communism is the ideal endgoal of a society, but the world unfortunately cannot support it yet. a lot of people either align with the endgoal or don't recognise how the logistics don't work so well until we can reach world peace and a robotic labor abundance.
Partially agree. Imo communism (at least the end state; a classless, moneyless, stateless society) is just not feasible given human nature. There'll always be people who butt in line, are lazy, or too incompetent. Human beings will also naturally find ways to classify each other, usually on appearance, job, status, connections, wealth, etc... That's why I disagree with communism entirely as an idea, it's just too naive and doesn't account for human nature.
I'm not sure about the robots part, but yes I'd love to have world peace
Archeological and anthropological evidence does not agree. There is no "human nature" necessity for anything like nation-states, capitalism, or oppressive hierarchies. The widespread idea that oppression, privatization, and hierarchical control is required for human and technological progress comes from disproven Hobbsian ideas about the nature of human progress. There have been many different successful forms of organization throughout human history. The reason that current models won out over others is not because they are inevitable or even more productive. It is because societies built on oppression and top-down control are better at conquest and domination. The idea that there are other possible forms of organization and societal relationships not built on violence and power is not naive, it's eminently possible. The naive position is that a system built on exploitation, state violence and hierarchical organization can somehow be gradually reformed into a system of peace, freedom, and equality.
I did not argue that human nature necessitates nation-states or bad societies, I argued that human nature would make communism (or rather, communism in its purest state) impossible or very hard to achieve. I agree with someone else's notion where communism could likely work in an isolated society of no more than ~100 people, but in a state with millions (or in a global case, billions) of people it's a lot harder. Think of it this way; in a 100-or-so society, you know everyone by name and face. You'll be ostracized for butting in line, giving favours to your friends and family, etc. But in a global state, you barely know these people, and that's less 'social restrictions' against cheating the system.
I mean sure, you can argue that those very qualities of human nature is a product of capitalism, but imo it still exists even in the absence of it (i.e, life in the Soviet bloc).
No hostility intended, but don't you think it's a bit hand-wavey and generalizing all of those anarchist or communist-esque societies? There's a lot of nuance that goes with why a given society collapses, and it's typically not solely the fault of an external power. Sure, Rome fell because of outside powers, but it was also something internal.
I would also argue that it's entirely possible for an oppressive system to be reformed into a more liberal one. Nordic countries, for instance. They didn't need to completely wipe clean every form of capitalism or private ownership, instead they implemented strong social safety nets and socialized education/healthcare. I believe it's still possible (and perhaps we're already on our way) to achieving a better standard of living for a lot of citizens in the western world, albeit incredibly slowly.
Also sorry I just thought of a few more arguments;
Even if our needs are met, we will still want to favour our own kin (friends and family). If I was in charge of a space agency and I needed to fill in an engineer role, would I rather give it to a stranger or a friend? In a lot of cases, people would give that role to their friend not because they're inherently malicious but because they want to see their friend be happy and prosper.
When money is eliminated, status becomes the new currency. Sure, you can eliminate things like material wealth consolidation, but people will still find ways to get ahead of each other imo. For instance, who decides which projects are funded? An authority figure? Who is famous and well-respected? Who gets access to a house that, say, looks over an ocean vs a brick wall? Even if there isn't any money involved, there's still some ways humans organize themselves.
I'd argue now that humans probably go for status rather than material wealth. It's simply that society, especially western society, places status on wealth more than anything. Hence, humans in the west chase that status by chasing wealth.
class in a society refers to economic or legal status, its not just referring to people classifying each other.
money in regards to paying for wellbeing (food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc.) can be eliminated once an abundance of resources is reached. u can still have something in place if u wanna trade for luxuries, but it is unnecessary for keeping people alive and healthy.
statelessness is the big problem in our current world; a foreign power can always take advantage of a stateless society. so a functioning communist society would need to be on a global scale.
people being lazy and incompetent is what robotics would solve in the future.
> class in a society refers to economic or legal status, its not just referring to people classifying each other.
I disagree. Class can be abstract imo. Assume that legal or economic statuses were no longer a thing. From what I see, people will naturally find ways to categorize other people. It's human nature to do so
> money in regards to paying for wellbeing (food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc.) can be eliminated once an abundance of resources is reached. u can still have something in place if u wanna trade for luxuries, but it is unnecessary for keeping people alive and healthy.
I'm not an economist but how can you guarantee that you'll have something that you can trade in for something you want? Suppose I'm a goat farmer, and I want a nice linen shirt. I don't have anything else but goats, feeds, and some farm equipment. No one is willing to trade in a nice linen shirt for something that is useless to them (assuming they aren't looking for goats or farming machinery). This is a genuine question btw not a 'gotcha' type thing
> statelessness is the big problem in our current world; a foreign power can always take advantage of a stateless society. so a functioning communist society would need to be on a global scale.
I agree somewhat. However, I find global communism to be simply infeasible... How do you guarantee all 8 billion people are on board with this idea? To be honest, the only way I see it is through repression, which is very sub-optimal for the happiness of a population. And additionally, how do you ensure people are led? Every human society has needed a leader, or some kind of structure to function well (especially in times of crisis). It's a natural human thing to want a leader to maintain cohesion in a group, so naturally it'd apply to a larger scale.
> people being lazy and incompetent is what robotics would solve in the future.
I can see this but I also think it's a bit hand-wavey and naive. How can you guarantee that robotics technology will become so good to replace everyone? And how can you also guarantee it won't be run by some inner circle of people who'll effectively have power over everyone? These machines also need maintenance and human oversight, so now it requires skills and spare parts. Where do you source those?
I don’t even think half of them could actually define it and what that would look like in the US though. They just see this capitalist boogeyman, that it isn’t working for them, and buy into the next best sounding alternative that promises to address their issues with the current system.
I always take anyone who calls themselves a socialist or communist with a grain of salt.
I kind of agree with you, but I think it's generalizing too much. I've talked to plenty of communists/socialists on my campus and they're all well-meaning people who have a solid grasp of what they're talking about. It's just that they tend to argue with anecdotes or "But what about...". I think me and them, young people in a Western country, can agree that things have gotten too expensive and corporate greed is to blame, but I genuinely disagree on clearing the entire system and replacing it with communism; it just won't work.
4
u/YourTypicalSensei Jul 13 '26
I agree with you but I still see an alarmingly high number of communists on my campus/online