Is worldwide "communism" inevitable?

Not top down Soviet style communism. Clearly that doesn’t work. You can’t dictate communism. It has to be something people believe in for it to work. Something more like the admittedly vague Star Trek Federation. But with the increase in communication technology and ignorance very gradually being fought, maybe people will eventually realize that we are not “the other”, we all have basically the same needs and wants, and we’d be a lot happier working together to make what we need than fighting over what already exists, or setting up complex hierarchies of disparate wealth as motivating carrots.

I mean, there will always need to be a way of balancing the ideas of allocating necessary resources equally to all while at the same time motivating people with some kind of reward for contribution. But it seems like the arbitrary distinctions of different religions and nation states and races and classes and so forth are just friction that exacerbate the false notion of opposition. If we could just get over that notion, that everyone else is an opponent, and see that they are not going away, and could even be a useful resource to us and vice versa, and that everyone has an inherent worth.

Yeah, more people have to believe that for it to work. But I think it is trending, gradually in that direction.

It’s taking longer than we thought. :slight_smile:

I suppose you’re not talking about communism here, really. It sounds like some kind of humanism.

As for the answer to the actual question: I hope so. And I suppose, to some extent, you have to assume you’re working towards some kind of future like that.

Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so.

I think so --economic conditions have gotten progressively worst for the middle class/poor (even in First World Countries) that a rebellion against the current world-wide system is in the works.

Mind you, not advocating “Communism” “Capitalism” “Socialism” or any other “ism” – just something other than what we have now.

Very much doubt I’ll be here to see it, but the world HAS to become a bit more balanced between the haves and the have-nots. IMHO of course.

ETA: Stats for your own country, likely one of the better off: Household income in the United States

As inevitable as any other phase in the historical dialectic.

Once gene therapy via microchip implantation is perfected, we will all be happy campers in the Federation’s Earth Affiliate. :cool:

I hope it stays at the “dialectic” stage —and why not? There are better alternatives out there. But people have a boiling point. And again, in my opinion, worldwide, we are not far from it. Take a look at South America and laugh if you will – but movements are growing all over.

Never mind a number of First World European countries.

Can you specify what these trends are? And can you be more clear about the system you are envisioning, because it sounds more like anarchy.

It’s inevitable that increased mobility will soften political boundaries, increased mixing of source populations will soften genetic boundaries, and increased education/information access will soften religious/ethnic boundaries.

Will altruism and egalitarianism defeat narcissism and capitalism? I’m not betting on it.

There is nothing more irritating than competence being unilaterally coerced to provide for incompetence; nothing more fiscally inefficient than altruism applied by governments on a large scale; nothing more inevitably doomed than socialism which depends on the redistribution of wealth instead of the creation of it; nothing more scatterbrained than the idea that we are all functionally equal.

So the pendulum will continue to swing between unfettered but wildly unfair capitalism and increasingly rigid but unworkable communism. The moans of the oppressed will continue to whine along, and the self-congratulations of the rich will continue.

Exactly what I am afraid of. But are you sure, IYO, the we’ve exhausted all ways governing. Please don’t look back at history, don’t see any examples there; do me a favor and think of how we can do better. If you think we can of course – I do. There might be a Viking in my past because I think Scandinavian nations are doing the best of all.

Otherwise, you are right – Rich win using the populace as their weapon. As they always have. So, no hope?

Your post leaves me hopeless. Too many people become waste & they aren’t. Quite the contrary.

Well, what you’re describing is not communism. It is internationalism, but communist internationalism is only one possible form of that.

Don’t go there yet again.

Liberal Republican presidential candidate Wendell L. Willkie promoted a world government back in 1943 with his book One World. It was a best-seller and won the disdain of the John Birch Society.

Another possible form: Futurama’s United States of Earth.

That’s an international system I could get on board with.

Op what you are describing is not communism it’s a “post scarcity economy”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy

A number of sf authors have written about this especially see Iain m banks culture novels and fellow Scottish sf writer Ken Mac Leod.

Everyone working together for the mutual benefit of all is not communism it is capitalism. Take the computer we are using to access this forum. Thousands of different people came together to make it work. From the people who mined the metals, to the people who created the plastic, the chip designers, the software coders, the people who drive the trucks that transported the computer, to the people who man the stores where we bought it, all of these people came together to meet our computing needs. All had different nationalities, ethnicities, ages, religions, and political beliefs. Yet they willingly worked together peacefully and creatively just because we wanted a computer. We used our money to reward each person who contributed to the end product according to the value of what they contributed.
All this capitalism accomplished without the gulags, mass starvation, and mass terror that inevitably accompanies communism.

Well, see; that’s just the problem. If we don’t go there (to the fact that human beings are functionally unequal) we won’t get anywhere stable.

When we create societal constructs based on incorrect assumptions, attainment of equality for things like financial or workplace success becomes impossible.

Suppose that I decide men and women are functionally equal. I make no provision for an average difference. The job in question is fighting fires. I can lower my physical standards for all, and have a bunch of weaklings get equal opportunity to lug my hoses up stairwells, or I can say there are two standards–one for women and one for men–and then find roles that women can (on average) still perform in the firefighting business.

An unwillingness to accept that we are all unequally endowed from one another by accident of birth is a tremendous blockade to creating a society where everyone has a shot at participation. Our moral and ethical obligation is to help the weak; not simply pretend that everyone is equally strong.

I am never going to have the mental capacity to engineer a good bridge for you. Pretending that I’m a functional equal in a mathematically-geared capacity is a recipe for disaster. Literally.

Well, you should be hopeless. The only functional government is a benevolent dictatorship or oligarchy where a limited number of altruistic smart people have absolute control over the masses. This prevents the masses from screwing themselves. But there is no mechanism by which the best leaders are secured in the first place, and no mechanism by which adequate succession can be assured. Plus, the masses want to be in charge, and the incompetent among them tend to blame external circumstance for the results of their incompetence. Given that half the population has an average IQ below the other half, it’s a bit tricky to persuade the masses they are incorrect. :wink:

The next best thing is democracy, because it lets the majority influence one another positively, and effect any positive group decisions. Unfortunately, from a fiscal perspective one of the commonest group decisions is to use Other People’s money for almost everything, and the most likely OP money to be squandered is the OP who is not yet born. This borrowing from future generations eventually becomes unsustainable.

If you are asking me about a “better system,” in theory, my reply would be a democracy with a binding universal fiscal policy to only spend last year’s revenue. So , for example, any government organization gets a percent of the total take; not an absolute amount of income. Recipients of benefits (say, for example, someone getting Social Security) get a percent of the total take, and not an absolute dollar amount.

It’s pretty simple, and the masses would never ever vote for it if they can just borrow a little from the future instead.

Except if you’re using an Apple product, right? :wink: