NationStates Jolt Archive

I was pondering this evening about the nature of communism and its younger more moderate sibling socialism, and how it has been shown that communism on a large scale doesn't work. The Soviet Union is the example I'll cite for communism not working.

Why doesn't communism work on a large scale? Ultimately, I think it comes down to the distribution of raw materials and how someone has to organize this distribution in order for it to function properly which gives power to an individual or group of individuals. Individuals are imperfect and when given power will tend towards corruption over time.

This isn't a problem on a small scale as the main body of individuals can assert their rights over the powerful and force them back into line. On a large scale though, it becomes harder for the masses to assert their rights. Sure the masses are more massive, but they're also less cohesive and organized and the ones who control the distribution system have also grown in number.

This assumes that there's no need for a military as well because they hold more power than anyone else in the society.

Thus communism could be executed on a small scale in the homestead or subsistence commune model.

The last time this model was used, it was used by the Neanderthals. The lived in groups of 10-20 and were very territorial over their hunting territories. They never developed agriculture from what we can tell about them, but they had a society that consisted of many subdivided units, families, tribes, communes. They were over run and were driven to extinction by our direct ancestors, the Cromagnons.

A point?

I was pondering this evening about the nature of communism and its younger more moderate sibling socialism, and how it has been shown that communism on a large scale doesn't work. The Soviet Union is the example I'll cite for communism not working.The Soviet Union wasn't an example of communism, so it can't be an example of communism not working.

Why doesn't communism work on a large scale? Ultimately, I think it comes down to the distribution of raw materials and how someone has to organize this distribution in order for it to function properly which gives power to an individual or group of individuals.Why must someone (emphasis on one) handle it? Why couldn't everyone?

The last time this model was used, it was used by the Neanderthals.

really?

Thus communism could be executed on a small scale in the homestead or subsistence commune model.

The last time this model was used, it was used by the Neanderthals.
Native American tribes and farming communities

Native American tribes and farming communities

aww, there you go spoiling the fun

The Soviet Union wasn't an example of communism, so it can't be an example of communism not working.

No, the Soviet Union was an example of socialism, which is the predecessor of communism, not working.

The Soviet Union wasn't an example of communism, so it can't be an example of communism not working.

Why must someone (emphasis on one) handle it? Why couldn't everyone?

Isn't that like saying that if a car is designed, and it explodes into a million pieces, it's not an example of a car design not working because the product doesn't resemble a car in any way?

But the communism as practiced did work in the Soviet Union for a fairly long time. It didn't work as long or as well as capitalism by any stretch, but it did have some notable successes that can't be denied now that the system has collapsed. The problem with Soviet-style communism was primarily the lack of incentives and pricing that made it difficult to correlate supply, demand, and productivity like the market economy. It was a significantly less efficient alternative to the market system, but not truly a failure in the truest sense of the term.

I mean, the Soviets had an economy that at its peak was 60% of the US's and the second largest in the world with its first or second most powerful military.

Communism? A great leap backward, I'd say. ;) Thankfully we're not subject to it here at least.

Wasn't a significant amount of the USSR's power from their WWII victory and their relatively large population, though?

To be concise, communism doesn't work because people are greedy bastards.

Wasn't a significant amount of the USSR's power from their WWII victory and their relatively large population, though?

Their population wasn't that much bigger than ours; really, they did have some significant successes in economic and social development during their heyday in the 1950's and 1960's.

Isn't that like saying that if a car is designed, and it explodes into a million pieces, it's not an example of a car design not working because the product doesn't resemble a car in any way?

Rather, it is inconceivable that the car could ever be assembled from one million pieces, hence the lack of facts pointing to the existence of a designer in the first place.

Therefore, there is no god.

Rather, it is inconceivable that the car could ever be assembled from one million pieces, hence the lack of facts pointing to the existence of a designer in the first place.

Therefore, there is no god.

Hence communism is the truth? ;)

Hence communism is the truth? ;)

Precisely.

Their population wasn't that much bigger than ours; really, they did have some significant successes in economic and social development during their heyday in the 1950's and 1960's.

Yeah, but in terms of the world, the size of the USSR's population would automatically give it reasonable industrial power... right?

I suppose this discussion depends on how you define 'failure'. Certainly the USSR didn't fail completely, but compared to your standard Western capitalist economy it could be seen as such. Besides, the economy has to be somewhat sustainable, and the USSR of course eventually went completely down the tubes.

