If you want communism, you can start a commune
I see this way too often here on Lemmy, so I want to post this. Starting a commune is legal in most countries. If you believe in communism, you can found a commune and show us all how great it is.
You lack money? Well, that is literally what stock markets and venture capitalists (capitalism) are created to solve. If you are ready for an IPO, you can sell shares to raise funds. If you are not, you can get Venture Capital in exchange for shares until you are ready for an IPO.
Getting rid of capitalism means you need to find a different way to obtain funding for new ventures. And if your system relies on government charity (some government board handing you money) or taking resources violently, than your system sucks.
Edit: I don't mean that this is a replacement for full communist system. I mean this as a way to get some of the advantages while showing sceptics (like me) it can work and is better. A first step.
Yep. That's a real shit post
I haven't seen a true shitpost in a while. This one is great lol
Ah yes, the core definition of communism: a small farm offering a delusion of independence, which is run within a capitalist system.
Maybe I should have specified, I don't mean it is the same as full communism. But is a way to get large part of the advantages and build support (by showing others it works and its advantages).
How do you feel about capitalism using violence to maintain itself?
Depends what you mean maintain itself. From real outside threats, I don't see an issue. If you mean from people fairly competing or peacefully changing it from the inside, I feel the same way as any other unjustified violence.
Everyone's boss fairly gives a paycheck while moving all the profits upward, whilst we all live under the threat that is our resume is empty for long enough we will starve and die on the street. Cool stuff.
Where the hell do you live that starving to death due to a resume gap is a concern?
PS: I just realized how ironic it is to call capitalists out for starving people who disagree with them.
If I can't work? I don't eat
Must suck where you live. Especially if a resume gap = can't work
K
Did you just suggest selling the means of production to the bourgeoisie to fund a commune? I... what?
No, I am saying that getting funding for new businesses is a necessary part of any economic system. It is clear to me how that works under capitalism. I have never seen a sane explanation on how that would work in democratic communism.
Ah, see, that's a different question than how you get funding under communism under capitalism.
So what is the difference? How does it work under communism? Some planning committee? So when someone wants to make an independent news broadcast, episode of South Park, or Fuck the government T-Shirt, they need to ask the government committee?
What about more serious things like abortion pills, anti-conception, hormone therapy for transgender people, a religious symbol? You want to entrust almost every aspect of your life (everything you can get in exchange for your work) to a committee?
You'd rather entrust almost every aspect of your live to the benevolence of some people that do not have any oversight by the populous that they have power over by the means of controlling the capital?
I trust the greed of rich people. If people are willing to pay for something, at least some will invest in it to profit off of it.
Also, unlike with a committee, I don't need a majority of them to do so. That's the advantage of the capitalistic solution, you don't really need much trust.
There is one problem with this: what's profitable and what's beneficial for society do not necessarily align.
Am I saying that we should give corporations a free run of the country? No, we should legislate them until they look like a models of virtue comparatively to now.
But the smart way to do it is to align their greed with our interests. As an example, creating a carbon tax is much better then government trying to implements specific green initiatives. The corporate greed will find efficient and innovative way to reduce emissions compared to the heavy handed and inefficient regulations the governments do.
If that is not possible, then just legislate them normally. Or even make a government run/funded competitors. In Slovak republic, insurance companies are private except one that is government run and serves as a lowest bar that others have to compete with.
Let corporations do what they do best, which is optimizing the economy and let governments regulate what needs to be regulated.
One example where that doesn't seem to work is public infrastructure. There is just no way to make this profitable and simultaneously provide a service that actually meets the needs of the public in terms of availability and price.
Did I say it always worked? IMO USA is definitely too capitalistic right now. There are things like healthcare, utilities, emergency services, infrastructure and many more that are better of government run (or as mentioned above, at least have government compete), either because it is impractical to have real competition in these areas or because they are so important it is better for them to be inefficient than cutting corners.
But making the leap from this to communism is ridiculous IMO. Gradual improvements to the system that we know works because we live in it is the way to go.
Socialism light? There's a beginning point somewhere.
Sure, if you want to call it that. I like managed capitalism, since it captures that you should regulate what needs to be regulated and not more.
