What would a true communist society/country look like?

[sandinista]

Politically, I am a liberal republican (small r). Economically, I support regulated free market capitalism. Philosophically, I'm Epicurean, with a dash of Heraclitian Flux. Religiously, I'm atheist.

What is a liberal republican? A republicrat? So, judging from that, if I understand a liberal republican to be, more or less, a conservative democrat (ie. pretty much every politician), and "regulated" (that could slide from one side to the other...how much regulation?) capitalism, you're pretty much for the status quo, in north amercia anyway. No surprise.

[sandinista]

I like British humor, for some unknown reason.

Because we're fucking epic, that's why

I actually worship Karl Pilikington.

[Coito ergo sum]

Politically, I am a liberal republican (small r). Economically, I support regulated free market capitalism. Philosophically, I'm Epicurean, with a dash of Heraclitian Flux. Religiously, I'm atheist.

What is a liberal republican? A republicrat? So, judging from that, if I understand a liberal republican to be, more or less, a conservative democrat (ie. pretty much every politician), and "regulated" (that could slide from one side to the other...how much regulation?) capitalism, you're pretty much for the status quo, in north amercia anyway. No surprise.

I would change some things. I'm interested in any alternative, if it offers something better. Your alternative, to the extent that you've described it, has not offered an improvement and appears very likely to be a serious downgrade in terms of quality of life and individual liberty.

Sure, "regulate" can mean more or less regulation. I included that descriptor because I am not for 100% laissez-faire economics. The degree of regulation in a particular circumstance will depend on pragmatic concerns at any given time, and can vary. Regulation, however, would be limited by Constitutional principles and fundamental human liberties.

To some extent, I am for the status quo, yes. Things are the way they are right now, and change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing. I do not subscribe to the notion that we must or should change the system because there are presently things wrong with the current one. If a change provides a reasonable likelihood of an improvement, then I think it should be considered.

I think that humans residing in a community must have rules to govern how that community works, and there must be a means to enforce those rules. If you can think of a better way besides a Constitutionally limited republic, where basic human rights and liberties are protected against the government and the will of the majority, then I'm all ears. I do not accept "the community will decide our needs and abilities and we will be required to adhere to what the community says" as sufficient replacement - until I know how the community will decide, I'll stick with how it works now - elected representatives make laws within constitutionally prescribed powers.

[Coito ergo sum]

Politically, I am a liberal republican (small r). Economically, I support regulated free market capitalism. Philosophically, I'm Epicurean, with a dash of Heraclitian Flux. Religiously, I'm atheist.

What is a liberal republican?

Liberalism: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Republican: an advocate of a republic

Put the two together. That's a liberal republican.

[sandinista]

Politically, I am a liberal republican (small r). Economically, I support regulated free market capitalism. Philosophically, I'm Epicurean, with a dash of Heraclitian Flux. Religiously, I'm atheist.

What is a liberal republican? A republicrat? So, judging from that, if I understand a liberal republican to be, more or less, a conservative democrat (ie. pretty much every politician), and "regulated" (that could slide from one side to the other...how much regulation?) capitalism, you're pretty much for the status quo, in north amercia anyway. No surprise.

I would change some things. I'm interested in any alternative, if it offers something better. Your alternative, to the extent that you've described it, has not offered an improvement and appears very likely to be a serious downgrade in terms of quality of life and individual liberty.

Like I've said before, I believe that a downgrade in quality of life (as far as consuming goes ie...quality of life is not dependent on consumer items) is going to be required in order to lift other people up from poverty. Not everyone can live like north americans. People need to be considered before the "bottom line". As for "individual liberty", I still haven't read anything that would lead me to believe that a more equal system would equate to less "liberty".

Sure, "regulate" can mean more or less regulation. I included that descriptor because I am not for 100% laissez-faire economics. The degree of regulation in a particular circumstance will depend on pragmatic concerns at any given time, and can vary. Regulation, however, would be limited by Constitutional principles and fundamental human liberties.

Who decides the degree of regulation or what concerns are pragmatic? Who decides what is defined as fundamental human liberties?

To some extent, I am for the status quo, yes. Things are the way they are right now, and change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing. I do not subscribe to the notion that we must or should change the system because there are presently things wrong with the current one. If a change provides a reasonable likelihood of an improvement, then I think it should be considered.