Pfft, everybody knows that you need a spaceship to reach Utopia.

Yeah, but in terms of the world, the size of the USSR's population would automatically give it reasonable industrial power... right?

It produced around 20-25% of the world's industrial output with around 5% of its population, and was behind only the United States in gross output, so it was pretty strong economically for a while. The only problem was that it was mostly heavy industry/raw materials and not consumer goods or agricultural products. That in turn helped produce the long lines and empty shelves associated with the Soviet Union of the 1980's.

Now, some Communist economies were different and did focus on lighter industry and technology products, which played a big role in why East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary had living standards far higher than other parts of the Communist bloc and only started to see economic declines far later than in the Soviet Union, Poland, or Romania.

suppose this discussion depends on how you define 'failure'. Certainly the USSR didn't fail completely, but compared to your standard Western capitalist economy it could be seen as such. Besides, the economy has to be somewhat sustainable, and the USSR of course eventually went completely down the tubes.

Their growth was biased towards extensive rather than intensive growth, and as a result the ham-fisted decisions of the government often produced growth at horrendous human and environmental cost. That was seen in the 1930's under Stalin or through the (post-1950's) Virgin Lands campaign of Khrushchev or Brezhnev's agricultural policies in central Asia that nearly destroyed the Aral Sea and polluted the groundwater severely.

I was pondering this evening about the nature of communism and its younger more moderate sibling socialism, and how it has been shown that communism on a large scale doesn't work. The Soviet Union is the example I'll cite for communism not working.

Why doesn't communism work on a large scale? Ultimately, I think it comes down to the distribution of raw materials and how someone has to organize this distribution in order for it to function properly which gives power to an individual or group of individuals. Individuals are imperfect and when given power will tend towards corruption over time.

This isn't a problem on a small scale as the main body of individuals can assert their rights over the powerful and force them back into line. On a large scale though, it becomes harder for the masses to assert their rights. Sure the masses are more massive, but they're also less cohesive and organized and the ones who control the distribution system have also grown in number.

This assumes that there's no need for a military as well because they hold more power than anyone else in the society.

Thus communism could be executed on a small scale in the homestead or subsistence commune model.

The last time this model was used, it was used by the Neanderthals. The lived in groups of 10-20 and were very territorial over their hunting territories. They never developed agriculture from what we can tell about them, but they had a society that consisted of many subdivided units, families, tribes, communes. They were over run and were driven to extinction by our direct ancestors, the Cromagnons.

Partly, it didn't work there because the raw material and food transport was not working properly (bad infrastructure), which caused that people could eat only one type of food in one area (Farmers bread, fisher fish etc.). The plan was, however that one area would specialize to one type of food producing, supplying them to other areas as well and getting other from them, but when the transportations don't work, or there are not enough, it leads to disaster in food supplies of people.

Secondly, the cold war was one part, for the goverment (or state, which should NOT exist in communism) used too musch money and industry to produce weapon (For example when USA annouced The star wars project), which lead to collapsing economy and angry citicens, because the goverment neglected all other parts when funding army.

Thirdly, the leaders of USSR (After Hrustov until Gorbatsov) didn't make any changes to economy or legal system.

Also, the developement of socialism in only one land and thus trying to expand only one nation, was not good for the reputation of communism in capitalist countries. (I'm not so sure of that there would not have been dictatorship in USSR if Trotsky would have risen to power).

Maybe if the red army would have broke through Poland to help socialist government of Germany in 1918, and the government would have concerned to generatewealth and happiness of people, then maybe, just maybe, this world would be different.

But I must agree that communism might also work in small communes.

But the communism as practiced did work in the Soviet Union for a fairly long time. It didn't work as long or as well as capitalism by any stretch, but it did have some notable successes that can't be denied now that the system has collapsed. The problem with Soviet-style communism was primarily the lack of incentives and pricing that made it difficult to correlate supply, demand, and productivity like the market economy. It was a significantly less efficient alternative to the market system, but not truly a failure in the truest sense of the term.

I mean, the Soviets had an economy that at its peak was 60% of the US's and the second largest in the world with its first or second most powerful military.

It's called state capitalism.

