A lot of good points there, I do have to be balanced though, as much as I am anti communist and think it’s a terrible system- firstly- the is doesn’t import food because we don’t have enough to eat. We throw out more food than any nation. Even the “urban” associated states like NY and CA have huge farm lands. In fact, California is one of the nations leading producers of food crops. We import food so that we can have things that don’t grow here, so we can pay less and get more, and so that we can eat just about any produce any time of year without worrying about the season.
That said- the people primarily responsible for domestic food production are the “proletariat” the marginalized classes a workers rebellion is primarily aimed at. Produce, not administer and plan. So there probably would be shortages because even if you have the skills to keep a farm running and not just tend the crop or harvest- who’s picking food while they’re revolting? Who’s picking food when it’s all done, and when it is done and the “farmer” class is being handed out- who do you think gets the same job they already had? So unless you promise and deliver some real improvements for those folks- they don’t have a lot to really motivate them to join the “glorious revolt” since they’ll still be sharing a house with 5 people and picking fruit.
Now, another point I must pick at is that OP speaks of communism but then on the same post goes on about socialism. In context they are speaking of Marxist Socialism- and regardless Marx and many others see socialism as a necessary step towards communism- but the two aren’t inherently linked. While there are many types of socialism and communism- communism is generally more rigid. The similarities between most types of communism and socialism...
.. are that both communism and socialism seek to give control of the means of production over to the people. A chief difference that many get mixed up- is that socialism still has private property rights, socialism is more like stock holders in capitalism- but everyone has an equal share of stocks. So everyone “owns” a part of Nike- a vote on what Nike does so to speak- but just like a stock holder you own part of the company but still have to pay for shoes from them.
Communism doesn’t stop at giving the people ownership of industry and production- it also says that whatever is made is shared property. So you do not own a bed, everyone owns your bed. You do not own a car, society lets you use one of its cars if it thinks you need or deserve it. Another major difference is that socialism generally seeks non violent implementation while communism in general, calls for violent revolution.
Both systems have TONS of flaws inherent to human nature. Even a “democratic socialism” or communism is rife for abuse. What’s more- communism requires strict controls on the economy and consumption which break down f people don’t follow them- or if there are outside influences. Most communist countries with any sort of longevity have self isolated or held some sort of buffer to keep the outside world out- but if you do not have the means to do this- and the ability to take such repressive steps- things fall apart in a global economy since you can’t have non citizens owning means of production in your system and you can’t stay communist and own outside your system.
Because each system has its faults and issues, strengths and benefits- no country on earth is a “pure” capitalism, communism, or socialism. There are many successful democratic socialist leaning nations though- and many rank amongst the wealthiest, least wealth disparity, and happiest countries on earth. But here’s the thing- and where we get to purges...
These countries also happen to be largely homogeneous. People tend to be ethnically and culturally and historically and otherwise very similar. Culture tends to be more monolithic. An election may not get a person exactly what they want, but it probably won’t be too far off anyway. If you contrast that to countries with huge populations of diverse people with diverse wants and needs and lifestyles... you can see how having the majority pick what everyone should drive or eat for dinner would be problematic even without getting philosophical about ideas of individuality vs group identity.
So communist countries tend to get rid of people on their societies who don’t for the majority. The most successful communism’s and socialism’s tend to be countries who started out due to historical and geographical reality- as more homogenous already. You don’t have to purge people or “re educate”or worry about subversives when most people already fall within a margin of your “core” on a spectrum.
So socialism and communism shouldn’t really be interchanged even if it is theoretically less of a leap to go from a socialism to a communism than from a capitalism to a communism. That’s very important because people often mislabel things as “socialism” or rally against socialism... and they don’t really actually know what socialism is. Often when people say socialism they mean either communism or a welfare state- and socialism and communism don’t HAVE to be dictatorships...
.. but communism’s usually end up that way because communism generally requires violent revolt, so you end up with a military leader without checks and balances in most cases, and command of the only remaining standing military force in a land.... that’s a recipe for abuse by the power hungry who see a chance to start what is basically their own little kingdom.
Communism by its nature lends itself to totalitarianism because you need to force people to follow rigid rules on how they live their lives or it doesn’t work. You wouldn’t need a revolution to put communism in place of it was something you could just ask people to follow. Communism requires large scale planning that most people aren’t suited for. Even American democracy already suffers from many voters being ignorant of just plain dense- but it also has checks to prevent the sorts of idiocy that a direct democracy would allow the peanut gallery to vote for.
Communism is even more in danger of the peanut gallery because they own the means by which society functions and wealth and security and a future for individuals and a nation ride on- AND each one of these rubes has an equal share in owing a nuclear missile or a historic artifact. Letting idiots speak loudly is something that even the “land of the free” made sure to set up road blocks to when it was formed.
So all in all- agreed with the conclusion and many small points, disagree with some details.
communism and socialism aren’t quite the same but communism is a shit system that only dictators and fools hope for, and socialism is a possible road to communism but isn’t the same thing- certain policies that serve a social good are fine- public roads or libraries for example- full socialism generally requires much more harmony than we have in America so wouldnt likely work well.
Wow, @guest, I truly admire your dedication to explaining that. I mean, seriously, well done! No piss-take at all :). At the same time, I just wanted to say... "can't we all just... get along??" Then I went and read the entirety of your comments and went "shit! Maybe we can't!" because of the basic imbalances inherent in modern societies no matter which country you come from or it's inherent political/cultural systems. Ah well, it's 2020 and we're all going to hell in a hand-basket either way. So let's all link arms together as we sing "follow the yellow brick road" and hope we are all good on the other end! Cheers for one of the most compelling intellectually stimulating reads I've seen on here for a while :)
communism and socialism aren’t quite the same but communism is a shit system that only dictators and fools hope for, and socialism is a possible road to communism but isn’t the same thing- certain policies that serve a social good are fine- public roads or libraries for example- full socialism generally requires much more harmony than we have in America so wouldnt likely work well.