• dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The problem with that and most other proposals for whatever other moneyless utopian society is that they all implicitly require some manner of all-powerful central authority to ensure that the rewards get distributed, the labor gets allocated, and the rules stay followed.

    And we already know how well that’s going to turn out.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      he problem with that and most other proposals for whatever other moneyless utopian society is that they all implicitly require some manner of all-powerful central authority to ensure that the rewards get distributed, the labor gets allocated, and the rules stay followed.

      that really isn’t the case…
      Communism by definition is not only moneyless but also stateless and classless (if there is an “all powerful” anything - it isn’t communism).
      anarchism by definition abolishes all hierarchy, so again, no one person or even group gets to a point of having any significant power over anyone else.

      In both cases (which are the two most notable far left ideologies I would say, along with socialism which is inherent to both) not having an all powerful central authority is literally the point.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Attempting to have no authority may be the “point,” but here in reality that doesn’t actually work as long as humans remain what they are. It can only function so long as everyone involved cooperates to the very letter of the classless-moneyless-stateless social agreement and there is no outside disruption from anywhere else that doesn’t subscribe to the ideal. The moment someone figures out they can cheat to get more than others, it falls apart.

        And what they want more of does not necessarily have to be money. It could be land, or crops, or coconuts, or a bigger hut, or more sexual partners, or shinier rocks, or internet post likes, or more prestige, or whatever.

        One of two things then happen: They succeed, and become the authority. Or an authority has to be formed by some type of agreement by everyone else to stop them. This also inevitably begets violence.

        You can try as hard as you like to evade this, but unless you lobotomize literally everyone or have magic mind control powers or something (which would require you to be… the authority) it is guaranteed that you will fail. Maybe not immediately, but the larger in scale your little social experiment gets the sooner it will happen. You can get 5 or 10 or maybe even 100 people to perfectly agree with each other and play along. If you’re lucky, you might even make it last for more than one generation. Don’t even try to argue that you could do it with a million people. Or ten million. Or 332 million (the population of the United States). Ceaseless cooperation in numbers beyond those of our immediate tribe- or family-sphere is not a trait that is found in humans.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Listen. I’m far from the worst human out there. But if I was introduced to a fair, classless, equal society, I would become their dictator faster than you can say “utopia”. No force to stop me, no one allowed to stop me, I’d be like smallpox to the Indians.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          but here in reality that doesn’t actually work as long as humans remain what they are
          Ceaseless cooperation in numbers beyond those of our immediate tribe- or family-sphere is not a trait that is found in humans.

          “reality” is what capitalism has indoctrinated you to think it is, meanwhile in actual reality, humans are and always have been hardwired to cooperate

          and there is no outside disruption from anywhere else that doesn’t subscribe to the ideal

          lol, so you acknowledge that attempts at communism couldn’t have succeeded because capitalism wouldn’t allow it (because capitalists consider communism, or any cooperation that isn’t for profit, an existential threat, which is precisely why they invest so much in to making people like you think it’s not only a bad idea, but an “impossible” one).

          https://medium.com/international-workers-press/misconceptions-about-communism-2e366f1ef51f

          You can try as hard as you like to evade actual reality, and the fact that capitalism is not only guaranteed to, but is already literally destroying humanity and the planet, or you can keep licking its boot that is not only stomping on your neck, but on all our necks, because you’re too scared or even unable (but definitely privileged enough to still find comfort in it - we aren’t all that lucky) to think outside of the box it created for you, but none of that will make you right, only more wilfully ignorant and resistant to change (when you refuse to even try to understand, let alone seriously contemplate the alternatives, you don’t get to dismiss them since you clearly don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about)… That’s a you problem, not a communism problem… ¯\(ツ)

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s odd, me and my housemates can distribute our housekeeping jobs amongst ourselves without having someone come along and tell us what to do.

      Yet when it comes to the country I live in, this is suddenly unimaginable because who would want to live somewhere functional of their own volition.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          You’ve tried?

          There’s this thing called democracy, where people can come together as a community to discuss issues and work out solutions - such as allocating work loads as need be, you see this in many large community projects across the world. That’s the same underlying principle my house uses, communication not authority.

          • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I’m genuinely curious, how could communism be applied to millions of people without any central authority to oversee the system? Say, the sewer need to be maintained, and the people assigned to the work by the community decided “nah, I don’t want to clean the sewer” and not show up to work, what would the community do? What if the people assigned to mining coals decided they don’t want to mine coal anymore because it’s a horrible job and no one volunteer to replace them? Will the community force them to work or face punishment? If so, who make the decision if not a central authority?

            • Deceptichum@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              That is literally an authoritarian system.

              What do you think the role of ‘General Secretary’ was? Its tankie shit.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                That is literally an authoritarian system.

                Huh, wonder how they went from communism to authoritarianism. Well, surely that was a one time coincidence and not indicative of a systemic failure of communism as an ideology.

                • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  They didn’t actually, they got trapped in the centralise everything under a state model of socialism.

                  Also I’ve been arguing for anarchism, so you’re really just hitting and missing non-stop today.