That is the real question. Communism is the main competition. We could try something in between like syndicalism, or some other version of socialism. But everything is theory because we’ve never tried a different system.
Communism could only work if everyone, seemingly under some hypnosis, all decided to discard wealth and possession and status and everything, all at once.
If any meaningful fraction of the population retains capitalism, the influence of personal gain would override, as it has in the past.
Yes and no it was an authoritarian communism system (there are many subtypes of communism and even more subtypes of socialism) also you could argue if they were communist at all depending where you standing on the autocratic-libertarian spectrum since libertarians/Anarchists would say that the point of communism is not that the state owns the means of the production but the people themselves.
That is the real question. Communism is the main competition. We could try something in between like syndicalism, or some other version of socialism. But everything is theory because we’ve never tried a different system.
Communism could only work if everyone, seemingly under some hypnosis, all decided to discard wealth and possession and status and everything, all at once.
If any meaningful fraction of the population retains capitalism, the influence of personal gain would override, as it has in the past.
Half of the world was communist for most part of the 1900s. It has certainty been tried, and it failed spectacularly.
More than 1/6th of the world still is, and it’s working spectacularly for them
This is such a goofy thing to say imo
Yes and no it was an authoritarian communism system (there are many subtypes of communism and even more subtypes of socialism) also you could argue if they were communist at all depending where you standing on the autocratic-libertarian spectrum since libertarians/Anarchists would say that the point of communism is not that the state owns the means of the production but the people themselves.