Partly, it didn't work there because the raw material and food transport was not working properly (bad infrastructure), which caused that people could eat only one type of food in one area (Farmers bread, fisher fish etc.). The plan was, however that one area would specialize to one type of food producing, supplying them to other areas as well and getting other from them, but when the transportations don't work, or there are not enough, it leads to disaster in food supplies of people.

That reminds me of something I heard a long time ago (in a history lecture maybe), and which I've never bothered to verify its truth. As far as Marx had suggested, was a communist economy supposed to only be implemented after a nation was already a completely stabilised, well-to-do capitalist state? I know relatively little of the detail of communism, and it is possible I am just remembering something incorrectly.

It's called state capitalism.

Actually, I wouldn't even call it that due to the complete lack of a market-based pricing system. If it were a true state capitalist system, there would be market elements even though the economy itself was government controlled. However, prices in the Soviet Union were ideologically rather than economically driven; housing was subsidized at rock-bottom prices while suits and cars cost a fortune if you could get them at all, and all of it had to do with Soviet political ideology rather than the market for cars, suits, housing or any other good or service. It was a hybrid of various elements of communism, socialism, and capitalism; of course, it seemed to take the worst elements of them and combine them rather than the best, but it was enough to fashion a decent economic system that could meet the needs of the state.

That reminds me of something I heard a long time ago (in a history lecture maybe), and which I've never bothered to verify its truth. As far as Marx had suggested, was a communist economy supposed to only be implemented after a nation was already a completely stabilised, well-to-do capitalist state? I know relatively little of the detail of communism, and it is possible I am just remembering something incorrectly.

I believe it went capitalism-socialism-communism; the Soviet Constitution of 1936 (and later in 1977, IIRC) proclaimed their country to be in the socialist phase and so would begin working towards communism from that base. The term "developed socialism" used by Brezhnev conveyed the general idea that their country had achieved socialism and was working towards communism.

Interestingly, Khrushchev predicted that the USSR would achieve communism by 1980. As we all know, that never happened and the union would be gone in another 11 years.

I believe it went capitalism-socialism-communism; the Soviet Constitution of 1936 (and later in 1977, IIRC) proclaimed their country to be in the socialist phase and so would begin working towards communism from that base. The term "developed socialism" used by Brezhnev conveyed the general idea that their country had achieved socialism and was working towards communism.

Interestingly, Khrushchev predicted that the USSR would achieve communism by 1980. As we all know, that never happened and the union would be gone in another 11 years.

Uh huh. This first 'phase' though, of capitalism before implementing socialism, it was supposed to be a fully-developed state with first-rate infrastructure and living standards and the like, was it? Or just merely capitalist for a few years for some reason. Because the former does make more sense, and if that is true then I don't see how any state that has called themselves (or been called by others) communist would really fulfil the criteria in this way. Just making a wild generalisation but none that I recall were in too flash of a state when deciding to dump capitalism. I know similar comments are what communist-sympathisers usually say as an excuse for failed attempts, but it does strike me as interesting and pretty misleading.

more of a step sideways. a real step forward would undoubtedly inadvertently encompass some of the elements of existing idiologies, including perhapse some of those they share in common, (and those from others currently more or less forgotten, such as a modified form of potlatching perhapse), while at the same time, a great many others none as yet do.

the crowning inane propiganda absurdity, is lumping everything that refuses to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper in with marxism.

=^^=
.../\...

My problem with Communism is that the central tenate: "From each according to ability to each according to need" cannot be upheld in the framework of manual labour. Now, there is nothing wrong with distribution. People have needs that they cannot fulfil themselves, and they provide services that are unique to them that they need to be able to pursue. The problem is that "ability" is wasted on agricultural produce and manufacturing. People are capable of so much more than working on fields or sitting on a factory production line, and Communism would require people to do that and throw away their potential.

Capitalism is subject to the same constraints, since someone will need to take care of food, repair, construction etc. In fact, this is a fundamental problem with present day economic theory; namely, that we are squandering the human resource in favour of the material.

Neither Socialism nor the Free Market can deal with the problem of making the most of the ability of the individual. Communism in this respect is not a leap back, nor a leap forward, but a leap sideways, in that it completely ignores the most important problem of our current society.

Ideology will not solve the economic problem. Only Technology, and the resulting elimination of the human working class, and education, to give the displaced a proper role in the new world, can do that.

