Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.

The key issue is not the system or the technology, but who controls and implements it.

I'm told its the equivalent of a chest x ray.






*Edit*

It's far more complicated than that I hope you're aware of the details required to implement what you're saying here.

The value system, the environment, education, access to resources, and levels of self awareness of the people implementing the system all play a crucial factor.

It's a lost cause trying to stop a tidal wave. It's a better strategy to get a surfboard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On a larger scale, not that I know of. On smaller scales, I guess many alternative communities within larger cities work somewhat like that.
And maybe some tribal societies.
 
therealyesman said:
Does anyone know the closest thing we've had to an anarchistic communist society? As in anti-stalin, more of libertarian socialism.
Click to expand...


"CLOSEST thing we've had?"

Off the top of my head...

The United States from 1777 to around about the 1820's. "For white men."

Modern day Portugal.

Sealand.

Iceland.

The ancient city-state of Athens.

Parts of South America briefly but I am not educated enough to know thoroughly.


There's a lot of "anarchistic communist" type societies one could argue, but not a "Libertarian Socialist" among any of them. Reason being that governments tend not to give people money and aide when they could use that money against the government.


Anarchy is too strong a word because the principle definition of anarchy is a power vacuum. I feel it is often misused, labeled, and defined by people with particular agendas or who have a lack of formal education.


Noam Chomskyesque Pierre Joseph Proudhornian Anarcho-Syndicalism is still more theoretical instead of established.

There are political parties, however a party and a society is not the same thing.



If you think of colonial societies where the rule of law was stretched thin and the population had to stick together with a common thread, either through religion or not, you would be approaching the spectrum of that definition.

Too bad that didn't apply for the indigenous populations.

You could argue that some of those same indigenous population practiced a form of what you are describing, however, just like Asian cultures, the definitions and concepts are estranged enough from our Western languages and thought processes that it would take many years of social scientists, linguists, anthropologists, ect to unwind the web and make syntactical connections with our philosophies.

If you dug deep into historical records you could find something somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
72680201.jpg

qUUyjSy.png
 
Hassknecht said:
Woah, that's some secret. Socialism is based on class struggle. Holy shit. Never would have thought about that.
Click to expand...

The Dopamine Cleric said:
The key issue is not the system or the technology, but who controls and implements it.
Click to expand...

I love the irony that these two posts are right next to each other. And you make fun of me for reminding you that socialism is a lower‐class movement?

Hassknecht said:
Planned economies will work in the future.
Click to expand...

They already can. Most large companies today, such as Amazon, already use some form of central planning. They allocate their warehouses, trains, dedicated shipping lines, and other resources with economic planning: statistics and past figures of demand, along with information from the company’s global ad network, to extrapolate likely demand in each area. Amazon keeps a small but significant surplus of goods maintained in each warehouse to give room for growth, and when demand exceeds availability in one location, it is simply fulfilled from another location through their global, redundant network. A modern planned economy could function quite similarly to this, only without prices and without the workers’ rights violations. (I learned/plagiarised this from here.)
 
Romanophile said:
I love the irony that these two posts are right next to each other. And you make fun of me for reminding you that socialism is a lower‐class movement?



They already can. Most large companies today, such as Amazon, already use some form of central planning. They allocate their warehouses, trains, dedicated shipping lines, and other resources with economic planning: statistics and past figures of demand, along with information from the company’s global ad network, to extrapolate likely demand in each area. Amazon keeps a small but significant surplus of goods maintained in each warehouse to give room for growth, and when demand exceeds availability in one location, it is simply fulfilled from another location through their global, redundant network. A modern planned economy could function quite similarly to this, only without prices and without the workers’ rights violations. (I learned/plagiarised this from here.)
Click to expand...


No sense of humor detected.

Will not vote for.
 
Romanophile said:
I love the irony that these two posts are right next to each other. And you make fun of me for reminding you that socialism is a lower‐class movement?
Click to expand...
They're about two different things. I made fun of you thinking that classic communist theory is based on class struggle, Dopa replied to my explanation that this thread isn't about classic communist theory but rather Full Automated Luxury Communism, which is not necessarily the result of the proletariat overthrowing the capital, but instead a natural evolution of the capitalist economy that becomes unsustainable at a certain level of automation. Where classic communism requires more or less violent revolution and the radical overthrow of existing order, FALC can be a soft process (although many proponents are secret riot LARPers and think they'd come out on top once the molotovs start flying).

Romanophile said:
They already can. Most large companies today, such as Amazon, already use some form of central planning. They allocate their warehouses, trains, dedicated shipping lines, and other resources with economic planning: statistics and past figures of demand, along with information from the company’s global ad network, to extrapolate likely demand in each area. Amazon keeps a small but significant surplus of goods maintained in each warehouse to give room for growth, and when demand exceeds availability in one location, it is simply fulfilled from another location through their global, redundant network. A modern planned economy could function quite similarly to this, only without prices and without the workers’ rights violations. (I learned/plagiarised this from here.)
Click to expand...
Amazon does not produce, it is a distributor. The only way it can function is because others mass-produce using economy of scale. Someone actually producing goods couldn't work like that, because planning for machine failure or every single possible malfunction in the supply chain is impossible, which is why overproduction is the only way to keep prices stable and low at the moment. If you tried to, for example, produce a car with low-storage supply chains and on demand production, you'd massively increase prices and create massive wait times. Do you know how industrial production works? The economic effect of machine and production line stopping? The complexity of production lines, of raw material production, of basically everything? Our current technological level does not allow for production on demand of anything but specialised components unless you're willing to allow for a MASSIVE price hike. And massive increase in unemployment/part time employment because nothing will be safe anymore.
Also, another omnilul at using AMAZON, the company famous for its labour exploitation and having a CEO that lost 150 billion fucking dollarinos in a divorce and still came out the richest man on Earth, as a positive example. You're kind of a shit tankie.
 
That is why Star Trek had replicators. People could have anything they desired, in any amount desired, at any time they desired.
 
Hassknecht said:
If you tried to, for example, produce a car with low-storage supply chains and on demand production, you'd massively increase prices and create massive wait times.
Click to expand...
I still remember how this worked out in communist Czechoslovakia. Two or three years waiting for bedroom furniture, often more than five years for the cheapest entry level mass produced car.
 
DarkCorp said:
That is why Star Trek had replicators. People could have anything they desired, in any amount desired, at any time they desired.
Click to expand...
That's essentially what people are now hoping for, but they miss the actual labour still going into everything. Yes, automation is going to help out a lot, but full replacement of rather mundane labour won't come for another few dozen years, no matter what a bunch of retarded philosophy professors say.
 
valcik said:
I still remember how this worked out in communist Czechoslovakia. Two or three years waiting for bedroom furniture, often more than five years for the cheapest entry level mass produced car.
Click to expand...
But was that "Real Communism"? no. . . no it was not.
 
BigGuyCIA said:
I was asking a genuine question :aiee:
Click to expand...
And I didn't?

Of course real communism isn't really possible - hence why it's an utopian idea. If it can or can't be implemented however isn't as interesting like the question of who owns the means of production and who should profit from it. Natural resources for example, like coal, oil, iron or water. Some of them are pivotal for human survival and thriving. You need land and water for your living. So should the people that actually administer it also own it? Should the public have the ownership about resources?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top