So far communism had only been tried in small groups (where tribal dynamics make it work) and in Soviet and Chinese authoritarian regimes
Communism ≠ command economy
Communism ≠ authoritarianism
Communism = a broad selection of idiologies more or less agreeing with the idea “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”
Several countries have such strong socialist policies in place that they could reasonably be called communist if we didn’t pretend that capitalism was opposite to and incompatible with communism. Capitalism is an excellent technology for extracting from each according to their ability.
“Full communism” where you strive for perfect equality is probably less bad than “full capitalism” where you strive for full freedom of capital. Enough capitalism that you have the incentives it supplies and enough communism that those who won’t or can’t work are paid enough to live healthily and be in a position to seek work if they wish to, seems to be a good and reasonable position.
I’ll answer the other part for the parent comment too
If they fail to fit in to normal culture at work and are so unsuccessful at working, communism gives them a safety net.
They could have taken a risk and selected a job they expect to enjoy rather than one that will accept them if there’s a safety net
they could have selected a job they might enjoy rather than one calculated to pay enough to save for gender reassignment surgery if the state would pay for the surgery
they could have had the surgery earlier (which makes it better) if the state paid for it
It’d be fantastic evidence if we could actually look at documentation of how these small group trials have worked out. Honestly, it’s the first I’m hearing of them.
I don’t understand the word “paid” appearing in your third bullet point. Wouldn’t a communistic society operate without money? Generally speaking, what would a doctor’s motivation be to get 11+ years of medical school + residencies, then perform a difficult operation on a patient that has potential for complications and blame? (In a capitalist society, the motivation would be “Helping people” plus “Money”, tied with hospital-level protections against malpractice suits, but I’m curious about your answer)
Wouldn’t a communistic society operate without money?
You could have communism with money. People still need a way to allocate resources and barter. I’m out of my depth here, as I’m a socialist but not a communist. However, I recognize that communism isn’t the bogeyman US propaganda (in schools, media, culture) taught me to think of it.
To give you the less complicated answer, communism is an economic system, not a form of government. Communism can and has been authoritarian, but it can also be libertarian or anarchistic. There’s nothing inherently authoritarian about an economy without money and without classes, based on need. It’s just the ideologies that want to (or say they want to) implement it in authoritarian ways that got to run the more famous socialist experiments. If you want to see how non-authoritarian communism worked, there are also historical examples of it, they’re just smaller and lasted less.
Answering your question - in the period where most countries that called themselves communist existed, no capitalist countries accepted trans people either. But you are a capitalist nonetheless no? Huh, I wonder why.
Communism = authoritarianism.
I notice you didn’t answer my question either.
So far communism had only been tried in small groups (where tribal dynamics make it work) and in Soviet and Chinese authoritarian regimes
Communism ≠ command economy
Communism ≠ authoritarianism
Communism = a broad selection of idiologies more or less agreeing with the idea “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”
Several countries have such strong socialist policies in place that they could reasonably be called communist if we didn’t pretend that capitalism was opposite to and incompatible with communism. Capitalism is an excellent technology for extracting from each according to their ability.
“Full communism” where you strive for perfect equality is probably less bad than “full capitalism” where you strive for full freedom of capital. Enough capitalism that you have the incentives it supplies and enough communism that those who won’t or can’t work are paid enough to live healthily and be in a position to seek work if they wish to, seems to be a good and reasonable position.
I’ll answer the other part for the parent comment too
If they fail to fit in to normal culture at work and are so unsuccessful at working, communism gives them a safety net.
It’d be fantastic evidence if we could actually look at documentation of how these small group trials have worked out. Honestly, it’s the first I’m hearing of them.
I don’t understand the word “paid” appearing in your third bullet point. Wouldn’t a communistic society operate without money? Generally speaking, what would a doctor’s motivation be to get 11+ years of medical school + residencies, then perform a difficult operation on a patient that has potential for complications and blame? (In a capitalist society, the motivation would be “Helping people” plus “Money”, tied with hospital-level protections against malpractice suits, but I’m curious about your answer)
You could have communism with money. People still need a way to allocate resources and barter. I’m out of my depth here, as I’m a socialist but not a communist. However, I recognize that communism isn’t the bogeyman US propaganda (in schools, media, culture) taught me to think of it.
To give you the less complicated answer, communism is an economic system, not a form of government. Communism can and has been authoritarian, but it can also be libertarian or anarchistic. There’s nothing inherently authoritarian about an economy without money and without classes, based on need. It’s just the ideologies that want to (or say they want to) implement it in authoritarian ways that got to run the more famous socialist experiments. If you want to see how non-authoritarian communism worked, there are also historical examples of it, they’re just smaller and lasted less.
Answering your question - in the period where most countries that called themselves communist existed, no capitalist countries accepted trans people either. But you are a capitalist nonetheless no? Huh, I wonder why.