Define “worked”. 1930s Catalonia had a good run. So did anarchist Ukraine. Also: about the majority of the time humanity existed “worked” without private property, money and modern nation states.
I prefer our social democracy.
“Your” social democracy is most likely currently in the process of giving power to fascists (depends on where you live, exactly. But all of Europe for example is pretty much the boiling frog meme of turning fascist.), or preparing to start WW3.
If propaganda is your concern, communism relies on complete altruism of EVERYONE just to get off the ground. And then it is a free for all to who grabs power first and turns into a dictatorship…
And discussions comparing it other systems are useless, because people end up comparing a real system to the ideal theory of communism. Because it’s never worked.
If propaganda is your concern, communism relies on complete altruism of EVERYONE just to get off the ground.
Why would you think that? Communism doesn’t require “altruism”. Yes, the pro-social tendencies inherent in the species is supposed to be used for bringing humanity forward. But in the end, communism is focused on cooperation (rather than competition in capitalism). cooperation and altruism are different things.
And then it is a free for all to who grabs power first and turns into a dictatorship…
Nothing in communism implies that there can’t be guardrails against power grabs. Quite the contrary in anarcho-communism, in fact, where the socialeinstitutions are to be set up specifically to prevent these kinds of things.
And discussions comparing it other systems are useless, because people end up comparing a real system to the ideal theory of communism.
So? Why can’t you discuss systems in theory? I don’t really see the problem.
Because it’s never worked.
There have been ample historical and contemporary examples of “it” working. Socialism (i.e. worker ownership of the means of production) and communism (a stateless, moneyless society) has no precedent of collapsing due to internal conflicts. Only through external pressure.
And even if: Let’s say he first few attempts at conducting a liberal democracy have failed (not a historian, but it seems very likely that you could argue that was the case). Should humanity have abandoned the project of liberal democracy, then?
Define “worked”. 1930s Catalonia had a good run. So did anarchist Ukraine. Also: about the majority of the time humanity existed “worked” without private property, money and modern nation states.
“Your” social democracy is most likely currently in the process of giving power to fascists (depends on where you live, exactly. But all of Europe for example is pretty much the boiling frog meme of turning fascist.), or preparing to start WW3.
As I said: full of propaganda.
A good run? A few years?
If propaganda is your concern, communism relies on complete altruism of EVERYONE just to get off the ground. And then it is a free for all to who grabs power first and turns into a dictatorship…
And discussions comparing it other systems are useless, because people end up comparing a real system to the ideal theory of communism. Because it’s never worked.
Why would you think that? Communism doesn’t require “altruism”. Yes, the pro-social tendencies inherent in the species is supposed to be used for bringing humanity forward. But in the end, communism is focused on cooperation (rather than competition in capitalism). cooperation and altruism are different things.
I recommend this video if you’re actually interested what communism means instead of relying on strawmen
Nothing in communism implies that there can’t be guardrails against power grabs. Quite the contrary in anarcho-communism, in fact, where the socialeinstitutions are to be set up specifically to prevent these kinds of things.
So? Why can’t you discuss systems in theory? I don’t really see the problem.
There have been ample historical and contemporary examples of “it” working. Socialism (i.e. worker ownership of the means of production) and communism (a stateless, moneyless society) has no precedent of collapsing due to internal conflicts. Only through external pressure.
And even if: Let’s say he first few attempts at conducting a liberal democracy have failed (not a historian, but it seems very likely that you could argue that was the case). Should humanity have abandoned the project of liberal democracy, then?