<p>@Ctesiphon </p>
<p>While I think you are right in some ways that a true version of communism has never actually been implemented, I think that is a testament to how little it takes to corrupt it and thus shape it beyond recognition from the original idea, as we have seen in practice. In order for communism to become that great theoretical society, it has to go through so many places for it to go wrong. And even if it was ever achieved, many versions would still be incredibly unstable. And that is why I am not a fan of communism at all in practice despite the fondness of the ideals.</p>
<p>As much as you try to make the argument that humans are good and not bad (to make a sweeping generalization for the sake of time), I don’t think your article proves anything other than the issue is not black and white like people tend to make it. Morality is completely subjective. So is the idea of good and evil, yada yada, etc. The point being, humans are not one or the other. Humans want to survive, its evolutionary of all animals as well. Even if they have to kill, pillage, destroy other societies, ruin a perfect setup of communism, you name it. There’s an ever evolving balance there in each one of us, and it can take as little as one person going sour for whatever genetic and environmental reasons to destabilize a communist society.</p>
<p>I do however almost fully agree with the Marxist interpretation of capitalism. Now that the initial capital we got from stealing land and people has stopped growing (besides oil and the middle east) and time is progressing, we are starting to see the separation you are talking about very quickly. We just disagree on that next step: revolution, when, and to what end.</p>
<p>I’m still working on my personal take, but I think your time estimate is a bit too long. We need to be ready sooner, as the current generation especially is growing up very anti-capitalism overall. We could see the change by the next generation I think.</p>
<p>Essentially, I am trying to work out a model of socialism that builds on capitalistic ideals and keeps some if not most of the market freedom, but under high regulation. A high tax society that covers nearly all the basics of daily living while still allowing classes with upward/downward movement to exist. Wages would drop dramatically, however the need for money would drop in coordination with wages. Essentially, to regulate how large the wage gap can get while keeping the minimum status of an individual at a level we deem much more human than we currently have. I don’t think we can ever get rid of the human motivation for wealth, luxury, and classes, but I do think we can design a system that plays to this trait while not having it come completely at the expense of others. I’m not explaining that last bit as well as I’d like, but essentially the argument is that we have to account for the “bad” side of humans as well as the “good”. Once again for the sake of time, ignore that sweeping generalization and evaluate it as just that.</p>
<p>As I said, a work in progress for sure, but something I think people need to look at. When the time comes I think the most likely scenario is that the world isn’t ready to implement something else and the risk of what will develop in that environment is incredibly high.</p>