Star Trek is socialism not communism. Minor differences but different. You choose your fate, not the system.
Communism and socialism are big ass umbrellas that encompass many philosophies with a good amount of overlap. Sounds like you have more of a problem with central planning than with communism. So do a lot of communists
The main difference in them is the driving principal of your behavior. Communism says you should do what the state says is most beneficial for society. Socialism says you should do what you feelmis most beneficial. Granted it's extremely generalized and far more nuisanced than that, but overall, it's not wrong.
Happy to see that this conversation is so amicable. I really love the whole climate here on Lemmy.
Communism cannot be defined by what the state tells you, as communism is, by definition, a stateless society. Depending on what kind of communist or socialist you ask, you'll get answers on what the difference between the two is that vary from "they're interchangable terms" to "socialism is the stage of society that eventually will become communism, which will happen when the state, money, and class withers away."
Anarchism, specifically anarcho-communism, sees the end goal as the same as communists. A society in which no classes, money, or state exists. The difference is that Marxists tend to believe in a necessary interim period, normally referred to as socialism, before communism can be achieved. Anarchists believe communism can be achieved directly by simple behaving as communists now, and fighting for a revolution for communism directly.
These are all generalizations, and I'd you ask 11 communists... et cetera.
As someone else said, the issue most people point to when critiquing communist philosophies is central planning. Specifically central planning done in some nefarious way by a shadowy unelected government. It's worth noting that places like the USSR, Cuba, et cetera, democracy was increased after their revolutions. It may not be what some would want out of a democracy, but it was more democratic than what came before. Central planning, too, isn't exclusive to communist/socialist ideology. Walmart, Amazon, and plenty of other retailers run massive centrally planned economies that rival the size of many nations. It's an incredibly efficient way to run an economy, and with proper democratic control of the government, oversight, and a focus on what the actual needs of the people are over the profits of a corporation, or the welfare of an elite few, those models could prove to be able to end hunger, homelessness, and all manner of societal ills. Or we can use them to make sure the Walton family can buy extra mega yachts or bookman can go to outer space. Societal priorities are all that need to shift.
You are confused friend. Read this if you feel like it
You aren't alone. Reading the above I realise I've never really had it all spelled out for me like that. Definite food for thought
Ending world hunger is tackling corruption in chaotic places in the world. Not an easy feat. Just look at how fast the taliban took over when the US pulled out, or how corporations (capitalist and communist alike) buy from slave labor states
Definitely strive for it, but pointing at economic differences is circle jerking
The political instability many nations experience today didn't develop in a vacuum though, the US and UK in particular (also others) have their fingerprints on much of Latin America and the Middle East, and much of that interference was profit-driven
No doubt power consolidated more power and are at fault for the problems in the world. But other countries follow suit and few separate themselves from the pack. The majority of people around the world are apathetic at best and only interested in their direct social/family circle and that's the biggest hurdle for global unity
I'm honestly surprised that it didn't happen right after Brexit. There was definitely talk of unification so people in Northern Ireland could continue to be a part of the EU and visit the other parts of the island with no Troubles. (Pun absolutely intended)
If it's all prophecy then what comes next: the eugenics wars, the second civil war, or world war 3?
This is actually not true. There is enough food, shelter, and capacity for basic amenities for everyone currently alive to live comfortably. There are logistical challenges in getting the goods to the people who need it, but that's also technically possible.
We just can't all be driving Teslas and living in McMansions
Or just pay them like normal and stop throwing away most of what we buy from them.
Pay? There's no 'pay' anything in a post-scarcity scenario. Nothing has to be paid for. If it's truly post-scarcity anyway.
I don't. There will always be scarcity unless there's some way to completely automate the entire process of farming and delivery, plus maintenance on all the equipment, plus all energy needs.
I don't really see that happening. At least not for 100 years or more.
