₦airaland Forum

Is the abolition of private property the aim of communism?

When a battle has become longstanding then the gladiators may not remember what actually caused it

This was the IFA cast for the communists that focussed on the abolition of private property instead of the eradication of class in the society.

The stated aim of communism ab initio was to create a classless society. The path to that end is what is contentious. The people who failed at communism wanted to get there by abolishing private property and the free market.

However no society has ever succeeded or will ever succeed in abolishing any of the two. You can't ban people from owning personal things and there is no country where petty buying and selling is not going on. You can prevent them from scaling up. Yes but you can not ban petty trading in any country entirely. All so called communist or socialist countries have small scale capitalists.

Karl Marx and co divided the society into several classes including peasants, proletariat, bourgeoisie and capitalist but the division can just be into two broad classes which are investor and worker. If all human beings are by statute a worker-investor hybrid than there can be a classless society. You will have to pay tax as a citizen, save into an investment fund of your choice and thereby grow in net worth as you age whether you like it or not and you will also be well educated and even be publishing in journals and such a society will be essentially classless. Old poor people will be rare if not totally non existent and people's status will be enhanced on average overtime other things being equal.

In Nigeria already there is a pension law that mandates people to save into a pension fund and many after some years have enough to build a small mansion. The percentage is eighteen percent of income contributed by employee and employer.

It is therefore possible to achieve communism via a free market economy path as against the path of the abolition of private property that have failed.

Communism ie a no one left behind system with no caste or class should still be the aim of humanity. It does not stop people from becoming multi billionaires but it can stop people from becoming wretched.

You will own nothing and you will be happy

I don't think a completely and entirely communist society is possible...

Different societies practice different models of communism eg Cuba, China and Russia.


They don't practice in the strict sense of the concept.


I think communism would work well in Africa... not a deep or strict version but modified for Africa.


Most of Africa's past is tied to Communist style governments before the arrival of Europeans and their system of democratic/capitalist government which I think is a waste. Capitalism creates inequality.


Africa must fashion it's own form of government to suit it. Not follow -follow syndrome of the west which doesn't seem to be yielding results!

Communism is against Human nature this is why it fails, Human beings need a sense of purpose and thee purpose usually comes from ownership of things like asset

Communism is idealism and not baked in reality

@OP.

Personally, I feel there is no place for communism in todays world. What you tout as unique benefits of communism can be covered under the ideas of socio-capitalism.

Absolute and purist communism jars with the nature and instinct of man in my opinion.

raumdeuter:
Communism is against Human nature this is why it fails, Human beings need a sense of purpose and thee purpose usually comes from ownership of things like asset

Communism is idealism and not baked in reality

Communism is not about stopping people from owning things. That is a distraction. It is about creating a classless society

WizardOfNG:
@OP.

Personally, I feel there is no place for communism in todays world. What you tout as unique benefits of communism can be covered under the ideas of socio-capitalism.

Absolute and purist communism jars with the nature and instinct of man in my opinion.

Well what is in a name? A rose by any other name will smell as sweet.

But what if it ends classism in the society? What if it solves the very problem of class that Karl Marx and Co were worried about?

The right tag for the economic system in my opinion is Free market communism

lawani:
Communism is not about stopping people from owning things. That is a distraction. It is about creating a classless society

Is there anything realistically like a classless society? Human being are not born equal, Some are smarter, taller, faster, more beautiful etc than others So there will be a different class of smarter, taller, faster richer etc

Even in old times, there was a special respect and class for the stronger warriors, the priests, the beautiful ones

raumdeuter:
Is there anything realistically like a classless society? Human being are not born equal, Some are smarter, taller, faster, more beautiful etc than others So there will be a different class of smarter, taller, faster richer etc

Even in old times, there was a special respect and class for the stronger warriors, the priests, the beautiful ones

Yes there can be a classless society where HDI is top notch, opportunity open to all and poverty almost none existent, no downtrodden people. There are societies where people are stuck in whatever situation they find themselves. That is a society of class or caste

lawani:
Well what is in a name? A rose by any other name will smell as sweet.

But what if it ends classism in the society? What if it solves the very problem of class that Karl Marx and Co were worried about?

Classism is not an issue in a society where leaders, especially political, have made the effort to keep all citizens, within reason, happy and fulfilled regardless of their social class.

I've lived in the UK most of my life and the people who talk as you do are those activist overly obsessed with insisting the British monarchy is somehow evil because it is generationally wealthy and privileged.

Whereas most Britons don't mind them, with many actually even fans of the monarchy, because they too, and to a reasonable extent, can have more modest versions of what the royals and wealthiest in society have.