I was pondering this evening about the nature of communism and its younger more moderate sibling socialism, and how it has been shown that communism on a large scale doesn't work. The Soviet Union is the example I'll cite for communism not working.

Why doesn't communism work on a large scale? Ultimately, I think it comes down to the distribution of raw materials and how someone has to organize this distribution in order for it to function properly which gives power to an individual or group of individuals. Individuals are imperfect and when given power will tend towards corruption over time.

This isn't a problem on a small scale as the main body of individuals can assert their rights over the powerful and force them back into line. On a large scale though, it becomes harder for the masses to assert their rights. Sure the masses are more massive, but they're also less cohesive and organized and the ones who control the distribution system have also grown in number.

This assumes that there's no need for a military as well because they hold more power than anyone else in the society.

Thus communism could be executed on a small scale in the homestead or subsistence commune model.

The last time this model was used, it was used by the Neanderthals. The lived in groups of 10-20 and were very territorial over their hunting territories. They never developed agriculture from what we can tell about them, but they had a society that consisted of many subdivided units, families, tribes, communes. They were over run and were driven to extinction by our direct ancestors, the Cromagnons.

it seems to me your main point is communism on a large scale must fail because the people are subordinate to a higher power which distributes resources.

however, this is true of any mixed economy system, as is prevelent throughout the world.

hence i fail to see your point. i guess you could be saying that this 'failing' is more widespread or more damaging under a communistic economy. this could well be true as it is an assumption based on the premise that individuals in power are corrupt. however, again, i don't see how this is the failing of communism, as this is very much evident in more capitalised societies today.

the only way of avoiding such corruption and subordinance of the masses is either anarchy or extreme libertarianism.



anyway, i'd disagree with some of your 'facts' as well. first off, communism is widely regarded as a school of socialist theory. second off, socialism came before Marx and his ilk... Robert Owen anyone? third, i - and many others - would argue the USSR was not "communist" but state capitalist. by the country's own admission they were socialist, with socialism being a necessary step on the road to communism in Marx's own theory of historical materialism. citing the USSR, or China, or Cuba, as communist is wrong. they are - at best - highly socialised, with the USSR barely even that.

No, the Soviet Union was an example of socialism, which is the predecessor of communism, not working.Not really, no. At best you could say that the leaders of the Soviet Union were socialists.

Isn't that like saying that if a car is designed, and it explodes into a million pieces, it's not an example of a car design not working because the product doesn't resemble a car in any way?No, but to call the Soviet Union communist is like designing an office building and calling it a car.

Secondly, the cold war was one part, for the goverment (or state, which should NOT exist in communism)Communism is stateless by definition.
If there is a state, it isn't communist.

That reminds me of something I heard a long time ago (in a history lecture maybe), and which I've never bothered to verify its truth. As far as Marx had suggested, was a communist economy supposed to only be implemented after a nation was already a completely stabilised, well-to-do capitalist state? I know relatively little of the detail of communism, and it is possible I am just remembering something incorrectly.That was Marx's idea, yes. Lenin had a different idea, which is why he pushed forward the revolution in Russia.

My problem with Communism is that the central tenate: "From each according to ability to each according to need" cannot be upheld in the framework of manual labour. Now, there is nothing wrong with distribution. People have needs that they cannot fulfil themselves, and they provide services that are unique to them that they need to be able to pursue. The problem is that "ability" is wasted on agricultural produce and manufacturing. People are capable of so much more than working on fields or sitting on a factory production line, and Communism would require people to do that and throw away their potential.Why would communism be incapable of educating people?

I suppose this discussion depends on how you define 'failure'. Certainly the USSR didn't fail completely, but compared to your standard Western capitalist economy it could be seen as such.
From mid 1920s to mid 1930s Soviet economy grew much more rapidly than average western economy.

http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-economic-growth

According to that between 1928 to 1940 and 1950 to 1970 Soviet economic growth was 5-6% per annum.

After 1970 - because of weak leadership, growing arms race and/or other factors? - the growth stagnated to 1-3% per annum.

After 1970 - because of weak leadership, growing arms race and/or other factors? - the growth stagnated to 1-3% per annum.

