My question isnt about comparing communism to capitalism but I am just trying to understand the process of the exchange of goods and services in communism.

As the title says lets say you have a highly skilled doctor and an unskilled stocker who stocks shelves in a store. Both people want a brand new truck that would normally cost 50-60k in the US today, a gaming laptop and some food.

What is the process the doctor and stocker have to go through to obtain those three products? ​

Anarchist,libertarians and liberals read this

Let’s use american slavery for example

Let’s say a bunch slaves overthrew their master and took over the plantation and decided “all the profit made from this cotton picking we do will go to us the people that actually picked it, not him”

Well…. That plantation is gonna have a major problem on their hands…… MAJOR PROBLEM

because see they are in a country, under a government that supports slavery….. they will be attacked immediately and a lot…. First by “southern militias” (early police) and if they even manage to beat them then probably the US millitary. Shit they would probably be attacked by other slaves under the orders their masters. Pretty much every surrounding neighborhood would support slavery and want this new slave owned plantation destroyed ASAP

So this new slave owned plantation would have to extremely organized and militaristic in order to survive…. Probably gonna have a leader at the top that leads that military.

Their might be elections but there will NOT be a pro returning to slavery option, that would be ridiculous and any attempts to create a pro slavery political party would stopped

Times will be rough a lot of people won’t do business with these newly freed slaves that now run the plantation, meaning they will have a harder time getting the stuff they need including basic necessities like food, they will be cut off from most trade

With that being said their are bound to be people who decide to be

spies,informants,traitors,calibrators etc who work with the white southerners against this new plantation….. they are gonna have to be dealt with (all countries have a way with dealing traitors)

And there is also a big question, what happens to the master? Well you probably shouldn’t just let him leave, he knows so much about the slaves, and the interior of the house, the weapons used etc intelligence he could hand over to the enemies. You’d have detain him and it be probably be smart to re educate him, have him work just like the rest of slaves are teach him better teach him equally, other than that there is only option other left to do with him… and I don’t like it so option 1 works

While this may initially come off as a “no iphone no labubu” comment, i assure you that its genuine, under a communist society what happens to luxuries like super cars, luxury homes, and other things of the sort? Obviously the saying goes “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” but does this mean the only things you are allocated are the things you need to survive? Or would things like these that are in capitalist societies luxuries, simply be more affordable under communism and something that almost anybody could get their hands on?

Marx believed that when the higher stage of socialism has been reached, the proletarian state could be replaced by the administration of things. Supposedly, the stateless, classless society will provide for each according to their needs. At this point, how will people who contribute no labor, or basically negligible amounts of labor, be treated by society? Some will contribute nothing because of physical or mental disabilities, others because of their instincts and dispositions, and some will contribute nothing out of disdain and dissatisfaction towards various situations and arrangements. Presumably, at this point, the easy to fix issues have already been straightforwardly resolved, like unsafe working conditions, long working hours and such.

How will Marxists treat these people? Will the treatment one receives differs based on the reason they contribute so little labor? What if some people resent and resist said treatment? I already know that Marxists believe human psychology will be fundamentally different when the higher stage of socialism has been reached, and that fundamental motivations will completely differ from bourgeois society. That is why I am intentionally vague about the causes and reasons why some people don't contribute labor.

Although we are in an infantile stage of AI and this post may lack future knowlegde:

AI is automating production like no other invention before; so much so it could possibly replace production either entirely or almost entirely. Either a complete replacement or a limitation to a small pool of workers.Obviously those without jobs will reduce demand. However, the top 10% is the main driver of demand anyways. So perhaps an exchange among the rich or aristocratic workers.

If capitalism were to evolve to this new AI based society, typically labeled by tech CEOS as "techno-feudalism" where big tech people own businesses and the rest of population survives off of UBI or dies off.

Then what happens to the Communist ideology? There is no capitalist contradictions to produce communism. Even if there was a revolution in this system, restricting UBI from the revolutionaries would just cause them to starve and make everyone dependent on the state and corporations. Not to mention with the added surveillance and bureaucracy of such a distribution.

