in ,

Good Communism

This article clearly presents how to create good communism.

About communist society

Karl Marx formed the terms socialism and communism. Both terms present political systems in which the society owns the means of production, but there are differences. Vladimir Lenin presented them by the sentence: the goal of socialism is communism.

Socialism-vs-Communism-1-1200x628.jpg

The problem is Karl Marx and his most prominent students: Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Fidel Castro ultimately failed to build socialism and communism even in theory. Their work in the field is a complete failure from the beginning and must not be considered seriously as a solution for humankind.

I have concluded that the prime condition for building socialism must be the equal rights of people. Marx and Lenin initially intended to build socialism based on equal human rights, but they did not succeed in it. Lenin tried to implement equality among people right from the beginning of the revolution, but his attempt experienced such difficulty that he gave up on equal rights of people and took control over the people. The rest of the socialist leaders followed suit. It was precisely where everything went wrong with socialism and communism.

***

In the article Good Socialism, I have presented a breakthrough on how to build socialism based on equal human rights. Among other things, people will directly decide how much of their incomes they would like to assign for taxes. The average value of all decisions of all of the individuals will determine the tax percentage people need to pay. The people will directly allocate the tax money for the collective consumption of the people. This is a fundamental policy change because collective consumption can no longer deviate from the needs of people.

In communism, people will need to allocate all their incomes for taxes by their free will. Then all of the goods and services will be available free of charge to all of the people. Technically speaking, if some people refuse to allocate their gross salaries for taxes, all the people will still receive some income, and some of the goods and services will be charged. This would still be socialism and not communism.

I know, people believe that communism is not possible to realize due to the weaknesses of human nature. This is false. Money is a real need in a scarcely supplied society. The elite have raised the value of money much more than it objectively deserves because by having money while people don’t, they get the power in society.  Socialism will significantly change it. It will increase production and workers’ salaries, bringing abundant consumption to everyone. In such a society, the money will lose its mystified value. In a highly developed world, money will lose value completely.

I’ll give one present-day example which shows that money may lose the value in favour of new values. Singers used to earn money by selling their songs on the market. Now songs are available free of charge everywhere. Today singers don’t measure their success by making money, but primarily by the number of streams and likes, they receive in social media such as YouTube. The more visitors and likes they receive, the more famous they are. It seems fame has become more valuable than money.

In socialism, the open work competition will bring the best worker to every public workplace.  The market will balance the need for all jobs. Every job will bring honourable fame. Then being a famous singer will be nothing better than being a famous driver or teacher. This “fame” will become more valuable to workers than money. Yes, one day, values of work and production abundance will reduce the importance of money. One day people will allocate all the payment from their salaries to collective consumption making all the products and services free of charge.

Money has functions such as a measure of values, exchange of values, and store values. Socialism will not ignore them. Money functions will be transformed into new forms, which will bring new values to people, such as fame. One purpose of money will probably remain, which will coordinate the production processes with the needs of people through direct democracy. It will determine people’s needs and coordinate production to satisfy their needs free of charge.

***

The political and economic model I have proposed will improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significantly higher consumer advantages to all members of society. By accepting it, and thereby ushering in equal rights and powers in society, people will become genuinely equal.

In general, the new system will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their interests, while at the same time driving people to mutual respect. Such experiences will demystify the values imposed by authorities. They will teach people to live following their proper nature, which will, in turn, free them from all types of alienation imposed by authorities through the history of humankind.

Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs according to the ability to satisfy them. This is the chief prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society because people who permanently meet their needs are not destructive. The proposed system promises a natural, harmonious and highly prosperous development of society.

The new system will bring people the freedom to learn what their real values are and how to get closer to their nature. They will begin to understand that work itself is a great value; individual to individual is a prime value, while goods will lose their alienated value. Once this is accepted, they would also understand that collective consumption is the most rational consumption, and they will be willing to allocate all their incomes directly towards taxes, causing all goods and services to be available free of charge while establishing the most stable and rational democratically planned economy.

This is communism, the best social system possible. This is what Marx desired but was not able to define – a flourished society.

About communist people

The new system will eliminate alienation and establish natural relationships in society. The system will overcome antagonism among the people as the result of alienated needs, values, and actions. The highest value of the proposed socio-economic system lies in the possibility of creating natural and harmonious social relations that will form natural needs and values.

The people will have much more free time to dedicate to themselves, society, nature, work, arts, science, culture, philosophy, sports, entertainment, relaxation, etc. Once individuals stop creating needs by comparing themselves with other individuals, they will come closer to their nature and will form a kind of connection with the environment and society that suits their lives the best.