Like the ability to buy a comfortable home with a 25 year mortgage, live well, eat well, go on family holidays twice a year, have a brand new car every three years on lease plan because of good credit, buy two of the same 65" OLED TV King Charles uses per good credit etc, etc.

Most modern nations have long accepted that class divisions happen naturally to then identify that the key to keeping all as happy as possible is to ensure citizens, in whatever class they find themselves, have fulfilled lives and are not disenfranchised or discriminated against.

Nations that can achieve that don't have to worry about class division which are not really formal or distinctly pronounced anymore, as things were in the age that led to the French revolution, with many today being able to transcend class barriers even if they begun as slaves, to become almost royalty. I.e Cicely Tyson.

Societies simply need to strive to work well for every inhabitant as best as possible.

Although I can see your disdain for classism if applied to Nigeria where the wealthy and privileged go out of their way to ensure society is discriminatory and not as meritocratic as she needs to be so that all below them are never empowered and they alone have lives of opulence, privilege and opportunities.

WizardOfNG:
Classism is not an issue in a society where leaders, especially political, have made the effort to keep all citizens, within reason, happy and fulfilled regardless of their social class.

I've lived in the UK most of my life and the people who talk as you do are those activist overly obsessed with insisting the British monarchy is somehow evil because it is generationally wealthy and privileged.

Whereas most Britons don't mind them, with many actually even fans of the monarchy, because they too, and to a reasonable extent, can have more modest versions of what the royals and wealthiest in society have.

Like the ability to buy a comfortable home with a 25 year mortgage, live well, eat well, go on family holidays twice a year, have a brand new car every three years on lease plan because of good credit, buy two of the same 65" OLED TV King Charles uses per good credit etc, etc.

Most modern nations have long accepted that class divisions happen naturally to then identify that the key to keeping all as happy as possible is to ensure citizens, in whatever class they find themselves, have fulfilled lives and are not disenfranchised or discriminated against.

Nations that can achieve that don't have to worry about class division which are not really formal or distinctly pronounced anymore, as things were in the age that led to the French revolution, with many today being able to transcend class barriers even if they begun as slaves, to become almost royalty. I.e Cicely Tyson.

Societies simply need to strive to work well for every inhabitant as best as possible.

Although I can see your disdain for classism if applied to Nigeria where the wealthy and privileged go out of their way to ensure society is discriminatory and not as meritocratic as she needs to be so that all below them are never empowered and they alone have lives of opulence, privilege and opportunities.

In a society of high HDI, accessible opportunities, no homelessness, guaranteed income and etc, classism will not be much of an issue as they are almost there but I believe the average second tier city in Nigeria has less homelessness per Capita than many European cities because rent is cheap and you can't have a job and be homeless, you can hardly be homeless

European countries have money to spend because they have a high tax to GDP ratio hence they solve more problems for their people. The main thing they need to add is just pensions fund to grow people's net worth and a guaranteed means of livelihood to replace unemployment benefits.

Europe is struggling too and many citizens are complaining that they are being left behind despite that they are the leaders.

lawani:
Yes there can be a classless society where HDI is top notch, opportunity open to all and poverty almost none existent, no downtrodden people. There are societies where people are stuck in whatever situation they find themselves. That is a society of class or caste

That is Utopian, Give an example of a real world example of this

raumdeuter:
That is Utopian, Give an example of a real world example of this

Is there anywhere in the world where all workers are statutorily obliged to be investors? Where you must grow financially whether you like it or not?
None yet and that is the purpose of my op.

lawani:
Is there anywhere in the world where all workers are statutorily obliged to be investors? Where you must grow financially whether you like it or not?
None yet and that is the purpose of my op.

None yet because its not practical. We are not born equal and there will always be classes

Its like saying there should be schools where excellence is promoted but there shouldnt be exams or grades

People will work harder, some will the stronger, and they will be rewarded for it which will create a different class

raumdeuter:
None yet because its not practical. We are not born equal and there will always be classes

Its like saying there should be schools where excellence is promoted but there shouldnt be exams or grades

People will work harder, some will the stronger, and they will be rewarded for it which will create a different class

You can be of means. My two classes are worker and investor. You can be a cripple and be a HNI and a PhD. The average sixty year old can be a PhD with twenty published works while being a Director in at least a small company. A society like that is a classless society. It is not about being the most beautiful and etc but by becoming a person of value and means as you age.

There is no big deal in becoming a person of economic means. Just save and invest and be careful but many don't. Government can force everybody to and I wonder why you say it is not realistic

Everybody can have basic education is the right analogy not having schools without having exams