Honestly I would say it is...

Communism is perfect in theory, but terrible in practice. And it's terrible in practice because a) it was bankrolled by capitalism from the beginning, b) egalitarianism is false, c) human nature doesn't accord with it.

Main reasons.

ANY form of government is perfect if everyone agrees to it. Therefore there is no ‘perfect’.

Anyway, Communism like Democracy, is hardly an iron cast item. There are many flavours. Your view seems rather superficial, is it? If not explain why would should care about your opinion.

Where's the "nes" option?

The answer clearly ‘yes’ because of this:

In this scenario human error and greed is removed. — TheDarkElf

Any system would work in this scenario, communist or otherwise.

Work is why systems exist. But this scenario is necessarily communist, as stipulated.

Communism is a lie.

I didn't vote...my choice was not there.

I think the American form of capitalism is close to disgusting...and I suspect that "the American form of capitalism" is where all capitalistic economies will eventually end if given enough time to mature.

Capitalism relies on unrelenting consumerism...and it relies on the major factor of production (entrepreneurship) to maximize profit...which means labor gets fucked. That is the rule of the road.

I personally think "same for everyone" would be a terrible idea...and communism has as its core "same for everyone."

I am not even interested in a fairer distribution of wealth as most people are. I do not care if 10 people ended up with 90% of the wealth...SO LONG AS EVERYONE ELSE HAS PLENTY.

Once we get to the point where everyone has plenty (which can be obtained by first insuring that everyone has sufficient)...then how the rest gets divvied up means beans to me.

I really wish you had included a "Sometimes good...sometimes not so good" choice.

And communism has as its core "same for everyone." — Frank Apisa

Yeah I mean it's not like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is one of the most famous communist slogans out there. No possible way.

I am not even interested in a fairer distribution of wealth as most people are. I do not care if 10 people ended up with 90% of the wealth...SO LONG AS EVERYONE ELSE HAS PLENTY. — Frank Apisa

How do you square that with greed? Can those who profess “greed is good” (which seems to be the main economic motto of the day) ever obtain what they consider to be plenty? To me needless to say, this being how most of the 1%-ers got there.

Then there’s greed-based competition* to be top-dog winner where everyone else is a looser of the so-conceived game of life. And the end-state of this greed-based competition in which one finally obtains happiness is in fact an illusory reality: an untruth or self-deception. But it does produce a lot of losing parties out there, and correlated misery.

* Loosely understood, there are other forms of completion: for maximized knowledge, understanding, wisdom, good social standing, physical and mental health, etc. But many such forms of competition are a) often ones where one competes against one’s own perceived limitations rather than against other beings for that which is desired and b) where what is gained is then in turn often shared with others via community for the maximized benefit to oneself, as well as to others. Point being, there’s very little winner-looser dichotomy, if any, in many such alternative forms of non-greed-based completion. As one example, scientists compete to discover stuff, but when a discovery is made it doesn’t (typically?) turn the discoverer into a victorious winner and all other scientists into losers. Rather, the whole community benefits.

StreetlightX
5.1k
And communism has as its core "same for everyone."
— Frank Apisa

Yeah I mean it's not like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is one of the most famous communist slogans out there. No possible way. — StreetlightX

You seem to think there is some substantive irreconcilable difference between what I said...and the Marx quote.

There really isn't.

I am just saying that I, personally, do not care about unequal distribution AFTER everyone has plenty. If every one has plenty...everyone will have his/her needs met. Some, particularly in communist countries seem to think that "unequal" equates with the dominance of the bourgeoisie over some ill-defined lesser class. So my comment that communism has "same for everyone" is not at odds with modern considerations about communism.

Are you disputing this...or are you just being an asshole and arguing because you are getting your doors blown off so often?

How do you square that with greed? Can those who profess “greed is good” (which seems to be the main economic motto of the day) ever obtain what they consider to be plenty? To me needless to say, this being how most of the 1%-ers got there.

Then there’s greed-based competition* to be top-dog winner where everyone else is a looser of the so-conceived game of life. And the end-state of this greed-based competition in which one finally obtains happiness is in fact an illusory reality: an untruth or self-deception. But it does produce a lot of losing parties out there, and correlated misery.