Things are the way they are right now? Yes, I suppose they are, and no, change for change sake is never the idea. You don't subscribe to the notion that change should occur if there are problems with the system? Why not, if there are problems why not attempt to fix them? Improvement for who?

I think that humans residing in a community must have rules to govern how that community works, and there must be a means to enforce those rules. If you can think of a better way besides a Constitutionally limited republic, where basic human rights and liberties are protected against the government and the will of the majority, then I'm all ears. I do not accept "the community will decide our needs and abilities and we will be required to adhere to what the community says" as sufficient replacement - until I know how the community will decide, I'll stick with how it works now - elected representatives make laws within constitutionally prescribed powers.

A Constitutionally limited republic? Thats all fine and good up until a point. You're talking about protecting people from the government (which seems odd since the people "should" be the government) what we need is protection from what is truly happening and that is a corporate oligarchy. I find it hard to believe that you "seem" to believe that "elected representatives" act on the will of the people and are not dictated policy by the wealthy and corporate elite.

edit...removed comment attributed to you, not made by you.

[LaMont Cranston]

sandinista, Actually, I am the one who said that you sound quite sophmoric, so that would make you a second year university student. Congratulations, and you're only 37 years old!

All of your posts sound like you're saying "Gee, if we could only change the world and make it a better place, then, gee, we could change the world and make it a better place." However, you have failed at offering anything resembling any ideas that might actually work, and, so far, you appear totally unable to describe what your "better world" might look like.

Yes, things are the way they are right now, whether you suppose they are or not. Dude, that's what makes the status quo the status quo. Neither Coito, myself or anybody else has said that they are against fixing the problems of the world. Do you actually have any ideas, or is the best you can do bitching and moaning about those things that you don't like?

[maiforpeace]

Do you actually have any ideas, or is the best you can do bitching and moaning about those things that you don't like?

You may want to read your last posts (at least five or six) on this thread before making a statement like that.

[sandinista]

sandinista, Actually, I am the one who said that you sound quite sophmoric, so that would make you a second year university student. Congratulations, and you're only 37 years old!

All of your posts sound like you're saying "Gee, if we could only change the world and make it a better place, then, gee, we could change the world and make it a better place." However, you have failed at offering anything resembling any ideas that might actually work, and, so far, you appear totally unable to describe what your "better world" might look like.

Yes, things are the way they are right now, whether you suppose they are or not. Dude, that's what makes the status quo the status quo. Neither Coito, myself or anybody else has said that they are against fixing the problems of the world. Do you actually have any ideas, or is the best you can do bitching and moaning about those things that you don't like?

again...nothing to say, so cue the insults. doood.

Still looking for a leader it appears...oooohhh Sandinista give me all the answers...please!!

since you are so interested though, a few things I would do:

Cut military spending in at least half, probably more, and use the money to improve healthcare and social services.
separate politics and economics so that ceos cannot run for office.
stop corporate campaign financing altogether.
Legalize all drugs and treat addiction as a health care problem not a criminal issue. Used saved money to ensure affordable state housing, free daycare and education, including post secondary.
Get rid of term limits for office
nationalize all industry

thats day one. Happy?

[LaMont Cranston]

maiforpeace, I am quite familiar with what I've written on this thread, and I'm probably not going to re-read them. If you have some sort of problem with what I or anybody else has written here, I'd like to encourage you to actually come out an say what is on your mind. I have absolutely no issues with you, and I think it is perfectly reasonable that we ask sandinista to actually come up with an idea...maybe even several ideas...instead of having him just point fingers. Take care...

[Coito ergo sum]

Politically, I am a liberal republican (small r). Economically, I support regulated free market capitalism. Philosophically, I'm Epicurean, with a dash of Heraclitian Flux. Religiously, I'm atheist.

What is a liberal republican? A republicrat? So, judging from that, if I understand a liberal republican to be, more or less, a conservative democrat (ie. pretty much every politician), and "regulated" (that could slide from one side to the other...how much regulation?) capitalism, you're pretty much for the status quo, in north amercia anyway. No surprise.

I would change some things. I'm interested in any alternative, if it offers something better. Your alternative, to the extent that you've described it, has not offered an improvement and appears very likely to be a serious downgrade in terms of quality of life and individual liberty.