Once the people have come to know their paths, they will not have to go anywhere in search for what they need, because all they need will be in their immediate environment, or even closer – in themselves. The most critical reach of the individual’s creation is them themselves. People get to know and develop themselves, their ideas and feelings. The more they get to know themselves, the more capable they are of building harmony with the environment. The closer they can come to another individual, the more easiness of living they can find.

Equal human rights will give the best life possible even to those who have all of the power today. In communism, people will have the best chances to realize a long and good quality of life.

***

Communism is the final result of equal human rights. It will bring freedom, justice, love, peace, wisdom, and joy for people unconditionally. Please follow these links; they explain how to achieve these goals. Also, I have presented the complete results of equal human rights implementation in the scientific book Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society. This is the most important book ever written, and it will stay the most important book because it will eliminate social problems forever. It is available free of charge in the link above.

Finally, I wrote the screenplay Good Communism. By reading this story, everyone will be able to understand how good communism should look. It is a comedy presenting people from today’s world who accidentally arrive in another world, in heaven, which is, in fact, communism. The movie makes fun with the people who bring there the values they accepted in today’s world and teaches them where real values are. I guarantee you will enjoy reading it, but also, the movie is based on pure science so that you will get to know how a bright future of humankind is going to look.

2 4 votes
Article Rating
Help us grow. Support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
peter mcloughlin
July 11, 2020

I shall download and read this interesting thesis. I believe humans must honestly confront their own imperfections if they are ever to reach perfection. Time is of the essence, for mankind is heading for another world war and we cannot tell when it will start. But for my own contribution to this debate, and a free e-book and essay, the reader can go to the link below. The message is simple. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not… Read more »

John Ellis
Reply to  peter mcloughlin
July 11, 2020

Wealth is the source of the the two greatest evils: POWER — GLORY.

John Ellis
Reply to  John Ellis
July 11, 2020

For wealth is the excess property we hoard above what is needed for a comfortable life, the plundered property that rightfully belongs to starving children.
Therefore, perfection is to be a pacifist vegetarian with no more wealth than the poor.

John Ellis
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 12, 2020

Would you agree that those most intelligent have the right to rule,
that your educated middle-class has the right to supervise
and that my slow of thought laboring-class has the right to
do all the manual labor for a living wage?

peter mcloughlin
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 13, 2020

Thanks Aleksandar, I’II follow that up.
Regards.

John Ellis
July 11, 2020

I have concluded that the prime condition for building
socialism must be the equal rights of people.”

Socialism is the less intelligent lower-half of society ruling over the more creative and intelligent upper-half. A gross violation of the rights of the only ones with the intelligence to rule.
A better way, a morality where “ownership” is recognized as a fake religion, where compassion and charity motivate a grateful response.
For charity must never be force, as it only inflates pride.

Victor
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 12, 2020

You appear to have badly misunderstood the concept of rights. Take property rights. Such rights arose by trial and error not at all in order to ensure an ‘equality’ of property holdings but rather in order to prevent and when necessary peacefully resolve conflict over property use: If Tom takes Tim’s computer, Tim is denied the use of it. If you rework property rights to mean Tim can’t have a computer unless Tom has one then the whole point of property rights is inverted. They become not a strategy of peace but an instigator of conflict.

Victor
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 12, 2020

Perhaps I misunderstand you but by denying that property rights are fundamental rights, the presumption becomes that under your scheme people will be stripped of their property rights – in which case you’re right back to Bolshevism and its decrees for instance that land could neither be owned, sold, leased, or mortgaged.

Victor
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 12, 2020

To me your writing is extremely fuzzy, very muddled, very equivocal. You write in abstractions. The reader is left to guess what exactly the problem is you are proposing to solve, and left to guess at the details of your solution. In stark contrast are the writings of say the anarcho capitalists. They could not be clearer: Dismantle all political power. Let all economic activity be mediated in a free market especially the production of security and justice. Let consumers hire a security provider from among competing security firms. For the anarcho capitalist, political power is the problem and laissez… Read more »

John Ellis
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 12, 2020

As the 50% most educated now have the legal right to own all the land and wealth, is it not impossible for the 50% working-poor to at the same time have that same right?

John Ellis
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 12, 2020

My conscience tells me that, because the one billion least educated humans are suffering death by starvation, I deserve to own nothing and to keep a clear conscience I must give all I can give to those who have less. 
For to protect our rights and the rights of other, we must not only know what is moral, harmless and right, we must also desire to do only right.