* Loosely understood, there are other forms of completion: for maximized knowledge, understanding, wisdom, good social standing, physical and mental health, etc. But many such forms of competition are a) often ones where one competes against one’s own perceived limitations rather than against other beings for that which is desired and b) where what is gained is then in turn often shared with others via community for the maximized benefit to oneself, as well as to others. Point being, there’s very little winner-looser dichotomy, if any, in many such alternative forms of non-greed-based completion. As one example, scientists compete to discover stuff, but when a discovery is made it doesn’t (typically?) turn the discoverer into a victorious winner and all other scientists into losers. Rather, the whole community benefits. — javra

I certainly am not saying that insuring that everyone has plenty is going to be easy selling to the people of a country such as ours...where greed seems to dominate almost to the point where it is considered inevitable.

But I do suppose it can be accomplished.

Nobody has to work anywhere near as hard as many Americans have to...in order to subsist these days. Perhaps the lock-down will teach us something about that.

Fact is, though, that we have incorporated BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of willing slaves into our workforce making all the things we need and want (machines, robots, computers)...

...yet we are all working harder than we were before the slaves were incorporated.

A family of the 1950's had one breadwinner (usually the husband) who worked one job and earned enough to provide for shelter, food, clothing, transportation, communication, entertainment, insurance, education, limited vacations, and some savings.

Now we got both the husband and wife working (sometimes more than one job each) and those needs and wants are not being adequately met.

It is so disgusting a situation...that we should be engaged in a civil war to right it.

ANY form of government is perfect if everyone agrees to it. Therefore there is no ‘perfect’. — I like sushi

Well, I think there is no perfect. But I couldn't give a rat's tail whether people agree to it or not. Consent of the governed doesn't really matter to me. It doesn't matter to the people who run the world either. And actually, it doesn't matter to the average person. Most people don't consent to their form of government, but they go on living and not caring anyway.

The hypothetical in the OP implies this, not me.

In a governmental system where there is no human error the system would work flawlessly. The parameters for success or failure of a social system is wholly dependent upon humans.

Can there be a perfect form of something that ought not to exist?

The perfect murder, the perfect addiction...

So my comment that communism has "same for everyone" is not at odds with modern considerations about communism. — Frank Apisa

No it literally is.

I used to think communism meant the "same for everyone". When I was six years old.

In a governmental system where there is no human error the system would work flawlessly. The parameters for success or failure of a social system is wholly dependent upon humans. — I like sushi

I'm not totally onboard with that either. I mean, there are factors which swing the world one direction or the other that are unrelated to humans. Like, viruses.

So what? Explain. Governments are related to humans directly whereas events in the world are related indirectly. If there is no human error do you think different governmental systems would act differently? If so show me why you think this.

Again, the OP removed human error! It’s irrelevant what system of government exists if humans never er.

So what? Explain. Governments are related to humans directly whereas events in the world are related indirectly. If there is no human error do you think different governmental systems would act differently? If so show me why you think this.

Again, the OP removed human error! It’s irrelevant what system of government exists if humans never er. — I like sushi

What are you asking me? I didn't say there is no human error. I just said that human error is not the only reason why systems fail.

The OP states this. Read the OP. If you’re making up your own hypothetical be explicit in doing so.

If you’re making up your own hypothetical be explicit in doing so. — I like sushi

lol What "hypothetical"? This isn't hypothetical. This is what's literally happening right now.

Communism is perfect in theory, but terrible in practice. And it's terrible in practice because a) it was bankrolled by capitalism from the beginning, b) egalitarianism is false, c) human nature doesn't accord with it.

Main reasons. — h060tu

You repeatedly ignore the OP. Hello? Wake up!

The OP is like a recipe for an omelette that insists that no eggs must be broken in the process.

Precisely! It is interesting to see how many voted ‘no’ simply because they saw ‘Communism’.

A democratic capitalistic system would be good too without human error or greed. It’s a no brainer, but certainly an interesting example of hoodwinking someone into the wrong answer by uses common biases against them.

You repeatedly ignore the OP. Hello? Wake up! — I like sushi

Not really. Unless "no human error" means egalitarianism is somehow true.

Your post reminds me of an oldie I like. Man, time flies.

StreetlightX
5.1k
So my comment that communism has "same for everyone" is not at odds with modern considerations about communism.
— Frank Apisa

No it literally is. — StreetlightX

No, it definitely isn't...as I explained.

Baden
9.9k
↪StreetlightX

I used to think communism meant the "same for everyone". When I was six years old. — Baden

Almost any response I want to make to that would probably get me banned...so I'll just say...what you thought a decade ago may have changed significantly. But as you get older, things tend to settle down.

There will inevitably be disagreement as to what is human error, what is greed, and what is necessary.