I'm not well read enough on communism to know smart people's ideas there, but the way I see it it gives room for any system of experimentation the people want. Maybe you pitch your idea to the government instead of investors, and they give you resources. In a system with small markets, you can start in the market and, if it does well, get upgraded to governments operated. "Communism" doesn't mean one thing, and there's a lot of room for variety, do we could we decide to try one of these systems but then switch to another, allowing better adaptation than capitalism where profit is the only way.
I take hormone therapy for transgender people (hi, I am transgender people) and I'm already at the whims of the government. Perhaps a communist government might not make it free for me if the political climate said no, but as long as it's not outright banned and there is some alternate system to the government's plan, I could still get it. That's not far off where I am now, actually (Florida). Perhaps we could write this sort of going around other government to some degree (perhaps by small market) into the constitution as a layer of safety.
I've been saying "let the government do [x]" a lot, and if you're from a neoliberal country you might have heard "excessive bureaucracy", but that's a result of capitalism ruining your government. Government doesn't have to be bad, nor even a monolith. Most forms of communism I've heard of have multiple levels, from committees covering broad country-level goals to committees on local-level details, each level getting a fair degree of autonomy. But also, you can talk to or even get on the committees! They're made of citizens like you, and with no corporate interests or lobbying!
First of all, thank you for a sensible and pleasant reply. It really is a breath of fresh air in here :)
I think the small markets only go so far. Many things in a modern economy don't work well on a small scale. This is actually where many of the worst examples of capitalism come from too. With high barriers to entry into areas like mobile phones, medicine, social networks, utilities etc. some companies become near monopolies. But as you say, various solutions could be tried.
Another issue I can see is the difficulty of ensuring power is not too concentrated in a small group of people. But again, various things could be tried and capitalism has these issues to a lesser extent as well.
That is, if we have more than one try... The thing that concerns me most is how to try them out without driving the economy off a cliff and without violence. If we could try these systems on a smaller scale next to capitalism, than I am all for it, lets experiment. But most people here talk about a revolution or confiscating all wealth above a threshold (dismantling the capitalist system). If this is really the only way to try communism, then I think it is much more sensible to work on gradually improving capitalism instead. There are capitalist countries that are very nice to live in (like the Nordics, Switzerland, Netherlands, ...). So we know this is possible and even more or less how to get there.
Seizing the means of production and putting it in the ownership of the workers will, realistically, require revolution or damn well near it. But, workers owning their work doesn't require an end to our current markets. We can keep them mostly as is, besides, of course, the rich and powerful people who currently do no work and just "own" things. From that state, it can be a more gradual transition.
If you think this, you are likely severely underestimating how important modern financial markets are to doing anything. You redistribute the wealth suddenly enough and I expect the great depression will seem like nostalgic good times.
More importantly, is the difference between what we know is possible without a revolution (countries I listed above) so much worse than communism it would be worth the lives lost in a revolution? I don't see it.
Plenty of people die daily in first-world countries that could have been saved in a different economic system, because saving them was not profitable. Even more die elsewhere, where the first-world countries have outsourced a lot of their miserable jobs. Cobalt mines in the Congo, used for certain lithium-ion battery chemistries for instance, have terrible working conditions and child labor. Another example is climate change: how many people will die this century from famine and water scarcity caused by a changing climate? Externalities don't factor into capitalist profits, and the governments are usually under their control so they'll just pay lip service to action or very slowly and reluctantly enact regulation.
Revolution is a one-time cost. It'll suck, I hate it, but it seems to me like it'd be worth it in the long run. I'd also love to avoid revolution entirely, but that threatens capitalist profit so I really doubt governments (again, controlled by the interests of capitalists) will make it easy.
Another thing worth noting: revolution doesn't mean financial markets have to immediately change. Companies can still act capitalist (at the start), they'd just be controlled by the workers now. Once workers own everything, and government infrastructure is set up to facilitate the sort of democracy and management communism would need, we can phase in changes. With control of the government, there could also be subsidies set up to help stabilize the market during transitions; for the US at least, there's about ~$700 billion/year for the military as it stands, that seems like a sizeable fund to pinch from for such subsidies in the short term.
First of all, look at your government, your elections and tell me people will vote for sacrificing their comforts to preserve ecology under any democratic system....
Second of all, the global GDP per capita is $12.688. That is yearly. So after you redistribute the world wealth equally, you get $1057 before tax, capital investment and capital amortization monthly. The issue isn't really the economic system, it is that there isn't enough for 8 billion people to live comfortably.