Like I've said before, I believe that a downgrade in quality of life (as far as consuming goes ie...quality of life is not dependent on consumer items) is going to be required in order to lift other people up from poverty. Not everyone can live like north americans. People need to be considered before the "bottom line". As for "individual liberty", I still haven't read anything that would lead me to believe that a more equal system would equate to less "liberty".

Perhaps not in a merely "more equal" system. However, in a communist system it's not just "more equal," it's "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need," and you and others have told me this means that "the people" or "the community" decide. That means the community somehow decides for you what your needs are and what your abilities are. If there is any way that can be accomplished without a deprivation of basic liberties that we all presently have - like - to choose what sort of profession or line of work we'd like to pursue (for better or for worse), or to eat and drink what we like and can afford - then you'll have to explain how that can be done. How can "the community" tell each individual what his or her needs, and limit what the individual receives to that, without reducing the sum of individual liberty?

Sure, "regulate" can mean more or less regulation. I included that descriptor because I am not for 100% laissez-faire economics. The degree of regulation in a particular circumstance will depend on pragmatic concerns at any given time, and can vary. Regulation, however, would be limited by Constitutional principles and fundamental human liberties.

Who decides the degree of regulation or what concerns are pragmatic?

The elected representatives.

Who decides what is defined as fundamental human liberties?

The Constitution, which may be amended by the people from time to time in accordance with that document either through ratification of an amendment or holding a new Constitutional Convention.

To some extent, I am for the status quo, yes. Things are the way they are right now, and change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing. I do not subscribe to the notion that we must or should change the system because there are presently things wrong with the current one. If a change provides a reasonable likelihood of an improvement, then I think it should be considered.

Things are the way they are right now? Yes, I suppose they are, and no, change for change sake is never the idea. You don't subscribe to the notion that change should occur if there are problems with the system? Why not, if there are problems why not attempt to fix them? Improvement for who?

I don't subscribe to the notion that change should occur MERELY because of problems with the system. Change should occur when an alternative has been demonstrated to be better than the current state of affairs. On the issue of communism, I believe it, on its own terms, offers a downgrade (for most people).

I think that humans residing in a community must have rules to govern how that community works, and there must be a means to enforce those rules. If you can think of a better way besides a Constitutionally limited republic, where basic human rights and liberties are protected against the government and the will of the majority, then I'm all ears. I do not accept "the community will decide our needs and abilities and we will be required to adhere to what the community says" as sufficient replacement - until I know how the community will decide, I'll stick with how it works now - elected representatives make laws within constitutionally prescribed powers.

A Constitutionally limited republic? Thats all fine and good up until a point. You're talking about protecting people from the government (which seems odd since the people "should" be the government) what we need is protection from what is truly happening and that is a corporate oligarchy.

Of course people need protecting from the government. In principle, the people "should" be the government, but it's flat out IMPOSSIBLE for all the people to be the governors of all the people (unless there is some system where every single person has a vote on every single government action, which is as a practical matter unfeasible). Even if we had a system where all the people voted on everything, we would still have a problem of "tyranny of the majority" where the majority doesn't give a fuck about individual rights....like....Prop 8 in California...the majority of voters in California said, "fuck no! no gay marriage!" - if "the people" are the government, then what is wrong with that result? That's what "the people" want, right? But, Constitutional - fundamental liberty - the right of the individual to marry - trumps the majority rule. The individual gets to stick his middle finger in the face of the majority and say, "suck it, Majority!"

I find it hard to believe that you "seem" to believe that "elected representatives" act on the will of the people and are not dictated policy by the wealthy and corporate elite.

Well, I don't think it's either/or. I think that in many instances elected officials are acting on the will of the people. I know this for a fact that the representatives in the US and the MP's in Canada (I spent a summer in Canada working for an MP on Parliament Hill back in the 1990s) take the will of their constituents very seriously. They keep track of opinions. They read the mail/email. They take phone calls. They agree to meet with citizens in person. They want to know what the people want and they want to deliver that, because the people vote for them.

I do, of course, also acknowledge that advertising buys votes, as do union leaders who can tell their memberships who they should vote for, etc. -- as do Chambers of Commerce, etc. Corporations that can provide lots of money and pay for issue advertisements, etc., obviously have clout because the candidates can get elected by virtue of those resources.

