To ask how modern communism is supposed to work?

[CurrentBun1981]

I was randomly thinking about this today and realised that, whilst I understand the very basic principles (stereotypes?) of communism, I don't really understand much about how it really should work when implemented 'properly' (if this has ever happened).

Googling it seems to bring up a lot of heavy theory or alternatively just wishy washy Reddit discussions. I'm assuming that young intellectuals/students who advocate for it don't want a Chinese style 'democracy', so how would modern communism work in theory?

I've read that leaders are supposed to take up key (temporary) positions in running of the country during the transitional period but that in reality these leaders rarely relinquish their power and just become dictators as seen historically.

Aside from that, why would anybody want to do the really grim, dirty or backbreaking jobs if they didn't have to? Who would do the really high stress/high risk jobs without any financial compensation? I read a discussion on it where a poster explained that people work for three main reasons - job satisfaction, societal duty, and the need for provisions/sustenance. He said that with Communism it's never the third reason and loads of people upvoted him.

A few people questioned this and the general reply was something about community pressure making people fall in line. I think this sounds bonkers and would never work in reality, much like what I've read about anarchy and communities policing themselves.

This is where it falls down for me. I mainly do my job for financial compensation. I'm well educated but moved from office to technical work as I also find offices boring. Would my 'appropriate role' be allocated based on my academic qualifications (which I no longer use) or watch want to do?

Also, I'm likely a bit mixed up with it all, but what do 'anti capitalists' want instead? Like all the Antifa protestors you see at rallies.

or watch want to do should be what I want to do.

“In fact, the closest example to a communist-style central planning is the UK NHS.”
If by closest you mean nowhere near communist style central planning. The U.K. NHS is no different from any service funded by taxation- military, police, fire, trash/rubbish collection, etc.
In the US you have the TriCare, VA, Medicare and Medicaid that operate just like the NHS only for select segments of the population.

Posters are generally confusing things by referring to European countries as “social democracies” that’s completely different to whether a country is capitalist or communist. All of Europe is capitalist and no where are they nearer to communism than the US.

Most little communes failed too. I don’t know of any that lasted beyond a generation. But am open to hearing about any? Communes that were not also cults of course....

So what is considered the main alternative to capitalist society?

All these concepts about 'people working to fulfil their role in society' seem like they'd be a ridiculous proposition to any sane logical person.

It's never worked anywhere at any time, why do you think it would work now?

It's worked perfectly well on Israeli kibbutzes for decades.

So, all the activist student types are basically just as bonkers as they come across it seems.

I usually try and educate myself on other viewpoints before dismissing them. Usually there is some logic there if you look at the idealised outcome but I just fundamentally disagree with it. However, I can't see how communism would ever work in most of the Western world.

I've come across quite a few Antifa, anarchic feminists, anti-capatalists so thought they can't all be raving mad but I still don't really understand what they're proposing.

Perhaps like the Nordic model.

Because in theory it sounds great if you haven't actually lived it,experienced it or suffered the effects of it.

Also I think it should be mentioned that it's NEVER the lowest common denominator the majority aims for, like mud huts,no electricity ,horse and cart, working the fields etc. Somehow they believe their level of comfort and wants are the "ideal".

I somehow doubt they'd happily give up what THEY have in order to level the playing field or being decided for them what they can or can't buy, being on the waiting list for a fridge etc.

So, all the activist student types are basically just as bonkers as they come across it seems.

Any of them living in a hovel, working two jobs just to make ends meet? Any of them lived in poverty or with chaotic home lives, wondering where the next meal might come from? Any of them fully supporting themselves? Any of them rejecting the comforts and tech of the capitalist world?

"So china and north korea are not actually communist at all. They are totalitarian dictatorships." Exactly

Not that I think communism can work. As others have said human nature would work against it, but I'm not sure it's ever been tried in a whole country.

Ideally its meant to go the same way as Anarchism, but with more in between stages. End result would be no state or class inequality in theory. It really is a very different thing to socialism.

Some writers described Britain during world war 2 as a successful model of western communism.

You’re not really in the right place for a sensible discussion about this. :)
To answer your question about how the dirty or dangerous jobs could get done though, there’s various options - shorter hours is an obvious one. Community service, where everyone has to take some time out to do the less appealing stuff is another.

Wasn’t it supposed to be some kind of communism in The Beach, the DiCaprio movie set in Thailand? Well, that ended well...

