Well, you see the problem is, people don't understand communism, especially most authors.
If you read the original, the final stage of communism is the complete elimination of all governments and the creation of a world full of communes that everyone lives in. Ironically, for all my hatred of communism, I actually think the final stage is doable. The problem is, WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE PROCEEDING STEPS WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE FINAL STAGE COMMUNISM?
Confused?
Ah. Allow me to explain.
Capitalism: A guy walking through the desert with a bar of gold. A man with a bottle of water. Exchange gold for water.
Socialism: The guy is clearly dying, you just give him the water.
Capitalism is an exchange of goods and services, whereas socialism is From each by their ability, to each their need.
So, as I've demonstrated, you can have socialism between TWO PEOPLE, just like you can have Capitalism between two people. In a way, those two people, for a brief moment, are a commune.
Now take your average family. NO. Not YOUR dysfunctional family, an average one.
Does dad hand the kid a bill for 685k when he turns 18? No. A family, at least internally, is socialism.
Now take a small business of about 50 people. Ignore everything OUTSIDE the business. Look at the INTERNAL transactions of money/resources/time/manpower ONLY. Is that INTERNAL exchange capitalism, or socialism?
Spoiler: It's socialism.
People think a business is Capitalism because it's a BUSINESS, but if you ignore what everyone tells you and look at what ACTUALLY HAPPENS, the HR department doesn't charge sales for supplying them with new members. The janitorial department doesn't expect tips for cleaning up and emptying the trash. Each department and each member of the department works for the betterment of the company, from each by their ability, and to each department by their need.
Socialism... INTERNALLY.
The capitalism is when the collective unit known as a SMALL BUSINESS interacts with external actors. Now, you might say, "HOLD IT ELDRITCH, don't employees get paid to work there?" Ah. Yes. That is an EXTERNAL transaction to pull people into the collective. However, what they do AFTER being paid to work there, the internal "economy" of the business is socialism.
In short, you are a member of many a "commune" right now. The only difference between Final stage communism and the current world is that these communes interact with one another through capitalism (usually)
So communism is about destroying society only to recreate society exactly the way it currently is.
Instead, authors get hung up on the BS of communism and don't understand how it would actually function in the real world.
The problem with most socialistic "communes" is they work best on the small scale. Under the Dunbar empathy limit, you can "know" everyone in your "commune", be it a business, a family, or just a sports team. If you know someone's name and have vague feelings of connection to them, you aren't likely to screw them over.
However, when a company climbs into the thousands, people don't know each other anymore. So you need something else to hold the collective together. Usually a cause or a cult of personality. Apple Computer is a great example. Steve Jobs ran the place as a small business. It grew bigger. He lost control. It fumbled. He retook control. He built a cult following. The company prospered. He died. The place fell apart. Why?
The larger a socialistic collective, the more likely corruption will occur.
Capitalism is the opposite.
Socialism works GREAT on the small scale, but Capitalism SUCKS on the small scale. The ideal example is Oil.
You got what? 5 oil companies. These huge bloated "collectives" are corrupt as fuck, but externally, they have no competitors. That's a LACK of capitalism. Where are all the problems with oil and the byproducts of oil? In the big companies that become corrupted because they are SO BLOATED past the Dunbar empathy limit, it is not funny, but ALSO, they have no competitors, so they get to screw everyone.
HOWEVER...
Look at Gas stations.
There are many gas stations. If you look at gas stations and how much profit they make, it's not much. They get pennies per gallon sold. There is MUCH capitalism on the retail level, therefore, the gas stations aren't the ones screwing the consumer.
What do authors do?
They point to Large companies and say, "EVIL CAPITALIST COMPANY" when the fact of the matter is, internally, it is a MASSIVE socialistic commune and because it is so big, it is corrupt. The company has no competitors, so it is "EVIL CAPITALISM" when the truth is, a lack of competitors is a LACK OF CAPITALISM.
So my problem is, that people misapply the label of Capitalism to Communism, and think, for this reason, communism is good.
Communism is good... on a small scale. Anything over 250 people starts to have problems. Capitalism is good, on a large scale. I would be terrified if... say... the US Military was internally capitalist. Where platoons had to buy their own weapons and captains owned the warships they commanded. That would be horrifying. Most militaries are, internally, socialist. You don't have to BID on getting Artillery support. You don't have to pay the tanks coming to back you up by the mile. Large militaries normally get around the corruption problem with Jingoism. This has a whole other set of problems because it devalues the individual, but that's another discussion.
Socialism/communes have their place. They exist, form, and then fall apart all the time, but because people are so hung up on words and definition and their ideology, and not on actions or actual results, they confuse things.
Thus I hate it when authors take the easy route of just continuing the misconceptions about communism in general.
