As far as i know, communism from an origin and tought as it on the theoretical plane has TWO Big problems and those are:

  1. Comunism tends to not know what actually is needed to produce

in a capital-less society, being, on this ideal no money, nobody can't really say what its needed, when, and how, hey maybe democracy can do a rough equivalent to that BUT not as good,decentralized and acurate as money itself.

  1. Comunism has a problem on incentives

Incentives, can be divided into by benefit,you can get something by doing other stuff, or you do that other stuff in hopes of avoiding a not so agradable scenario.

The thing is that communism, being a stateless, and buisnessless society on its end goal, only has to incentives, happy chemicals for doing something, its a matter that fullfils you or you directly need or social pressure, either good or bad, there is no other ,mostly, third way.

So I want to know wether how could it work in a modern,globalized society and how those two problems can be solved or not and on the how of the posible solution.

Btw, I want to know if im being rude or something,and my english is not that good but im genuinelly curious about how the left can solve these problems.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Rather than imagining jumping straight into communism directly, let's look at what it would mean to move towards it gradually.

Right now, people have to work in order to provide the basic necessities of life, like food and housing. However, suppose the state provides those things at little or no cost, without changing anything else. The profit motive still exists, and people work for pretty much the same reasons as before. If you want to buy a big TV, video games, a boat, whatever, you have to work for it. Money still exists, and is still valuable, but it's not essential.

Suppose I'm in a relationship I'm unhappy in, but I feel the need to stay together because of rent. If rent is no longer a concern, then I'm now more free to decide who to date based on things other than money. Then, someone who might otherwise be focused on money as a way of attracting a partner, might try to appeal to them in other ways, by showing off physical fitness, creativity and artistic skill, education, etc. Then, perhaps a company appeals to that person by offering a way to develop skills, rather than just money.

To use a fictional example, in Star Trek, everyone's basic material needs are met, but you still have groups like the Ferengi who are focused on profits and money, which is often used for rare goods and collectibles. Many people don't seem to have much use for it. While money still exists, it's not really the same as we think of money today, because the things it's used for are so much more limited.

Of course, we can't just abolish money overnight, but what we can do is work towards a world people are free to act on motives other than making money. And future generations growing up in a world where money isn't essential might look at it in a completely different way than we can even imagine.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Where does the state get its limitless income from to house and feed everyone?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago

    Through taxes, obviously.

    Don't act like it's impossible. In the USSR, rent amounted to about 3% of people's incomes. This was true even relatively early on. And even Ancient Rome had a grain dole.

    It's amazing that anyone could look at the level of productivity we have today in comparison to history and think that such things are impossible.

  • source
  • parent