it tires me to see debates over “what would happen to (x) under communism”

because the very question seems to assume that Communism is a single, perfect system that adheres exactly, 100% unfailingly to what Marx wrote, and if any attempt at Communism ever strays from that even slightly, then it’s Not Actually Communism and therefore it’s just, like, irrelevant to the discussion

like. when someone asks about the distinction between private property, which is Capitalist and would be abolished under Communism, and personal property, which would be left alone– the debate always mostly just laughs at them for not understanding

“read the book!” …as if it’s crystal clear on exactly where the line would be drawn, in a way that would still make perfect sense in present society.

Is my collection of toys gonna get taken? because it could be seen as money-making property, if, like, I might downsize and sell some of them later, and they might end up going for more than i bought them for? …well, I guess it depends on which politicians happen to be in control of the specific hypothetical Communist state you’re talking about.

Just like ANY ideology. the way it works is gonna depend on who is enforcing it and what their goals happen to be in any given moment.

it seems like a cop-out to just say “this is the book they have to adhere to, and there is One Single Right Way to interpret and adhere to it, and if they don’t do it the Right Way, then we can just disregard them, nothing they do even matters, because they aren’t REALLY an example of the ideology”

you see people say that about Christianity all the time. do you not learn from that

like. There is definitely value in talking about the question of “what We Should Try To Do if we were setting up a Communist society” –or for that matter a society structured around any other worldview.

There is value in asking, What do we consider the core values of our belief system? How do we think the rules of such a society should work, and how do we think they should they apply in different situations?

but framing that in terms of “How WOULD it work” suggests that the system would just… magically sustain itself.

That there’s no actual effort needed in order to interpret and enforce the laws, or make decisions on a case-by-case basis– that these things would all just somehow naturally happen, and we’re not going to talk about how. we’re only gonna say that, if it doesn’t, the whole society just doesn’t count, because it’s not really (insert ideology here).

feels like a recipe for disaster to me.

i mean, it would, if i thought these discussions were gonna lead to anything actually being accomplished.

… sigh.