Actually, that's a tough question to answer; the oil crisis clearly played a role somehow because Soviet economic indicators only really started to decline after 1973. The arms race also played a role since the 1970's saw growth in arms spending faster than the economy, a reversal of the trend under Malenkov, Khrushchev and Brezhnev's policies of the 1960's. That ate up a lot of resources that could have been funneled in to the civilian economy. Also, declining productivity and rising labor intensity played a role, as did the imbalance between the populations of Central Asia and the Baltics/Russia; the Russian and Baltic areas had the majority of economic development but stagnant or aging populations, while the Central Asians had most of the population growth but little industry.

It's not a question that has ever been decisively answered, really.

That was Marx's idea, yes. Lenin had a different idea, which is why he pushed forward the revolution in Russia.

Okay, so far as the most commonly accepted discourse within political/economic theory is concerned, is this progression from a developed capitalist state to socialism to communism an important tenant of communism?

Okay, so far as the most commonly accepted discourse within political/economic theory is concerned, is this progression from a developed capitalist state to socialism to communism an important tenant of communism?Well, I would say yes, but only because Marxism is the most commonly accepted discourse within political/economic theory.
Many communists don't believe a transition state is necessary. These communists usually have 'anarcho-' prefixes, such as anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, etc.

Well, I would say yes, but only because Marxism is the most commonly accepted discourse within political/economic theory.
Many communists don't believe a transition state is necessary. These communists usually have 'anarcho-' prefixes, such as anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, etc.

I see.

If you know, how important was the transition phase according to Marx and other major theorists who posit on it? Was it a key to a successful communist state, or was it merely something that would "help" but wasn't necessary?

The Soviet Union is the example I'll cite for communism not working.

And you show that you clearly don't know what USSR stood for. It was SOCIALISM.


Individuals are imperfect and when given power will tend towards corruption over time.

This is the main failure of the USSR: the system allowed for the creation of permanent oligarchies - hence corruption and privileges. This, however, was a lack of democracy (political issue), not an intrinsical fault of socialism (economical issue).


On a large scale though, it becomes harder for the masses to assert their rights.
This is true for capitalistic countries, also. Again, you are mixing political models with economical models.


This assumes that there's no need for a military as well because they hold more power than anyone else in the society.
Why?


Thus communism could be executed on a small scale in the homestead or subsistence commune model.
I hope that by "executed" you mean "enacted", not "killed" ;)


The last time this model was used, it was used by the Neanderthals.

Might I quote as "communistic" (ante-litteram) systems:
Sparta
various heretical christian groups throughout the Middle-Ages, down to the Amish (collective work!)
some native American tribes

I agree that communism is easier to apply to small communities. This is valid also for capitalism, socialism, etc etc.

So what? Worldwide corporate bordello is better?

I see.

If you know, how important was the transition phase according to Marx and other major theorists who posit on it? Was it a key to a successful communist state, or was it merely something that would "help" but wasn't necessary?Hm. I would say that Marx felt that it was important, but that it was supposed to be quick. In his opinion (as I understand), the country should have been capitalist for much longer than the transitionary period from capitalism to communism should be.

I see.

If you know, how important was the transition phase according to Marx and other major theorists who posit on it? Was it a key to a successful communist state, or was it merely something that would "help" but wasn't necessary?

It was simply an accepted evolution given Marx was living in the industrialized age.

It's hard to say whether it won't happen. As information exchange increases exponentially through the Internet, it may cause a priority shift in terms of what defines 'success'.

Throughout the rise from tribal to agrarian to feudal to industrial, if we take the tribe as an individual, success has been based on land, goods and money. In a service economy, such as we have now in most developed nations, it's really about money.

Yet now a majority of people, and again I'm talking about developed nations, are able to 'make money' and 'climb the ladder', there's a backlash against the pressure of having to do so, the homogeneity it seems to entail and the misery of broken communities.

So it could be posited that we start to define well-being as a definition of success over and above money and well-being entails a certain community lifestyle, being the social animals we are.

There's a lovely line in The Porcupine, where the hypothesized fallen dictator comments that democracy only lasted 24 years at its first inception, communism, or at least the bastardized attempt, lasted 70. 2000 years later and we may look back on this era as the beginning of true communism.

That's if we don't destroy ourselves first but I'd rather be an optimist than a pessimist.

Hm. I would say that Marx felt that it was important, but that it was supposed to be quick. In his opinion (as I understand), the country should have been capitalist for much longer than the transitionary period from capitalism to communism should be.

It was simply an accepted evolution given Marx was living in the industrialized age.

