Rantman

20

I've been thinking more about democratic communism. I'm surprised that not one country has even pretended to try and make it work. Why can't democracy, a political system, run simultaneously with communism, an economic system? Isn't China a communist-party-led capitalist country? Then let's just switch that around.

The main reason for the failure of communism is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fact that the state starts controlling factors of productions and redistributing wealth gives so much power to the one at the top, that he sees no reason to pursue communistic ideals when he could live like a dictator king. Even if some Marxist leader does stick to communist ideals, the executives under him would fall to corruption, for as wealth is transferring from the hands of businessmen to states to people, workers in the states are bound to keep a disproportionate share for themselves, for the people are powerless.

Like we had the Napoleon code for law, and Adam Smith for free markets, we need a revolutionary guide for communism, with a focus on politics run by fallible humans. The reason Karl Marx's theories weren't enough is because communism doesn't have checks for power, unlike democracy. A expert's guide for democratic communism must focus on the political aspect to make the economic aspect work in the first place. Alas, it doesn't seem that any economist/political scientist really wants to give it a try...

Now, how would democratic communism even work? But first let me ask you, does the constitution of any democratic country say that it is explicitly devoted to capitalism? It doesn't, but we stick to it. In this fictious country, our constitution would explicitly demand dedication to the communistic ideal of equality and the right to live. Right to live even if they don't work, because our survival can be ensured with a working population of 5 percent, if we utilize our technological advancements to their full potential. Working for survival should have long ago become a base thing. Work should be done for passion, for fun, or to escape boredom. Like it is for the elite. Not to put food on the table by selling your soul, free will and 75% of your day's awake time.

Notice I don't mention liberty for all here. Citing Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari, there is a tradeoff between equality and liberty. You can't ensure everyone lives similar lives without infringing on the liberty of the rich to enjoy their property, fairly or unfairly earned. Taxes itself are a sort of infringement on liberty, as the government is spending a percentage of your money by its own will. Yet it is done in our own welfare, which ties in with equality. In a communist country, we simply can't give the kind of gross liberty capitalists give to the rich. You are not allowed to have the kind of wealth to buy RoyceRoyce and Lamborgine Macheene and helicopters and mansions while even a single person starves in this country. Sorry not sorry. Was MLK a communist? Is this what he meant by saying 'injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere?' From what angle is the existence of a market for extravagant wasteful luxuries justified when there are still citizens of your country who don't meet the poverty line? According to me, curtailing the freedoms of a few is alright to better the welfare of a great many. Its not like we are sending them to jail, they'll just live as normal upper class citizens and have a few zeroes lesser to their net worth, which will still give entrepreneurs a pretty decent standard of living.

Entrepreneurs would operate on profit-variable but fixed salaries. Percentage based profit margins in large organizations are a form of inefficiency. More on this in the next chapter.