Politics are the most contentious possible topic, only coming before maybe religion in topics that lead to violence. My politics will most likely be reasonably palletable to most who would have disdain for the new web, but there is a real chance you will strongly disagree with my politics. This is entirely acceptable, I only ask that you stay respectful and don't immediately try and disregard my stance due to me being merely some kid on the internet.
Like most people today I feel some uncertainty about the future. Living standards are steadily trending downwards, the winters get shorter and shorter, and the rich keep getting richer. This polarizes people, moving people to apathy, depression, madness, and all kinds of ills. I favor a kind of absolutist hope; We will create a better world for us and our children. We will cease our death-march towards extinction and loop all the way back to a world of peace and prosperity. The ideology of this world of peace and prosperity? Communism.
A stateless, classless society where the means of production are owned by those who operate them.
Generally defined as either a transitional state between capitalism and communism, or the idea that the means of production should be owned by the workers, but with the free market and most capitalist ideas left intact.
Broadly speaking simply any ideology that rejects a state. When I mention anarchism without any prefixes or suffixes here I am specifically referring to anarcho-communism.
note: Anarcho-communism and communism have the same end goal, however anarcho-communists tend to favor communism as something directly achieved through direct revolution while communist is an umbrella term that also includes those who favor a transitional state.
The basic argument of communists is this: Capitalism is cool as fuck. It has led to astounding progress in production, a far faster research speed compared to anything the most learned feudal king could possibly dream of, and accomplished some truly incredible wonders. However, the downsides of capitalism lead to the most horrific abuses. Child labor, pollution, imperialism, homelessness and far more. Despite the astounding progress accomplished by this system we are still unable to care for our young, our sick, our elderly, and even ourselves. We act like a body having a constant allergic reaction, shorting our lives and being in a constant state of stress despite there not being any genuine need for such.
Communism, if/when put into practice will cut working hours to half or even a third of what they are now, while ensuring the basic, and even the luxury needs are met. Those who cannot or will not work won't be consigned to die in miserable conditions, but allowed full access to all they need to survive. No one will starve while we have food, no one will be left in the cold with empty homes, and no one will be sick while medicine is plentiful. All of this will be accomplished with neither the threat of poverty, nor the point of a gun but by the volition of all.
Two different ways of claiming the most common complaints, combined here for conciseness. The basic idea is that humans are innately lazy, and without threats (be they by the mechanics of capital, the state or the natural world) they will stagnate and ultimately lead themselves to ruin. To some extent? This is absolutely true! Work will be much reduced in this world. However, the gained efficiency from eliminating the profit motive will make it vastly more effective, and the reframing of work for all will make it an infinitely more joyous endeavor. There's an old adage I like that expresses this crude refutation of communism/any collectivism: A native american tribe organizes resources communally, with everyone stockpiling food for the winter and sharing it while hunting was impossible. The idea is that over time one person starts slacking off, and due to a lack of punishment or personal investment, more and more people become unproductive until one winter they all starve.
...Native americans lived in this communal manner for for tens of thousands of years >:3.
I make no attempt to defend socialist nations like the soviet union or china, and I support the most vigorous critiques of their failings and misdeeds. However, what I do feel confident in saying is this: the main reason why personal freedoms were restricted was that each of these nations had anarchist movements that were surpassed and beaten by state socialist movements. Had these movements prevailed, or come to power at a later point, these nations might have been truly successful in creating communism. I fully admit this is not my area of expertise, and I only ask that anyone contesting my beliefs read up on the subjects before using them to reject my ideas.
Anarchistic/communistic modes of production exist in our lives and have existed in past societies. This is possible, and eminently worth trying for. People claim utopian ideologies to be foolhardy and pointless, but I think the greatest vision of the world being something 2% better than what it is now is quite ineffectual and boring as hell. Even if communism is unattainable in our lifetime, our children's lifetime and even our grandchildren's lifetime, I think we have an obligation to all of them to at least give it our best shot. Should we fail we will only have made their lives easier, safer and a bit cooler due to the world no longer being at a boil.
I am no great political theorist. As I said, I am merely a kid on the internet who likes the sound of the well-being of all being ensured. Should your interest be piqued I suggest reading "the conquest of bread" by Peter Kropotkin, colloquially referred to as "the bread book". If you are instead utterly incensed at my thoughts here I still suggest reading it. It's quite good, and is only around 6 hours of audiobook should you prefer that route. I hope you have enjoyed, and even if you haven't, I hope you have a terrific day. :3