So, both things are really true. The key is to minimize the unfair impact of the monied interests.

[sandinista]

If there is any way that can be accomplished without a deprivation of basic liberties that we all presently have - like - to choose what sort of profession or line of work we'd like to pursue (for better or for worse), or to eat and drink what we like and can afford

We cannot choose the profession we want as it stands. If that were the case there would be no one working "shit jobs". People don't choose to do certain jobs, they are forced to in order to survive. Same with food and drink or whathaveyou, "we" can only have what "we" can afford. The barriers and obstacles are real. A poor persons "basic liberties" are not the same as a wealthy privileged person.

The elected representatives.

Elected representatives don't represent the people as much as they represent corporations, business, and pressure groups.

I don't subscribe to the notion that change should occur MERELY because of problems with the system. Change should occur when an alternative has been demonstrated to be better than the current state of affairs

better for whom?

Of course people need protecting from the government.

I think it is much more improtant an issue to be protected from corporate power, mostly because it is entirely unaccountable.

[Coito ergo sum]

If there is any way that can be accomplished without a deprivation of basic liberties that we all presently have - like - to choose what sort of profession or line of work we'd like to pursue (for better or for worse), or to eat and drink what we like and can afford

We cannot choose the profession we want as it stands.

We are not compelled by the government or "the community" to choose a certain line of work, or any work. And, yes, people choose what they want to do all the time.

In the present system in the US, for example, nobody can compel you to work at anything. In a communist community, you would be compelled to do something to what the community thought was your ability.

If that were the case there would be no one working "shit jobs".

That would be only if all people were successful at everything they tried, and had ability to do anything they wanted to do. We are all limited by our own talents and desire to work, and many other factors. However, we are not compelled by any person or "the community" to take any job, shit or otherwise. And, plenty of people drop their shit job and roll the dice, to do something they think might be much better. The only change communism offers in this regard is to make sure NOBODY gets to choose to do anything, except that which the community judges as the person's ability in light of the plan for the community.

People don't choose to do certain jobs, they are forced to in order to survive.

Not most people. Most people aren't forced into taking jobs "in order to survive." Some people have economic needs and limited ability and simply have to take what they are competent to do. And, sometimes the economy goes against them. But, at least they have the option to work towards what they would rather do, and take steps to do something else. In a communist society, the community would evaluate what the community needs done, and assign people with the ability to do it. You want to be an actor? Nope - the community needs ditch diggers. You don't even have the option to try - like by dropping everything and moving to LA working as a waiter and trying to break into the biz (not unless "the community" says it's o.k.).

Same with food and drink or whathaveyou, "we" can only have what "we" can afford.

Which for the vast majority of people is a myriad of choice. What your communism offers, though, is not even that much choice. The community will decide what you need, and that's what you'll eat and drink. If the community feels that alcohol is unnecessary for you, then no alcohol for you. You don't "need" it. We saw where that went with the Volstead Act in the US.

The barriers and obstacles are real. A poor persons "basic liberties" are not the same as a wealthy privileged person.

Absolutely - however, what your communism offers is not to expand the poor person's basic liberties, but to limit them even further. Under communism, they wouldn't even have the right to try to improve their circumstance. Nobody would.

The elected representatives.

Elected representatives don't represent the people as much as they represent corporations, business, and pressure groups.

I don't subscribe to the notion that change should occur MERELY because of problems with the system. Change should occur when an alternative has been demonstrated to be better than the current state of affairs

better for whom?

You keep asking that, and I keep answering. Better for the society at large - most people. Communism worsens everyone's lot.

Of course people need protecting from the government.

I think it is much more improtant an issue to be protected from corporate power, mostly because it is entirely unaccountable.

Actually, the corporations are far more "accountable" than the government. The government has sovereign immunity, and only has to answer for its wrongs if it consents to be answerable for its wrongs.

Example: if you slip and fall at the supermarket in the US, you can sue the supermarket for all your damages alleging negligence and property owner liability since you are an invitee/licensee on their property shopping. They will pay you money damages, and if they were reckless maybe even punitive damages. However, slip and fall walking into the unemployment office and you're up against governmental immunity - the total damages the governmental entity can be liable is limited and if they typically have a much higher standard to overcome for the agency to even be liable. The government is LESS accountable to the people.