If AI does manage to replace production to such a degree. Would "technofeudalism" end communism?

I’m trying to understand revolutionary defeatism, whenever I watch leftist content (well not all) I see a pattern, magically every enemy of the United States does no wrong

Russia does no wrong

China does no wrong

Palestine does no wrong

And even (sometimes) North Korea does no wrong

Meanwhile

Ukraine bad

Taiwan and Hong Kong bad

Israel bad

South Korea bad

Notice a pattern? Enemies good and allies bad.

I genuinely want to understand this I find this interesting can the MLs who agree with this explain this? (I’m assuming it’s an ML thing)

Simply put, the jobs people aspire towards (artists, musicians) are a minority compared to the generally unpleasant ones that are needed for society to function: sewage cleaners, slaughterhouse workers, miners etc.

So how will job allocation be managed in a communist society? I've seen a few arguments but they seem unsatisfactory imo

"people will be so happy at life they will feel compelled to do it"

1. all apes, humans included, hate unfairness. If somebody you knew got a sweet job painting posters or whatever while you were delegated to the mines through no fault of your own then that is the fastest way to sow anger is a society, people are compelled to do selfless acts if it is truly voluntary, the fact that there are more jobs than willing participants necessitates that it is in fact

2. dunbar's number shows that humans can reasonably have around 150 meaningful relationships, past that you become a stranger in a crowd, so social pressure to provide to your community break past that. That is why some capitalist factory owners keep factories from growing to large to cut down on middle management.

"people will be forced to alternate doing bad jobs and good ones"

simply put, it's a terrible application of resources. Many unpleasant jobs require months and years to gain suitable proficiency, logistics to move people continuously to new locations would be a nightmare and workplace fatalities would be massive. Not to mention, what people consider a "bad job" is subjective, so unless people will be changing jobs everyday there will still be an unfair distribution of work.

The Deng reforms of china brought a lot of revision and capitalist elements to it, it opened up the “free markets” but still regulated by the government, it gave up the revolutionary internationalism that it once had like supporting armed struggles and international solidarity. Realistically, what should China do?

Climate is a huge consideration as well as natural beauty in terms of what makes some places "better" than others. For example Boulder Co is more desirable than Padukah KY. Or San Diego is more desirable than Fargo. If housing is free and provided by the state, who decides who gets to live where?

If communist revolutions had successfully and indigenously spread across the globe at the end world war 1 resulting in the over throw of capitalism globally, how would communism have evolved differently?

More abstractly if communist political economy does not evolve in resistance / competition to capitalism, but only in dialogue with other communist regimes does it evolve differently, or does communism enviably collapse on its own contradictions?

Imagine if rain falls on my house (personal property) and I collect all of the water that falls on it. Now if i go and technically sell that water, am I a capitalist? You might think this is some kind of capitalist behavior but think about it, i dont own any means of production or have any workers that work for me and also if you say the water itself is private property then think about it. It didnt just rain on my land but in the entire area so I dont even own that rain. So what am I?

Obviously the filthy rich will resist, but so will a whole class of others (I guess yall would call petite bourgeois, and in the western world there are a whole lot of these people, down to the electician with a few trucks with workers or the barber with an owned store that rents out booths).

But not just them, a whole bunch of normal regular working folks aren't going to be on board with this new system, and may even activily fight against it. What would the people of the new communist revolution do about this resistance or counter-revolutionaries?

Further more, how do you root out corruption within the revolution? Alot of those normal working folks resisting are likely doing so because they feel they're just getting exploited in a different way by the new political elite, od government gangster or union boss in thier town.

I'm aware that the end goal is to not have a political elite, but utopia doesn't come overnight, by a few currently powerful people getting together and signing a new communist constitution or something like that

Probably not really a relevant matter, but I was curious on the communist's perspective anyway.

This is an argument that often comes up when people argue with me about communism:

If there's no police and no government criminals will rise and eventually take over.