Fozzy Bear
Fozzy Bear
July 11, 2020

The more visitors and likes they receive, the more famous they are. It seems fame has become more valuable than money.”
The author looks at a complex web of contracts, middlemen, agents and government issued patents and rights, designed to turn clicks and streams into revenue, and assumes because he himself is free-riding, that everyone else is too, and that the artists are doing it for hugs and puppies”
This is Communist Pollyanna-ism taken to a delusional extreme.

Fozzy Bear
Fozzy Bear
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 12, 2020

I’m not the one claiming ego is more valuable than money, but go ahead and believe it if it makes you feel better.

Victor
July 11, 2020

Aleksandar, Nietzsche showed that the fundamental characteristic of life was the ‘Will to Power’. Oppenheim further clarified this point explaining that in man the Will to Power can be expressed in two fundamental ways. On the one hand it can be expressed negatively as political power, as the domination of one group by another. Alternatively it can be expressed positively in the form of the voluntary transaction occurring within a free market. The problem with Humanism is it seeks to prevent the expression of this Will to Power which is Man’s defining and fundamental characteristic, and to force its replacement… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Victor
Lorie Martin
Lorie Martin
July 12, 2020

Seriously? 🤣🤣

In case this is a parody, chapeau! Good for today’s Broadway 👏🏻👏🏻

John Ellis
July 12, 2020

WHAT IS GOOD? — WHAT IS EVIL? In the real world, everything is either good or evil. For good is life and all things harmless that sustain life. For evil is death and all things like sin that cause harm and lead to death. For capitalism and socialism are both evil, as they use the deadly force of government to create a civil war between the upper-half of society who hoard all the wealth and the 50% working-poor who have never experienced the evil pleasure of owning wealth. For wealth is evil, as it is the source of all power… Read more »

John Doran
John Doran
July 12, 2020

Good Communism? A reality only for Dolly-Daydreamers. the realities of Communism: deaths, by the million, read Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Zil lanes, for the elite, for the 10% who join the Communist Party, & grab the power. A bare existence, for the majority. Communism was a dolly-daydream sold to gullible dreamers by the banksters. Book, by WWII Canadian naval intelligence officer William Guy Carr, Pawns In The Game. Rothschild + 12 ‘pals’ plot for global domination is in chapter 3. Bankster $50,000,000 funding for Bolshevik revolution, during WWI, is in chapter 9. Can be read free online, using the search… Read more »

cudwieser
cudwieser
Reply to  John Doran
July 12, 2020

The reality of some communists were as you described. Read the ideas of Rosa Luxemburg. When presented with a means of influence how frequently do we render our responsibility moot. That is the greatest danger we face and until we can truly respect the power we wield forever will anything we try for better things lead to damnation (road to hell and good intentions).

John Ellis
July 12, 2020

As everyone has a different level of intelligence, to be fair
and just there must be different rights for each class.
For those most intelligent have the right to rule,
your educated middle-class has the right to supervise
and my slow of thought laboring-class has the right to
do all the manual labor for a living wage?

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  John Ellis
July 14, 2020

Since “those who are most intelligent” will therefore most likely be the ones who are designing your purported system, what would prevent them from designing it in ways that would bring them more benefit than is commensurate with their standing? What would guarantee effective transparency?

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 14, 2020

But WHAT measures would be in place to guarantee transparency? I am talking about SECURITY measures, you are talking about rights, market and labor AFTER the fact… Your response that this is “just a technical problem” is nonsense — because that is precisely where the question of security, which would involve law enforcement, enters the scene. Not to mention that there would have to be an extraordinary amount of personal moral development on the part of individuals for something like your vision to even be plausible…

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 14, 2020

Now I am satisfied that I do not need to ask anyone anymore about such things. Because there is no way that anyone can figure out or posit any kind of system — A PRIORI to the actual situation or event that will ITSELF come into existence incrementally — and take place through natural process, according to all the circumstances that are available along the way, even as some of those circumstances change moment to moment. Speculations are useless, but of which political dissussions and debates tend to involve in order to exist in the first place.  You might say… Read more »

Paul Martin
Paul Martin
Reply to  Paul Martin
July 14, 2020

All those who were wiser is older times knew that politics derives from culture, which derives from religion — or at the very least, from philosophy or spiritual considerations.

Dark day for Christianity, dark day for Greeks. Hagia Sophia to become mosque (Video)

Protests in Serbia send clear warning to President Vucic (Video)