Another example: A private employer vs a public employer - if a private employer is negligent and allows an employee to be raped or abused on the job, then the employer can be sued for millions in compensation and punitive damages to compensate. If a public employer, however, like a school, does something similar, the government shield's itself from being accountable and limits its exposure: http://miami.injuryboard.com/property-o ... eid=279830

We have laws making company's accountable in many ways. Private companies have, for example, much stricter accounting and finance rules. The government, of course, runs its finances in a way that would be criminal for a private enterprise.

[sandinista]

We are not compelled by the government or "the community" to choose a certain line of work, or any work. And, yes, people choose what they want to do all the time.

We are compelled by need. Work, or starve.

In the present system in the US, for example, nobody can compel you to work at anything. In a communist community, you would be compelled to do something to what the community thought was your ability.

Of course people are compelled to work, work or starve. Not sure what you're on about with this one.

We are all limited by our own talents and desire to work, and many other factors.

Thats what I am saying, I am looking at the "many other factors" which I have mentioned. People do not choose what they want to do, unless they are privileged enough to do so.

Which for the vast majority of people is a myriad of choice. What your communism offers, though, is not even that much choice. The community will decide what you need, and that's what you'll eat and drink. If the community feels that alcohol is unnecessary for you, then no alcohol for you. You don't "need" it. We saw where that went with the Volstead Act in the US.

again...it is often the illusion of choice. My communism? haha, I certainly don't won it. Under this system it is also decided...weed is, not only unnecessary, but if you grow it we'll lock you up.

Absolutely - however, what your communism offers is not to expand the poor person's basic liberties, but to limit them even further. Under communism, they wouldn't even have the right to try to improve their circumstance. Nobody would.

again...my communism? Not mine. What do you mean no one could improve their circumstance. If the playing field was evened out more opportunities would be available...ie free post secondary education.

You keep asking that, and I keep answering. Better for the society at large - most people. Communism worsens everyone's lot.

Communism does not worsen everyone's lot? What are you talking about? Who decides what is better for "society at large"? Does that mean community, city, state, country, or world?

Actually, the corporations are far more "accountable" than the government.

Actually, they are not. Of course, in the present situation government and corporations are one and the same so neither act accountable for much of anything, but corporate leaders aren't elected and are not accountable.

Private companies have, for example, much stricter accounting and finance rules.

sorry, thats a laugher...you would say that AFTER the bank bailout? wow. As for all the "accountability/suing" talk previous, try to be an individual against a multinational. Go for it, take you're public attorney and it him/her against a team of corporate lawyers and then come talk to me about accountability.

[Coito ergo sum]

We are not compelled by the government or "the community" to choose a certain line of work, or any work. And, yes, people choose what they want to do all the time.

We are compelled by need. Work, or starve.

Most people live far above the subsistence level, even poor folk. And, there are plenty of reasonable jobs that can provide plenty of food which are not distasteful. Everyone makes choices based on real life realities. At least you get to make those choices now. The communist system would simply take those choices away, and the community would make you do what the community needed done.

In the present system in the US, for example, nobody can compel you to work at anything. In a communist community, you would be compelled to do something to what the community thought was your ability.

Of course people are compelled to work, work or starve. Not sure what you're on about with this one.

You're not compelled by me or any other person to do anything in particular. You need to eat because you are human. How you get that food is your choice. The community can't tell you to work, or if you do work the community can't tell you what to do. What you advocate, communism, entails you being compelled to do whatever the community wants you to do. If you want to go out to LA and work as a carpenter while you try to make it in the biz, you couldn't do that if the community needed you where you were, installing carpets or something. How is it not clear what I'm "on about?"

We are all limited by our own talents and desire to work, and many other factors.

Thats what I am saying, I am looking at the "many other factors" which I have mentioned. People do not choose what they want to do, unless they are privileged enough to do so.

Most people are privileged enough to do so, in the US anyway. I can think of many examples, and their not about whether someone has money. People very often do what they choose to do. They also choose to do temporarily distasteful things, so that they can improve their circumstance and reach a goal. We are not mere leaves flying in the wind, landing only where outside forces take us. The reality is, if a guy wants to be an engineer and he has no money, he can do it. It may involve sacrifice in other areas of his life, but he can do it. In the society you advocate, he would ONLY do it if an outside force (the community) chose it for him. If he wanted to be an engineer, but the community didn't think him smart enough, then he'd be stuck where he was.