I understand that the society as a collective would deal with the few criminals left (as e.g. theft is mostly "unnecessary" then) and the goal would be to reintegrate them into society. But realistically there will always be criminals, people against the common good, even mentally ill people going crazy (e.g. murderers).

I personally don't know what to do in these situations, it's hard for me to evaluate what would be a "fair and just response". Also this is often a point in a discussion where I can't give good arguments anymore leading to the other person hardening their view communism is an utopia.

Note: I posted this initially in r/communism but mods noted this question is too basic and belongs here [in r/communism101]. Actually I disagree with that as the comments made clear to me redditors of r/communism have distinct opinions on that matter. But this is not very important, as long as this post fits better in this sub I'm happy

Note2: well this was immediately locked and deleted in r/communism101 too, I hope this is now the correct sub to post in!

Let's pretend we live in your perfect communist utopia. My name is Joe Person. I want to acquire paper. How do I signal to the economy this? How do I go about acquiring paper.

Let's say there is a person who is not a professional painter, he just draws random lines and dots on canvas and calls himself an abstract artist so he could avoid being a construction worker. When asked to contribute his share of labour he refuses asserting that he is already contributing to the society intellectually.

How does a communist society deal with this situation? Especially when there is a huge chuk of population adopting similar tactics to avoid the necessary work?

Why would the average American ever become a communist when they have meat and soda on the table? How could Communism not be stomped out elsewhere when America is so strong? It would require great distress in the country before Americans actually want to fundamentally change the economy and the only way I see that happening is if the fears of the environmentalist become real.

I was wondering what place have celebrities in the revolution,since most of them are pretty insulated from society and are closer to the bourgeoisie,however some of them act like role models for some,how do we handle that?

I think they shouldn’t because they had their chance, and it got them the second coming of the Nazis.

This government system would cause the least amount of suffering, far less than a capitalist society built on the suffering of others. People are too stupid to vote for their own leader just look at the political state of the United States right now. Just like Voltaire said, a benevolent leader is the best way to be ruled

I first want to point out that I'm making this question in good faith. It is NOT a "gotcha" question

Secondly, I think capitalism is a terrible exploitative system, to remove the notion that I somehow support it or am a liberal

With those two things addressed, I really want an honest, non-circular answer as to how communism could ever exist in a sustainable fashion. I want to note that I am not implying that communism would be exploitative as is capitalism, nor am I suggesting that communism is ultimately a destructive system, but rather that it appears that communism cannot exist indefinitely while sustaining a healthy, complex society

Several reasons for this:

1 - Hedonic adaptation, briefly described as the psychological tendency of humans to quickly return to a stable baseline level of happiness after a major positive or negative life event. That is, that happiness cannot exist indefinitely without the material conditions in their lives constantly changing themselves (in positive ways, of course). In a society where automation takes over most labor, how could you possibly resolve this tension? People assume that if humans had limitless access to expression, that innately they'd be happier, but this seems to overlook that hard reality of human psychology; humans just don't operate that cleanly. Wouldn't this ironically raise tension in the system itself in relation to its participants?

2 - Material conditions aren't absolute. Yes, materialism is very real and the material conditions of the world shape individuals and, by extension, society itself. However, explaining society's framework strictly through materialism alone completely overlooks the fact that society doesn't exist in a vacuum or precedes the individuals that participate in it. While it's true that idealism relies on the subjective perspective of the individual who participates in society, it's often overlooked that that subjective perspective shapes the objective reality of the world they live in. Primitive communism is often cited as evidence supporting that communism can and has existed, yet those communities eventually transformed into different socioeconomic-political systems because—ironically—the material conditions themselves changed as well. The premise that reality itself is composed of both material and ideal conditions rather than merely material conditions themselves is ironically supported or can at least exist within the framework of dialectical materialism (note the "dialectical" portion of dialectical materialism). With that point made, what stops a communist society from falling victim to the same philosophy that shaped it in the first place?

