To the contrary, socialism has already been proven good, and the foundations of socialism, ie public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, already work astoundingly well. Communism as the fully collectivized mode of production beyond that has been more affirmed by the existence of socialism.
Ehh… I wouldn’t say socialism affirms communism. At least far less than it condemns capitalism.
Nobody currently alive is going to accept private property entering a gray area where if you produce with it, suddenly it’s not your property any more.
That’s not really how socialism or communism works, though. It isn’t a legalistic moral code, but the adoption of collectivized production at a global scale.
I don’t follow. Communism isn’t when you ban all private property and punish anyone producing for themselves, but by collectivizing production at a global scale to the point that that’s counter-intuitive and can’t really be done for profit anyways.
Nobody currently alive is going to accept private property entering a gray area where if you produce with it, suddenly it’s not your property any more.
Speak for yourself, there are plenty of people alive that would be fine with there being no more private property. Personal property isn’t the same thing, and it’s fine producing something with it, there would be tools available to all to rent out or use, what’s so wrong with that? In fact tool libraries already exist, as do worker owned co-ops.
Explain to those that don’t already understand, and then get the rest of the communists to agree that it doesn’t include private property used for work.
Only those strongly invested in capital. But in the end that won’t matter, because they will be overthrown.
Edit: Most people will not care because it will not effect their lives in any meaningful way, they’ll still be able to make and get things, they just won’t be able to lord it over others.
Agreed. One of many reasons why only idiots believe it’s already been proven bad.
To the contrary, socialism has already been proven good, and the foundations of socialism, ie public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, already work astoundingly well. Communism as the fully collectivized mode of production beyond that has been more affirmed by the existence of socialism.
Ehh… I wouldn’t say socialism affirms communism. At least far less than it condemns capitalism.
Nobody currently alive is going to accept private property entering a gray area where if you produce with it, suddenly it’s not your property any more.
That’s not really how socialism or communism works, though. It isn’t a legalistic moral code, but the adoption of collectivized production at a global scale.
It has to work at both scales.
I don’t follow. Communism isn’t when you ban all private property and punish anyone producing for themselves, but by collectivizing production at a global scale to the point that that’s counter-intuitive and can’t really be done for profit anyways.
Speak for yourself, there are plenty of people alive that would be fine with there being no more private property. Personal property isn’t the same thing, and it’s fine producing something with it, there would be tools available to all to rent out or use, what’s so wrong with that? In fact tool libraries already exist, as do worker owned co-ops.
Explain to those that don’t already understand, and then get the rest of the communists to agree that it doesn’t include private property used for work.
As we already said, there would be no more private property, that only exists in a statist, capitalist society.
and as I already said, cery few people currently alive will accept that as a prescription.
Only those strongly invested in capital. But in the end that won’t matter, because they will be overthrown.
Edit: Most people will not care because it will not effect their lives in any meaningful way, they’ll still be able to make and get things, they just won’t be able to lord it over others.