Communism would not make the situation better. It would remove the choices and the power over our own lives that we do have, limited such as it is.

Which for the vast majority of people is a myriad of choice. What your communism offers, though, is not even that much choice. The community will decide what you need, and that's what you'll eat and drink. If the community feels that alcohol is unnecessary for you, then no alcohol for you. You don't "need" it. We saw where that went with the Volstead Act in the US.

again...it is often the illusion of choice.

Sometimes. Most of the time it's real choice. If I want to spend my money on beer and Doritos, I can do that. If I want to join a gym, I can do that. If i want to smoke, I can do that. These are real choices, and the choices communism would take away.

My communism? haha, I certainly don't won it. Under this system it is also decided...weed is, not only unnecessary, but if you grow it we'll lock you up.

So, now you aren't in favor of communism? What have you been on about all this time? Why did you post sources for me to read up on it, so that I would understand what the reality of it was?

Absolutely - however, what your communism offers is not to expand the poor person's basic liberties, but to limit them even further. Under communism, they wouldn't even have the right to try to improve their circumstance. Nobody would.

again...my communism? Not mine.

Under any conception of communism ever described to me.

What do you mean no one could improve their circumstance. If the playing field was evened out more opportunities would be available...ie free post secondary education.

Only those who the community thought needed to go to school would go. If the community thought you were big and strong as a kid, and not too bright, they might say that you didn't need post secondary eduction, and you would be a worker. And, what's this "opportunities" thing of which you speak? In communism, it's from each according to his abilities and to each according to his need. What's the opportunity? To do something the community tells you you're able to do?

You keep asking that, and I keep answering. Better for the society at large - most people. Communism worsens everyone's lot.

Communism does not worsen everyone's lot? What are you talking about? Who decides what is better for "society at large"? Does that mean community, city, state, country, or world?

I was stating my opinion. There isn't a clearinghouse for opinions on whether society is better or worse. Based on your and others' description of what communism is, I think it would make things worse for almost everyone in the US. I think it's demonstrable, too - just the fact that each individual would now be subject to community rule on issues like what one eats and drinks is enough for me. I say it's not the community's business what I "need" in terms of my food and clothing. In a communist society, it is the community's business.

Actually, the corporations are far more "accountable" than the government.

Actually, they are not. Of course, in the present situation government and corporations are one and the same so neither act accountable for much of anything, but corporate leaders aren't elected and are not accountable.

You overstate your case. They are accountable on many things, both the government and corporations are quite often held accountable in very dramatic and serious ways. They may not be as accountable as you would like, whatever that is, but they are very often held accountable.

Individuals hold corporations accountable in the US all the time - lawsuits for harassment and discrimination, for example.

Voters hold elected officials accountable a lot too, by voting them out.

Private companies have, for example, much stricter accounting and finance rules.

sorry, thats a laugher...you would say that AFTER the bank bailout? wow.

Oh, yes, clearly I would say that. In comparison to what the government gets away with? My god, man. At least private sector folks land in jail sometimes when they commit accounting and tax fraud. We can't even get an audit of the Federal Reserve here in the US. You want to talk about completely unaccountable? Look right there! And, look at the social security administration - that thing is run like a Ponzi scheme. Any private retirement fund company running a 401k or other retirement plan in a fashion similar to the social security administration would land in jail for a long time.

As for all the "accountability/suing" talk previous, try to be an individual against a multinational. Go for it, take you're public attorney and it him/her against a team of corporate lawyers and then come talk to me about accountability.

It's done all the time.

[PsychoSerenity]

In a communist society, the community would evaluate what the community needs done, and assign people with the ability to do it. You want to be an actor? Nope - the community needs ditch diggers.

That's a terrible argument. A communist society would likely have the same ratio of actors to ditch diggers as a capitalist society would, and in a capitalist society you can still only work where there's work available - so you'd have exactly the same opportunities.

Communism worsens everyone's lot.

What on earth are you basing this on?! Greater inequality tends to increase problems in society, cooperation is more productive than competition, and in a capitalist society there can be whole industries that exist only to keep themselves going, with no real benefit to society at all. If anything communism would improve everyone's lot, more than capitalism could.