>>102707703I respectfully disagree. Absolutely communism killed more people in the 20th century than anyone, and on purpose, but I feel like everyone wants to forget that these governments were built and run by barely literate authoritarisn dipshits who were only slightly removed from being literal serfs. Eastern cultures crave strongmen, not inherently but because they've never witnessed a lasting functional alternative. Look what happened when people like Gorbachev and Kruschev tried to dial it back just a little bit, boom motherfuckers waiting in the wings to pounce. Russia's been "capitalist" for a quarter century now, it's still a cryptocratic nightmare, and for all the pomp and circumstance the PRC hold to they have more new money billionaires than any "capitalist" superstate.
Communism was too ambitious for the analog world. There's too many cracks to lose money in to corrupt middlemen when you're working on pencil and paper that takes two weeks to reach the records office. Communism, if it happens, will arise not from military conquest, but because the rise of computers will make the private management of capital by large entities a hassle by comparison.
Can you really say we won't have seized the means of production when a 3d printer capable of handling plastic/metal/ceramic is in every home? And then what role to the different higher-classes have? To hold onto whatever patents and intellectual property they can inherit or purchase at auction? What value does that add to the market?
I'm not trying to fall back on the "it wasn't real communism" meme, but isn't that kind of what's happening if we don't nuke ourselves? We like to delude ourselves into thinking representative governments replaced monarchies because they were morally superior, but the truth is that as communication got better having a single person running a whole country just becomes a logistical nightmare, and slowly people will just transition to what is the least hassle.
