Significantly less, since commerce and the ability to trade things for a different value forms the basis for civilization. It’s easy to grow and hunt your own food, because that’s immediate and concrete. The farther away you get from that, the more abstract that thing becomes. It’s going to be harder for people to feel any sense of connection and purpose with making the rubber that goes into a seal on the International Space Station when they don’t see any direct benefit from the research done there, and they likely can’t even see the indirect benefit of that fundamental research.
For good or ill, commerce is how civilizations universally work, and you’d have to imagine a completely different species that evolved under vastly different circumstances to have anything else.
So you think we’d have to be an entirely different species for communism to work?
I’d argue a hell of a lot different, try n stop someone from doing something (sure keep them fed, sheltered, all the good stuff) but give them absolutely nothing to do. Try n keep them from killing themselves lol, sounds like actual hell to me
For communism to work as intended past a tribal or perhaps city-state level, yeah, I’d say that we would need to be a different species. Communism works fantastically well when everyone is pretty closely connected; the larger a society gets, the less well it ends up working, without having draconian measures in place that largely eliminate all personal liberty.
I’m not saying that capitalism works well, unless you have a perverse definition of “well”. Capitalism does tend to give individuals some kind of incentive to work for what is nominally the greater good by creating the appearance that their own personal effort is tied to the results that they get. Conversely, communism, in large societies, has your input largely decoupled from what you get back. On a large scale, I think that democratic socialism will give the best overall results, but you have to ensure that no one has the ability to entirely fuck off and leech off the labor of everyone else without risking that infecting everyone, and resulting in nothing at all getting done.
I think you’re conflating commerce with capitalism. I don’t think you could have communism without commerce. Even if you did away with currency and the rubber farmer is paid with grain and other foodstuffs that would still be commerce.
Well, we would be still in caves cause commerce is the basement of civilization
Wow. Good luck building your stick cabin in the woods all by yourself and growing and foraging all your food because you refuse to trade your labor for produce from a farmer because that would be evil commerce.
Project much? 🤣🤣🤣
Your title is literally putting down commerce and you accuse me of projection? I don’t think you know what projection means.
You probably don’t even know what commerce means.
What is a commerce based civilization? Isn’t everything commerce based?
Commerce is just the exchange of goods and services. If we all stop exchanging goods, in what sense would we have a civilization? What would you or anyone accomplish if you had to grow your own food, make your own clothes, build your own house…?
Commerce is fine, greed is not. OP missed that distinction.
Commerce != currency
Currency is a natural evolution of commerce. Direct barter only works if the person selling what you need wants something you have.
Say you want to buy flowers. If the florist wants shoes and you only have bread or hammers to spare, then tough luck.
Any large society cannot function with such a clunky way to exchange goods/services. Currency is merely a proxy that allows both sides to trade their goods using a tool they both value similarly. Hell, some civilisations used giant boulders as currency… it’s hardly a new concept.
Capitalism may hold us back in some regards but really helps in others.
The majority of people would likely be feudal peasants, working under a warmonger family that owns the sustaining land by force. No upward mobility except through bloodshed.
Capitalism optimises for concentrating resources.
Dividends, return on investment, profits, etc. are all inefficiencies in the production of value, and require more resources, labor, and suffering per unit of value than for example a circular economy.
But it does concentrate wealth efficiently, which in turn gives access to enough resources to start larger ventures.
That’s literally how it is now
What about a meritocracy based system where any type of contribution is rewarded, whether it be research, garbage cleanup, etc.? (I’m sure there’s holes to poke in it, just thinking outside of the box.)
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.
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.
It works for 4 people. It does not work for 4 million.
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.
That is literally an authoritarian system.
What do you think the role of ‘General Secretary’ was? Its tankie shit.
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.
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?
imagine everything humans could accomplish if we used billionaires as food and fuel
