Rantman

2

Ah yes, what better way to start off than with some good old communism?

Its ironic how an ideology that is supposed to advocate for a classless, stateless, equitable society degenerates into power-hungry dictatorships and authoritarian states when applied in the practical world.

I won't pretend to know even a thing about real communism, the fact is my understanding has perhaps diverged too far away from what is witnessed in the real world. But anyways, I'll still try to show you this utopia I dream of, which could have been much better than the capitalistic jail we are trapped in.

One thing I don't get about communism is the abolishment of private property and emphasis on state ownership, when ideally communism is supposed to be a stateless system? Private property can never be abolished, only redistributed. Its not the state, but the people who need own the factors of production, in order for communism to achieve its goal of helping the 'proletariat' (common people/workforce).

In case you are wondering, examples of this form of co-operative ownership have been seen in real life already. The co-operative organisation model exists even in capitalistic societies, such as Amul with its 3.6 million owners, and having multiple numerous owners is not something otherworldly. Even public companies are technically owned by a large number of shareholders, only that the degree of ownership is disproportionate among them, and successful large-scale entrepreneurship is perhaps rewarded far too excessively, creating the super-rich 1 percent.

Now this cooperative model may disincentive the entrepreneur if he has little to gain, but that isn't the case. The BOD of public companies receive a high enough salary to live in great luxury regardless of shares' ownership, and are paid higher than anyone else in their company. The intervention of state is required in transferring ownership from the hands of a few to the hands of the many, not to keep it with itself. Of course, this sounds unrealistic and practically impossible to execute, and it doesn't really happen.

The contrast between capitalism and communism is stark, and there is no wonder why one is more successful than the other. Capitalism operates on the basic instinct of human selfishness and individual gain, while communism require us to work collaboratively to benefit the entire community in an equal or fair manner. Is this a sign that our species hasn't simply evolved enough yet to work together for our own benefit? Perhaps there is an alien civilization out there, living as one nation and working to benefit the entire race rather than isolated groups.

Oh, and my dear communism haters, unbeknownst to yourself, you too have most likely participated in a very prevalent, basic form of communism, or communistic behavior. Yes, what is a better example of communism being successful, than the basic social structure of a family?!

Think about it. You share ownership of nearly everything with your cohabitants, you contribute in behaviors and activities that sometimes don't benefit you as much as benefiting your members, such as spending time teaching kids, buying gifts for each other, or providing financial, emotional and physical support. You even take care of and assist sick members for free, albeit with your limited capabilities. It is always 'our' house, 'our' car, 'our' money, at least in most ideal families, and if that isn't the basis of true communism I don't know what it is.

Efficiency and maximizing output is simply isn't the goal of communism, maximizing standard of living for maximum number of people is. It irritates me when communism and capitalism are compared on production and efficiency metrics, these simply aren't the ultimate goals of communism, and some inefficiency is bound to be present. Just like monopolies, duopolies and informal cartels present in capitalistic society, communist business may not operate at optimal efficiency either, at least in the start.

Communism can never replace capitalism on a national level instantly. For one, it requires the upheaval of an entire system that people have been used to for generations, and communism already lacks trust from most of the masses. Devising and implementing new systems are bound to have many glitches in the start, and from a nationwide scale, its practically impossible to execute, oversee and monitor. Not to mention humans simply don't have the empathy to treat everyone as a global/national/state-level family.

How I see it being done is a trial program being run in small towns, neighborhoods and blocks, and property (specifically spare assets and business ownership) not going to the state but being redistributed amongst this small group known to each other. Let's see how far 'love thy neighbor' can actually be taken. Sort of a controlled social experiment, so to speak.

Additionally, a country that actually decides to pursue communism, must immediately seize and/or upgrade its domestic production of necessities, such as water, food, clothing, fuel and electricity, until it matches the demand of the population. This is because there will inevitably be a massive exodus of big companies and foreign capitalistic organisations, and while the state doesn't need to fulfill the entire gap, it does need to ensure there is no interruption in provision of essential and important services. Another reason why a localized experiment may have better results, since our community won't be completely ostracized from rest of the world.

I'm surprised that communistic regimes are often accompanied with authoritarianism and lack of free speech. There is no reason for free speech to be curtailed in communism, especially when you are supposed to be working for those speaking out against you. Communism will have dynamic systems of production and consumption that must be improved every single day to readdress grievances that did and didn't exist in capitalism. Most rebellion threats are due to lack of trust from the masses, which can be addressed through successful localized experiments and a government actively working for people like any public company does. Legal migration must remain open, though with reasonably staggered clearances, which would provide the government an incentive to strive to improve every concerning aspect of the state to satisfy its people and make them stay.

An army is made up of its people, and must absolutely not be used against it to retain power. That's dictatorship. Perhaps an army that decides on expeditions through vote, with an emphasis not on blindly following the orders of any general or the political party but on doing what's right, should help curtail chances of dictatorship. A quick vote can be ensured thru digital means, by having an app on army cellphones, which provides the soldiers with a voting option accompanied by a summarized but accurate briefing of the case. Though this doesn't sound realistic and ideal, now that I have written it...rebellion is rather problematic in communism. While a reasonable leader may retain power with usage of the military, the problem is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is only a matter of time before they utilize its powers against people raising genuine concerns and label it as 'dissent', and the communist government degenerates into a dictatorship.

The idea of a communistic democracy sounds appealing to me. Think about it, few leaders have ever outright toppled over capitalism. By having 'being committed and dedicated to developing, improving and retaining communistic systems' as a constitutional injunction for the leader, it may be possible to allow a change of leaders without undoing the entire system again. Though I would prefer some changes to democracy as well, it is also prudent to recognize that people are resistant to change, especially big changes like these, and the existence of one familiar system may make the implementation of an unfamiliar one (communism) more palatable.

I don't know whether all this is plausible or not, all I know is I want a better world, that all this inequality and injustice isn't right. I refuse to believe that the world I see is the way things are supposed to be. More than 2/3 of my country lives in poverty, and yet has some of the richest men of the world in it too. Inequality only rises along with time. I don't blame the rich for being rich, though perhaps they could have done more. But I can sure blame the system that has selfishness, endless mindless work and personal gain over the ideals of humanity, equity and welfare of the community at its core.