much work is enough? Consider, for instance, the planning of a new railroad. Should it be built at all? If so, where? And how? There is no free market driving the need and no company trying to get a bigger share of the market or even get goods to the market. Is building the railroad more urgent than constructing a bridge, building a dam to produce electricity, developing oil fields, or cultivating more land? (How would the Government know any of this?) No central planner, even with a staff of statisticians, could master the countless possibilities. Machines might be substituted to some extent for labor; wood, aluminum, or new synthetic materials might be substituted for iron. But how will the planners decide? Businesses with specialties who want to expand, grow, and gain wealth are more than willing to do all the research required to make these gains.
To make decisions, planners must know the relative valuesāthe exchange ratios or market pricesāof the countless factors of production involved. But when these factors are government-owned, there are no trades, and thus, no market prices. Without market prices, the planners have no clues as to the relative values of iron, aluminum, lumber, the new synthetics, or of railroads, oil fields, farm land, power plants, bridges, or housing. Without market prices for the factors of production, the planners are at a loss as to how to coordinate and channel production to satisfy the most urgent needs of consumers.
The system is just so extremely complex to be centralized that it just has to end in disaster.
Agreed and well said. So you feel as I do that communism, as an ideal, is impossible to implement without an overseer and even then will, almost certainly, fail.
And then the matter of choice or preference.
A market offers goods. A variety within price and quality range - taste preference and nutritional value.
A government controlled system of product/goods productionā¦lol THAT would suck!
I mean really, really suck.
On a good day I certainly do. On a bad day I think human nature will not allow it.
I disagree with all of you. Sooner or later capitalist free markets has to give way to a more planned economy and economic system. We are already evolving towards socialism.
It would be a great improvement to put people before profits rather than the other way around. Putting profits before people is horrible and it is a core tenet of capitalism and the exploitation that defines it. We in the states see a tamped-down version because we reap the economic benefits of exploitation elsewhere in the world.
This may be so, part of social evolution and our technology - HOWEVER capitalism has played its part getting āus hereā, and itās not all bad. Most likely a form of capitalism will survive as part of a form of socialism.
I think capitalism is the ānaturalā step in evolution of human societies, absolutely! And maybe unfortunate that we could not leap forward to a better humanity. We went through fragmented tribal units, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. And because of the fragmented nature of our evolution, we speak all these different languages and have all these different religions and all these different nation/states that slow/stop us from moving forward to a better place where our productive capacity as well as our individual potentials could be fully realized.
no such animal, imo 
1 Like
Firstly, I think this graph is likely to be and exaggeration and biased and is based on how they define extreme poverty. It would seem that the expansion of the world population occured only for those NOT living in extreme poverty, or those living in extreme poverty are no longer in extreme poverty. Come on.
Secondly, even if this were true, what is the point? You know we put profits before people. The fact that our current global economic system smight be slowly improving the horrible living conditions for billions of people is a good thing but does not mean that the system is a good one. Even if everyone in the world had the US standard of living, it is not that great - we do not educate our people or attempt to bring out the best in human potential, and a large segment of the US population is economically struggling and has huge debt and no retirement to speak of. Capitalism will evolve and run its course and hopefully go to a better more equitable place.
And the reigning in of capitalist free markets and as you say āno such animalā is just a start.
Change and economic evolution will take decades and maybe even a few hundred years. And in the meantime we may destroy or fundamentally alter the planet and our ability to survive and thrive on it.