Small c communism, not any specific regime existing or that has existed. Please disregard those.
I think we can reach almost universal agreement that there are significant flaws with the general ideas of communism. I want to address these faults and see how they can be modified to be more successful.
Kindly take your communism-bashing elsewhere if you are unable to provide constructive thoughts.
Lastly, please read the whole thing before replying.
The first major problem I see with communism to date is that it has the unfortunate historical tendancy to be instituted in authoritarian states, and usually non-prosperous ones. I attribute this to a lack of definition in communist dogma of the government the system would work under. I think communism itself is inherently democratic; the whole idea is having low disparity in income and power, thus giving everyone a say in the government. The historical trends that establish communism in authoritarian states have mostly come about because of the nature of revolution; I can’t recall any states that peacefully chose to go communist. In every one, there was a revolution, and revolutions tend to produce dictators. I think it is a rather ironic historical fact that the ideological polar opposite of communism - social darwinism and laissez faire - that promote the individual achievements and prosperity of those who earn it comes about under mostly democratic systems… though the current climate in the US where an upper class elite is the only group capable of achieving power, they still have a republic system where everyone gets a vote, and the leaders are held accountable for their actions. This would make more sense under a communist system.
The second major problem is even more prickly, given the fundamental core of communism. Simple fact is, however equal you want to make people, a doctor and a mechanic can not exist in the same economic class. The doctors would simply leave for other countries and more money, or become incompetent. This is the second factor that leads to communist states being authoritarian - they have to force the “equality” on certain people.
Lastly, the whole one-party system is just stupid and needs to be scrapped. I don’t think I need to explain much on how this contributes to an authoritarian government.
If I were to revise communism, I would include a democratic system with it, possibly somewhat similar to the one going into action in Iraq. The government would be decentralized and “federal” in the sense that power radiates outward, not inward; local communities have more say over what happens in that community than the state or central government. I think this is a flexible system that would work in places like Iraq or America, where you have strong regional divides; one region could choose to institute policies (like, say, homosexual marriage) without worrying about the other regions doing so. Of course, that example is frought with problems, like what happens when a gay couple would travel to a non-homosexual marriage region. I don’t know how to solve that right now.
Basically, this is a return to a city-state system. Possible risks include civil wars and secession… which is why the central government would have to be the sole provider of the military.
Economically, some changes need to be made, and some ideals sacrificed. In the end, my system would look more similar to, say, Norway, than the Soviet Union. While lowering income disparity is still a prime goal, there needs to be some room for flexibility; some people will always have to be richer than some others. In exchange, you get the government providing necessary services (housing, food, utilities, public transportation, education, medical care, security (police and fire), etc etc). The basic gist is - well, instead of high taxes, look at it in reverse; low pay. Instead of making 100,000 and paying 70% tax on it, you would make 30,000. Same effect, but it looks less invasive, and given the number of services provided by the government, all this income would be disposable. This is important for the next step -
Economically, the state wouldn’t directly control each business; companies could be formed, but they would be owned wholly by the workers of that company, who would elect a board, turning each company into a “mini-state.” Pay scale would be decided according to national guidelines, but positions and promotions and demotions would be set by the elected board (who wouldn’t be getting a larger share of the company vote, but a higher paycheck to compensate for their expertise). Given unemployment, the government would embark on New Deal-style public works - hire the unemployed at the expense of the state to handle low-end state jobs. As for the unemployable, they would get a stipend similar to SSI/SSD, but largely be dependent on a hospital or family to care for them beyond that.
Hopefully this system would lower income disparity (doctors and business people wouldn’t be making the same kinds of salaries they could in other countries, but they would be relatively better off, without making the lower end of the economic scale suffer any needs, just luxaries), leave disposable income for some free market enterprise by communal private corporations, and provide representational government focused on local issues. Additionally, any child born in a given region has the same resources as any other child born in that region.
Now, tear that apart. I want to see the holes in it.