It's hard to say whether it won't happen. As information exchange increases exponentially through the Internet, it may cause a priority shift in terms of what defines 'success'.

Throughout the rise from tribal to agrarian to feudal to industrial, if we take the tribe as an individual, success has been based on land, goods and money. In a service economy, such as we have now in most developed nations, it's really about money.

Yet now a majority of people, and again I'm talking about developed nations, are able to 'make money' and 'climb the ladder', there's a backlash against the pressure of having to do so, the homogeneity it seems to entail and the misery of broken communities.

So it could be posited that we start to define well-being as a definition of success over and above money and well-being entails a certain community lifestyle, being the social animals we are.

There's a lovely line in The Porcupine, where the hypothesized fallen dictator comments that democracy only lasted 24 years at its first inception, communism, or at least the bastardized attempt, lasted 70. 2000 years later and we may look back on this era as the beginning of true communism.

That's if we don't destroy ourselves first but I'd rather be an optimist than a pessimist.

Thanks for the replies. Very interesting. So not only did the USSR not follow actual correct communist theory during its reign, it didn't even start by using the progressive capitalist-socialist-communist methodology? Considering how major a factor the poor infrastructure was in its failure among other things, it does make it fun to postulate about what might happen if you took a well-developed nation like maybe Canada, and tried to implement communism gradually, and how it would go.

Might I quote as "communistic" (ante-litteram) systems: Sparta

Communism? THIS IS STALINISM!

*Kicks Risottia in the chest into a 1950's Gulag pit*

I've said it before and i'll say it again. It's not communism itself which is the problem, but the revolutionary marxist thinking behind it. It's happened all over the world and ended up in disaster, with mindsets "like anyone and anything which is a step away from communism must be exterminated, as they are betrayers of the revolution!!!" and other idealogical bullshit that forces them to do anything they can to reach an impossible end. This sort of thinking makes it more justifiable to fuck your country and countrymen over, because it's a means to a perfect communist utopia :rolleyes:

It's not very efficient on a large scale either.

Thanks for the replies. Very interesting. So not only did the USSR not follow actual correct communist theory during its reign, it didn't even start by using the progressive capitalist-socialist-communist methodology? Considering how major a factor the poor infrastructure was in its failure among other things, it does make it fun to postulate about what might happen if you took a well-developed nation like maybe Canada, and tried to implement communism gradually, and how it would go.Well, the idea of capitalism-socialism-communism was Marx's idea. Other communists, as I said, didn't believe that a state transition was necessary.
But yes, all of the so-called Marxists trying to implement Marx's ideology failed because they didn't start from the point that Marx said they should've.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. It's not communism itself which is the problem, but the revolutionary marxist thinking behind it. It's happened all over the world and ended up in disaster, with mindsets "like anyone and anything which is a step away from communism must be exterminated, as they are betrayers of the revolution!!!" and other idealogical bullshit that forces them to do anything they can to reach an impossible end. This sort of thinking makes it more justifiable to fuck your country and countrymen over, because it's a means to a perfect communist utopia :rolleyes:

It's not very efficient on a large scale either.Not all communists are revolutionary Marxists.
However, this argument might actually work. An argument something like 'You will never achieve communism via a one-party dictatorship' is actually a decent argument. It doesn't argue against communism, but against certain methods.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/berrik/Smileys/emot-synpa.gif

I personally think the future of communism is in democratic socialism, I believe this entails what I call 'consensus democratic' workplaces where each employee has a vote on such issues as wages, production, entitlements, days off, market choices, investment etc, these would be conducted through workers congresses at the workplace itself, and their would be no high central authority or union to regulate down upon the workers, instead they would have their own decisions in consultation with the entire workplace, and employers/investor bosses and those in leadership positions because they were elected in by the workers, usually probably because of their knowledge of the market and production etc, but also that they defend workers right. Once you introduce devolution to workplaces (I used the 'workplace' as a model for society), people in common consensus can make their own decisions, imo central govt regulation is the waterloo of communism.

As I see it, in the Western World we already have the political democratic basis, all we need do is apply above model to the workplace, which is at the moment operated as I see it like a 'Tyranny within a Democracy' if you understand me. The state in my model would act as a minimal social interventionist to ensure poverty, homelessness are eliminated and rights for workers are in law, but it would be minimal and mostly let autonomous companies operate according to the market at the behest of all who give their labor to insure it's continuation.