• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think a big misconception on your own part is that Communism would put a ceiling on people. It would, perhaps, in the sense that it wouldn’t let people lord over others, but it would absolutely not prevent people from working to improve their own material conditions. In fact, that’s one of the base assumptions made by Marx when proposing a Communist system!

    The goal is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, where you can get what you need from what you can give. It isn’t a society where everyone lives in a 700 Sq ft 2 bedroom apartment made of concrete, it’s a complex system meant to be built up towards, that would allow people to work on whatever they want and get whatever they want by working for it, as long as what they want isn’t a business to lord over people.

    • StellarExtract@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Thanks, I guess it’s the “get whatever they want” part that doesn’t make much sense to me. What if what I want is astronomical, and I want to get it by doing as little work as possible? Who says whether I can or can’t have it?

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        What’s an example? A gigantic mansion? You’d probably have to build that yourself, society likely can’t prop up everyone who wants a mansion, but if you build it yourself it would probably be seen as fine.

        Again, Communism is an extremely democratic form of economic organization, so if the community deems it necessary to give you a mansion and has the Means to do so, then it can happen.

        Communism is a far-future society, however, which is why Socialism is more known about and defined. Socialism however still has issues like having a state at all, so it’s not the end of history either.

        • StellarExtract@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Interesting, thanks. I guess a major element in how feasible that would be is in the administrative structure a community would use in deciding who gets what materials. Obviously if it’s a representative democracy, there’s huge incentive for corruption of the representatives if they have absolute control of who gets what. Wouldn’t this be considered a state, though? I guess statelessness is another aspect that doesn’t make much sense to me.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It can’t just poof into existence. The job of a Socialist state would be to build up the productive forces and create the frameworks for such a society to use after the state whithers away, so to speak.

            • StellarExtract@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              So the specifics of how a community would allocate resources without there being a state is considered more of an open question, then?

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Among Socialists, yes. Among Anarchists, no, as they seek to directly implement their goal from ground zero. Marxists tend to disagree with this as impractical, but there is a ton of developed Anarchist theory, specifically Anarcho-Communist theory, that goes over how society would be laid out. Usually via networks of Mutual Aid and Direct Democracy.