When people in western democracies argue for communism (and socialism to a large extent), they are really just trying to be different, more enlightened, trying to show a moral purpose - bored basically, but too stupid to do anything useful with their time to benefit humanity.
The same people who enjoy all the privileges brought about free market capitalism and a few taking all the risks to bring about progress over the centuries. Yes, free markets have their flaws but how else does enterprise flourish and encourage people to create wealth which in turn funds R&D, find healthcare solutions, produce tech advancement. It honestly amazes me that people sit their protected by a society funded by enterprise of others, using their smartphones lecturing others on the virtues of communism or even socialism. The mind absolutely boggles.

sst1234 We don't really get a choice, funnily enough their isn't a 'socialist' iPhone you can buy and we have to live with the grinding poverty, misery of endless working hours and huge housing costs because of that sort of zealotry.

You don't have to want to live in a bloody cave to want to improve society. We want a society in which everybody can afford to keep a decent phone, house and working life. No idea how that would effect 'enterprise'. Social welfare was actually brought in originally so as to act as a safety net to those who to take risks on enterprise.

Or are you going to argue neoliberalism is working? record periods of wage stagnations, living cost rises, working hours and mental health issues.

“It's worked perfectly well on Israeli kibbutzes for decades.”

Only if you discount the oppression of women....
“As a secular and democratic community, the kibbutz—first founded in 1910—strove to implement egalitarian principles as expressed in the slogan: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In addition, from the 1920s on, due to kibbutz women’s collective action, gender equality became part and parcel of the kibbutz movement’s normative discourse, a kind of “self-understood symbol of this classless society” (Bernstein, 1992; Fogiel-Bijaoui, 1992; Izraeli, 1992; Near, 1992; Reinharz, 1992).

Nearly a century later, however, the kibbutz is strongly marked by social and economic stratification; privatization—i.e., transfer of functions from the community to the individual and the family—is in process, while the introduction of differential remunerations for work may give a decisive coup de grace to the egalitarian ideology (Topel, 1995; Ben Rafael, 1997; Achouch, 2000; Ben-Rafael, Topel, 2003, Avrahami, 2002). Moreover, it appears that the kibbutz today—more than ever in the past—is a gendered, male-oriented and male-dominated community(Palgi et al. 1983; Palgi and Adar, 1997; Zamir, 1999; Adar, 2002; Lieblich, 2002).”
jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/kibbutz

Of course capitalism is working. You may not see much wealth increase if you’re already in one of the richest countries on the planet. But the impact globally proves that it provides the greater good to the most needy. Think on the following facts. Do you still think your complaints still deserve the lion’s share of resources?

-Hunger: Of the 23.3% of people recorded as being undernourished between 1990–1992, only 12.9% now remain.
-Extreme Poverty: Northern Africa even reached the target of halving extreme poverty five years ahead of the deadline in 2010. Today, only 1% of people still live on less than $1.25 a day. This number has fallen from 5% in 1990.”
-Basic Education: Enrolment in primary education in developing countries has reached 91% and has achieved gender equality. Today there are many more girls enrolled in education than in 1990 while the average number of women in parliaments across the world has doubled.
Child Deaths: The mortality rate of children under five has been cut in half since 1990
Maternal Death: Back in 1990 only 59% of births were tended to by a skilled health person. In 2014 that figure had risen to almost 75% meaning maternal mortality was 45% less likely.
Drinking Water: 2.6 billion people have gained access to safe drinking water since 1990
Digital Divide: Internet penetration has grown from 6% of the world’s population in 2000 to 43% in 2015. This means that there are now 3.2 billion people with access to the internet.

Capitalism is working whilst going into yet another fucking recession, with out of control rent, whilst young people cant afford houses, people in full time work cant afford to eat. Perhaps they should have been born to the right parents I suppose.

I'll stop using fancy stuff ( I don't already really) when you stop using schools, healthcare and putting your bin out.

up to 30% child poverty in 'one of the richest nations on earth'. Who has that wealth?

“Britain during world war 2 as a successful model of western communism.”

That would be an interesting thing to read. How did the writers explain the obvious existence of class and class differences that existed in WWII Britain when communism requires a class-less society?
Your class pretty much determined what you could do as part of the war effort.

Communism is all about who owns what. Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. There is personal property; your house, your car, and public property. You cannot own someone else's house. Neither can you employ anyone, but you can work for yourself, and maybe together with your family.

The problem comes with larger enterprises. In theory, these could be co-operatives or mutuals, but state control rarely works well.

Yes but how is that more important than ensuring other humans get the basics needed to simply survive?
And how would communism do any better? Every time it has been tried millions have died from genocide and starvation. If you think communism can solve recessions, high rent or high property costs you are much mistaken.
As for poverty, the majority of people in communist states are in poverty. 30% is not ideal and of course we should keep reducing it. But communism would turn that 30% to 99%.