What is worse, to say that Communism is only good as a hypothesis, or to not even know what the hypothesis is before you comment on it.Nimcha said:Not even that. You can clearly see it will not work without having to put it into practice.marfin_ said:Yes your exactly right! Communism is the best form of government... on paper.chronicfc said:It's because people get it into their plebeian heads that Socialism=Communism, Communism=Evil and Capitalism>Socialism, people don't want to mess with things
The first is ignorant because a hypothesis needs to be tested before it can be falsified. The second is ignorant because not only because you say your imagined hypothesis is good (which it most likely is not since it is not a true hypothesis), but because you do not do enough research to even know what the hypothesis is.
-
To answer your questions before you ask them:
Communism is the end of conflict, the economic unification of all mankind. There will be no competition between individuals that results in conflict.
This is not a hivemind society. Today there is a hivemind (and do not think anything else before observing society) because today humans are animals. Communism requires free individuals, and freedom requires enlightenment (--> Mutualism).
Of course there are requirements before Communism is even remotely possible (It is stupid to assume Communism is to be implemented among today's population, so you are a moron if you did.). I will only include enlightened Communism because any other is unimaginable.
This is the major requirement:
Humans have to be Humans. In most philosophical branches we deem as virtuous, we treat humans as sentient being and peers, this has to be true before Communism is possible in the future. To disprove Communism you only have to prove that most humans are animals and will never be sentient.
I know that I am not an animal after years of reflection, so I assume as much for everyone else that they can also learn not to be an animal.