Next, financial markets require investment money and traders with education and experience. You are really expecting the people whose fortunes you have taken and shot at during your revolution to keep running your financial markets? And run them in your best interests?
Finally, the same polarization that prevents a democratic change would prevent a violent one. Have you seen the US military? No amount of pitchforks and handguns is defeating that. Unless you convince most of the population to support you, you are doomed to fail. And if you do convince them, why do you need a revolution instead of an election?
I'd imagine it works the same as it does under capitalism but instead of pitching to a set of private investors the investment decisions are made... Democratically?
https://lemmy.world/comment/9668312
Well that's 9 iq points I'm never getting back
Yes, I wish I'd ignored this thread altogether.
🤣
*then your system sucks
Am I blind and don't see a typo?
Or are you disputing that resorting to violence or relying on the govt. for basic entrepreneurship is bad?
If you want socialism, you start a social.
If you want capitalism, you start a capital.
You're late, someone already commented this 😆
overall, i rate this post lmao/10. I wish i thought it was a joke.
Remember, OP: you are not immune to propoganda
I know I am not. But I am an engineer, so I am able to tell apart a workable plan and wishful thinking. I have never heard anything but wishful thinking from communism proponents. I know that does not mean a workable plan does not exist but I tend to not believe in things I see no evidence of.
I don't think being an engineer makes you qualified in economics, politics, or sociology.
Can confirm. As an engineer I'm an absolute dumbass when it comes to advanced economics.
Sure, I don't claim it does. But it makes me skilled enough to identify when a proposal is missing large parts that are needed to implement it.
Giving you a real answer, there are many barriers stopping people from making communes in capitalist nations. There are problems with land and property ownership, financial integration with the capitalist system, taxes, and pressures from anti-communists.
Communist nations, as compared to small local communes, have the advantage when it comes to resource allocation, bureaucracy, and stability due to scale.
Basically, starting a small commune isn't really that practical when you're surrounded by capitalism on all sides, and isn't really what people mean when they talk about a communist society. You can't really have the labor distribution, property, or means of production structures Marxists talk about without a central government at the scale of a nation.
Then does the nation have to be a certain size? There are plenty of micronations in the world. Tuvalu has only around 12,000 people. Does socialism not work in such nations? What about nations with 5 million people? What is the minimum?
As for taxes, what is the issue there? Surely even in communism, you would have to give some portion of production to the government to build infrastructure, run emergency services etc.
Wouldn't financial integration be an issue on international level if it is an issue on inter-company level? (PS: what even is the issue? Is it just being uncompetitive?)
And what is the issue with land and property ownership? Do you mean you can't seize them by force or do you mean it can't be collectively owned? Because I am not a lawyer but I think you can own stuff collectively if you write your contracts and documents correctly.
PS: As for anticommunists interfering with your business, there is actually a law against it.
The size of a nation doesn't inherently determine the success of socialism. There have been historical examples of relatively small nations with socialist-inspired policies and economic structures that achieved positive outcomes. I was moreso making the point that nations are different from communes existing within capitalist nations on a variety of levels.
Socialist principles can be applied at different scales. Micronations and small nations can focus on social programs, resource distribution, worker-ownership, etc., regardless of their size.
For taxes, while infrastructure and services are vital, a truly communist system wouldn't depend on taxation in the traditional sense. The idea is for the community to directly produce the goods and services it needs. Again, this runs into conflict when a commune needs to exist in a capitalist framework.
Commune members would contribute their labor and skills, and in return, directly receive what they need. This minimizes the need for a complex tax system as seen in capitalist societies.
Regarding financial integration, a communist system wouldn't rely on traditional capitalist financial models focused on competition. Trade and international exchange would likely be based on cooperation and needs fulfillment instead of pure profit motives.
The challenge lies in managing the complexity of large-scale bartering or exchange systems on an international level, but it's not necessarily impossible. For a small commune in a capitalist nation, though, I can't see that ever happening.
For land, the issue isn't about violently seizing property, but rather transforming the concept of ownership itself. In a communist model, the means of production would be collectively owned by the community.
For the legal stuff: you're right! Legal structures exist to support collective ownership (co-ops, land trusts, etc.). The issue is how those structures interact with a dominant capitalist system and its legal frameworks.