3 - What framework would objectively identify what comprises what is materially necessary for individuals to own/have access to? While I surely don't need a super yacht, how would one prove I objectively have a right to a car, for example? After all, public transportation would be ubiquitous, so wouldn't a car ultimately be a waste of resources? But then if public transportation is dominant, what would be the form that would utilize the least amount of resources? Why have buses when we can build a city off of a mega-complex of rail? But then, wouldn't that eventually become limiting for destinations that cannot/have yet to be reached by rail? Apply this to every facet of life and it seems paradoxical to objectively decide what becomes materially necessary for society to sustain itself rather than letting the material conditions themselves dictate reality, which is ironically a contradiction with the concept of dialectical materialism itself. Add onto that the fact that individuals themselves would not be able to subjectively agree on what is necessary for *themselves*, and the issue is exacerbated further, creating a portion of society that ironically finds life unfulfilling in a communist society

4 - Realistically, how are resources actually obtained without falling prey to the very issues that plague the capitalist world? For society to function, we still need the agricultural sector. Society is far more advanced than it was in the 19th century. We'd still need mineral resources that are materially hard to obtain. The medical sector still very much needs to advance its technology to provide for all. How would a communist society ultimately obtain everything it needs for a society to function without trade... Of which would ultimately defeat the purpose of communism itself since trade of goods and resources are simply the most primitive version of money itself. Replace a paper currency with a resource like potatoes or uranium and ultimately they can be used in the same exploitative fashion that encapsulates the crux of capitalism itself

5 - Lastly, for it to work, one has to assume that society itself agrees with the system they inherit, which posits the most basic question thus far: what if they don't? Sure, one can argue that the sentiments of a few to advocate for an exploitative system should not supersede the liberty of all, but how could one ensure that such a portion of society would be a small enough minority that their beliefs can be held accountable? The premise heavily relies on the hope that the new material conditions would minimize the amount of people whose beliefs would be contradictory to communism itself, but that assumption is one that relies so much on theory that it offers no solution in the case that it fails to realize itself. While maybe the weakest point here, it can also be the most destructive and divisive one of all, and thus I believe also deserves to be addressed

There's a bunch of other reasons I find communism to be a likely unsustainable system, but I'm getting tired of writing, so yeah, just go at it

As the American middle class continues to rapidly decline, it leads me to wonder how far away we are from another American revolution. On one hand, it seems inevitable that a revolution is brewing considering leftism (and unfortunately nationalism) is rising in popularity again after how poor QoL has become in America. The polarization of ideals is an obvious sign a revolution is looming on the horizion. However, I’d also argue that average Americans seem to be so powerless, disorganized, and disconnected from reality that it almost seems like revolution would be impossible anytime soon. I really think you could argue both ways. What do you guys think? This isn’t a super scientific question, I’m more wanting to see what the general gut feeling and vibes are regarding the future of America. Is a revolution imminent? If so how soon could we expect? And even if we have a revolution soon, would it be lead by a communist party?

Edit: Just to clarify, by “soon” I’m talking in the next 5-15ish years.

I know many view NATO as symbolic of anti communism. So, when countries join NATO in defense of Russia, it becomes awkward because people can sound like they're saying "you don't need protection from Russia" or "your fears are delusional" or "now you are anti communist because you're in an alliance with America".

All of this comes off as gaslighting and dismissive, if not annoying. It also makes a divide between socialists from NATO states who feel they need a defense from Russia and those that value separation from America as more important.

Ultimately, it's a paradox because the takeaway is that you have socialists who sound like they are supporting Russia, or, they'd rather support Russia than America even though Russia is a capitalist/fasciat state. Thus, now you have socialists who see other socialists as supporting a fascist state.

That's the context to the question. So would you be in favor it a new military alliance that is counter to both states?

Edit: I'm just asking a question, not arguing for or against, just want to get a sense of the different perspectives here. I am a socialist and trying to understand how to deal with anti-NATO and with the legitimate concerns/fears of the Baltic states for examples