Communes work. Some communes work very well... so communism should work?
Well, it might, if people were free to leave.
But with our current govern-cement policy to take up every space on earth, there is no place to leave to.
A commune usually works because of a very good leader. And when that leader dies or leaves, the commune collapses.
It is so difficult to talk about communism, because its rules are based on "the state". Where we have an overarching, controlling, govern-cement. Whatever be its name. Democracy, Capitalist, Communist, Socialist... And a state's main purpose is to impose control on its subjects.
So, in the future, there may be a group of people who get together to pool their resources. From each as his abilities and to each according to his needs. And it may work, as long as people are free to leave.
@kidsysco talked about this in the comment section here some.
Communes were what I was thinking about. They have always been relatively small and they do tend to be like you describe.
The problem with central planning and quotas is you have to have people in the central planning that pretty much know and understand every little nuance of their economy and environment. The more people and complexity you add into that the more of a genius you require at the central planning offices. In fact, you might consider that the population and complexity of a functional commune as being directly proportional to the knowledge and skill of those in the central planning office. As populations and complexity scale they eventually exceed the ability for central planning and things begin to go very wrong.
So I've seen communism work on a small scale, and on the larger scales there always seemed to be some LEADER (aka central planner) that when they were out of the picture the commune ceased to exist fairly rapidly.
So I don't know of any lasting cases and that might be why.
It is also why I believe communism has a scaling problem.
Communes where everyone is on board with the rules is a voluntary system. They are anarcho-syndicalists and that may work for some people with similar goals, backgrounds, and a shared ethos. But, it's beyond a scaling issue. That's not what everyone wants from life. And therefore different systems have to be allowed to flourish.
Building communist governments is an oxymoron. Anarchy can, however, take many forms with different rule sets, as long as the members are free to come and go based on freedom of association and honoring of agreements/contracts.
Yeah I've debated with Anarcho-Communists before telling them people could voluntarily build an ancom society inside of Anarcho-Capitalism but the reverse is NOT true. So Ancap could contain Ancom as long as it is voluntary, but Ancom cannot contain Ancap.
Exactly. But, most of my Progressive friends aren't even that sophisticated in their thinking. They are far too gone down the road of needing to control outcomes because of their personal fear of things not working they way they think in fair.
They simply cannot face the idea that what they want isn't what everyone else wants, or worse, should want.
I've noticed something. You are rarely going to witness someone change their mind WHILE you are having the discussion. That is very rare. However, you are planting seeds that they can think about over time. They are doing the same in you. It is very possible you DID convince them. It just takes time for that seed to sprout and grow.
So that is how I look at it. That makes me think it is worth the effort even if I don't see an immediate reaction.
I've seen someone who disagreed with me like you described that I debated with and nothing seemed to come of it. A year later I see him debating with some other people and he is where I was with him. So I did influence him, even though I didn't witness the transformation, I simply saw it later.
I can tell you that I've had that happen on dozens of occasions. Moreover, those watching the debate are usually swayed on the matter at hand more than the person you are arguing with.
And I never bring it up or say, "I told you so." I just note it, incorporate their new position with glee and move on.
The people I was referring to in my last comment I've been arguing these ideas for nearly two decades now and all that happens is either a 'I don't want to talk about this stuff' after they say stupid shit in my home or wait to pick the fight later with a new, more refined version of the old argument, which I skewer just as easily as before.
We're talking committed, Derrida/Foucault reading dyed-in-the-wool marxists here. They're not coming round until after the system crashes, if ever.
Yeah some people are intractable. They are locked into their paradigm and the only thing that causes a paradigm shift when someone is that LOCKED into how right they are is typically trauma, or some other shocking situation.
Beautiful.
Thank you for saying so.
My pleasure. What a beautiful world it would have been.
I think I agree that is does not scale well but can work really well in certain circumstances.
I also agree with everyone here, that people should be allowed to leave if it doesn't suit them.
This is why I posted the definition of Communism by Wikipedia. It does not say that subjects must stay or die. Some societies have CERTAINLY implemented that rule, punishable by death and I think it is terrible.
However, I think it is important to note, that to force it on people as such is not a defining part of communism, even though we see that a lot!
The problem today is that there often is no place to leave to. The world is covered and owned. Furthermore those advocating for communism ultimately want the entire planet that way. For the outside agencies still interact and do the same "evils" they are fighting.
ever read Marx where it started? It actually is. Wikipedia was likely written by someone who wanted you to think that. Yet in reality the movement advocates a lot of force.
a certain percentage of people are going to be either do-gooders or rent-seekers; in local communities, other people learn how these parasites operate, and stay away from them.
in large societies, the do-gooders and rent-seekers can organize and cover for each other (Comey -> Clinton); there isnt an informal social network that can pass the word on who is a scumbag and who isn't
This is why I always considered Anarcho-Communism to be an oxymoron.
In a anarchist world, people would be 100% free to form communist societies. AND free to leave them (which they would en masse, after a couple of months) :D