• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        207 months ago

        It is significantly easier to establish communism in a small community, where you can see the people daily that you consider part of your tribe, than a national communism where the work you put in benefits someone on the far side of the country that you’ve never met, and may consider them as part of your “tribe” on an intellectual level, but not much beyond that.

        • @Choomtozen
          link
          English
          277 months ago

          You already put in work that benefits someone that you’ve never met, in this case it’s a billionaire. I’d rather pay for someone’s lunch than another yacht ykwim

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            37 months ago

            Sure but you’d also rather benefit a nobody in exchange for money than you would in exchange of “trust me bro”. As you say, you’re working to benefit somebody else in both ways, but only one gives you immediate positive feedback. In enormous societies such as modern countries are you need a strong stimulus to work, money provides that but benefits don’t - you would see much more people happy to pay taxes otherwise.

            Not that I wouldn’t love living in a Star Trek federation like communist society, but we ain’t there yet

          • Rikudou_Sage
            link
            fedilink
            17 months ago

            I believe you would. But it wouldn’t happen, you’d be still paying for the rich. Instead of lying about trickle down economy they’d sell you lies about everyone being equal.

            We had the Soviet version of “communism” when those fuckers occupied us. Never again.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          157 months ago

          Yeah, that’s why we need a transition period of Socialism.

          That period has to be generations long however and on a multinational scale to set the stage for eliminating money and the state so we’ll probably never see Communism on a national scale in our lifetime. Socialism’s good enough though tbh

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 months ago

        Communism only in the sense that the need for mobility/a nomadic lifestyle means that private property exists only insofar as you can carry it with you. It doesn’t work in settled agricultural societies because once a person becomes attached to a specific piece of land as is necessary in agriculture, other types of private property become possible and personal incentives begin to diverge such that the only way to achieve or maintain communism ends up being through coercion.

    • MxM111
      link
      fedilink
      -127 months ago

      The communism can be build, but so far the attempts required dictatorship type of government to keep the people in line. In future, it might happen though automatically, when our relationship to AI is akin our pet relationship to us now. Pets live under communism.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        117 months ago

        Pets do what now?

        Pets live lives of luxury that they would never be able to afford were it not for somebody else’s toil. They don’t go hungry and they want for nothing, even medical expenses are provided by the people who serve them. Humans do all the work and pets reap all the benefits. They make us feel guilty if we stop providing for them and this is just how things are and have always been.

        Pets are the ultimate capitalists.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          57 months ago

          Except for all the ones that don’t have homes, all the ones that are abused, and all the ones that do jobs every day.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            67 months ago

            They are animals then not pets. The difference between an animal and a pet is that a pet has an owner that cares for them, it’s pretty much the definition