39
But who will bring me coffee in communism?
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
39 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1309 readers
63 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
"But which servant will be there to bring me my footstool when there are no longer nobles?" The people would collectively do the work that matters most, rather than shoving servile roles onto a lower class.
"But without the threat of unemployment, why would anyone do anything?" Human societies were communal before they were capitalist and for much longer. The closest parallel in modern day is how (some) families still act, doing things more on a basis of duty and shared responsibility toward the health and wellbeing of the family rather than looking at it like monetary cost and payoff.
We can look at the sense of security China has nurtured for a glimpse at how this kind of thing works: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11447997
Combination of material changes and culture enforce/reinforce a mindset that makes for a safer environment for most people. And this is with China not even being at the stage of development the question is about, yet it still has substantial, noticeable differences compared to the capitalist norm.
Incidentally, one thing I remember coming across in trying to learn Chinese is that the word they tend to use for the equivalent of "everyone" in English is 大家 (which literally translates to "big family"). Ain't that telling? We don't have to only imagine, we can look at the successes of AES states for glimpses of what developed communism would look like.
The problem with capitalism-brained people asking these questions is they are essentially asking, "What if individualism and idealism (the current superstructure) with communist societal organization (a future base)? How would this be sustainable?" They are right to be confused when they mash it together like that, but it's not how societal changes happen and it's one of the pivotal reasons that transition is such an important concept in ML. We know the current way of thinking and behaving will not change immediately. There is a process of getting there and AES states are living proof that it's possible to make progress on it!
When I make these same arguments I'm usually bombarded either by "Chinese propaganda! They spy on their people, they have no privacy!" or "This is utopian thinking, humans will always fight in wars just like they did before, there will always be a society that is better than another and it will dominate them, it's human nature! Wee wee wee!"
Yeah, it can be hard to get through to people precisely because they're thinking in the individualist/idealist mode and probably have 0 exposure to dialectical and historical materialism. It probably wouldn't go over very well to actually say this, but in the abstract, it amuses me the idea of telling somebody like that, "That's because you're thinking like an idealist/individualist and until/unless changes in your base (material conditions) happen, there's going to be little pressure for you to rethink your superstructure (your beliefs/worldviews)."
Still, I think in general being able to speak positively on behalf of AES states is worth something, more so if you're saying it to someone who otherwise knows you and tends to trust you. Even if people don't immediately agree, the knowledge that somebody they know thinks that way may at least cause them to pause and have to admit they are sharing the world with real people like this; which may lead to "there must be a reason they think this way" which may lead to at least trying to understand where it's coming from.
Now understanding where something comes from doesn't automatically mean agreeing with it. Fascism came from somewhere and there was real fervor and planning involved, not just "unhinged random violence", yet it's also a grotesque and violent system.
So there is also the step of making sure we bring the receipts on why communism is a historical good. This is one reason I like Blackshirts and Reds as an earlier book recommend. Because (from what I can recall) Parenti makes a point of distinguishing between what was actually communists practicing, and what was fascists taking advantage of working class fervor and then throwing the working class under the bus. It is a critical difference to be aware of. There are frauds out there (like the patsocs in the US) who will frame themselves as like communists but are carrying water for something else. But there are also real Actually Existing Socialism projects run by communist vanguards. This is, I think, easier for people who are used to anti-communism to stomach than presenting communism like it's an unquestionable good at all times and you should trust everyone who says they're a commie (which wouldn't be true anyway).
Then with dialectical and historical materialism to put it in context, the why it's imperfect is not "because humans are inherently tribal and will hurt each other any chance they get" but because of contradictions, clashing interests, and the nature of transition; which means creating a society that is more communal and cooperative on a fundamental, willing level (not just at threat of punishment) is possible. But it requires working through the contradictions, not trying to push past them through sheer individual will.
True, they analyze communism and socialism (alongside other related theoretical and practical parts of Marxism) with a capitalist lens and fail to understand that it is like analyzing a train with the understanding of a carriage: an example of outdated thinking. They do not realize that capitalist formations (superstructural and base) are not inherent to humans or societies in general, but are specifically existing because capitalist contradictions led to such things existing. Also unintentional anarchism dunk :)