For anticommunist interference, yes it is illegal but when has that ever stopped anyone from harassing their political opponents?
Hope that answers most of your questions!
Ok, so its not size that is the issue.
Yes, I get that is the point you want to make but I am inclined to not believe you, since it sounds way too convenient. "I can't show you a small scale proof of concepts because evil capitalism exists." So my question is, what exactly are the issues? Concrete examples.
Ok sure, but that does not prevent a commune from existing. If it can produce enough economic value, it does not matter if it builds infrastructure itself or pays taxes. Just treat the commune like a micro-nation that can't produce firetrucks and bulldozers and has to obtain them from abroad by bartering using money as the medium.
Why? International trade is already pretty much barter facilitated by money. Why couldn't a commune treat the surrounding system the same as a foreign nation from trade perspective?
So a communist nation can't peacefully coexist and cooperate with any other system? Doesn't sound very robust.
What exactly? What laws would we need to change to make this possible?
Sure, it can't stop it but it can limit it. Again, if your system falls apart due to little push back, its not a very robust system.
OP, if there was a viable way of making communism work, some one would have done it already. And inb4 if external pressure and/or internal grinding makes your system collapse, then it does not work
The thing is, it can only ever work if it is chosen voluntarily by every participant, and it requires that everyone be committed to relentlessly work on themselves to root out their own selfishness.
Marx was right in the sense that humans are by nature selfish, but but he was wrong in thinking that selfishness could be abolished by force. What past experiments have shown is that if communism is violently imposed (i.e. via revolution), people will just find other ways to be selfish. For instance, if hoarding wealth is impossible, but everyone’s income is guaranteed no matter what, people will simply try to find ways to work as little as possible.
There IS an example for where communism DOES work BTW, and that’s functional, healthy families. Think about it: since children are naturally weaker than adults, parents do have to work harder in order to provide them with food and education, but as the parents grow older and weaker, the children become stronger and more capable, so they can provide for their parents in their old age. It really is from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
I mean, that is kinda my stance.
On the other hand, I am always open to being proven wrong.
That's the thing, and it's by design: you can't begin to imagine anything different. Maybe this will help?
https://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm
Ok, can you please point me to a chapter where the actual economic mechanism proposed are described? Can't quickly find it there.
Go read Karl Marx, beginning with Capital and The Communist Manifesto. Neither are long reads, and I should reread them myself, when I get a breather and my brain isn't mush.
I could do a million things more productive with my time than reading whole paragraphs of tautologies. This is literally beyond obvious. Either point me to some concrete plans on how a communist economy would work or don't, but I am not reading a book worth of this.
This isn't McDonald's and I'm not your oncall personal spoon feeder.
Then don't complain about me assuming you are either too dumb or too uneducated to understand why empty words like those and your wishful thinking can't result in a functional governing/economic system.
You're making claims about a subject you are not an expert in, and refusing to read any literature on the subject.
You shouldn't be calling others dumb or uneducated.
But also Capital is written that way to preempt arguments; it's an academic work. His other works only suffer from 3 page long sentences that require significant contextual and historical knowledge of mid 1800s europe.
Lenin is an easier place to start.
I unfortunately don't have unlimited time, so I am forced to refuse to read books that are unlikely to be relevant.
Then maybe can you point to a work that does not assume an 1800s economy? Also, Marxism was tried already by the Bolsheviks. It failed horribly. If there were no improvements made since, what is the point? While I like the scientific method, I am certainly not willing to try the same thing again and see if just as many people die a second time.
I am not interested in being expert on communist history, I am interested in examining any modern plan to see if I can see issues in it or if it looks like it could work and is worth supporting.
Capitalism kills far more people, by design. While the famine in the USSR was due to wide-spread drought, the famine that would kill millions in Bengal a few years later was entirely man-made.
You cannot understand present society, let alone have a model that can predict future developments with any reliability if you don't learn history.
But if you want to understand economics, you're gonna have to read a book on economics.
Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism is good if you're more interested in higher-level detail than Marx talking about linen.
State and Revolution is more history and provides analysis of communist projects.
I do wonder if a Communist country will just send me money...
Larping lol. Communism can't work so people can pretend it does
Putting the shit on shitpost, in a very unique way. I wish this was sarcasm.