Currency and property would be worthless. People would realize that working together in a collective is safer and more productive.
Currency cannot be worthless. Maybe the paper currency you've grown up with will be worthless, but something will quickly replace it. (See: Zimbabwe) How would property be worthless? Would people become nomadic? I agree though, people would bind together in small decentralized groups. The way it should be. Eventually the collective power would become consolidated and infinitely more corrupt, and then we'll just be back where we started.
Property is still worth something even to Mad Max. His bad ass dune buggy thing for example. He would probably be pissed if you tried to take it from him. Even property like food and land will be worth nothing? That doesn't even make sense, people need those to live so obviously they will be worth something.
Food and food production would become the number 1 priority in a post-apocalyptic world which may have no government or utilities operating. People would come together in a co-operative. It would make sense for safety reasons alone. Communes.. All the dollars and gold bars in the world wont be worth a wank then..
Your points are a bit void. We are not in a post-apocalyptic world. and there actually is no way to tell what that world will be like. Its all assumption. So all you are doing here is making assumptions about assumptions.
Well, at least its something nice to think about while I sit in this pre-apocalyptic consumerist hell, listening to the vicious drone of my sisters Miley Cyrus bullshit pouring out of the speakers while somewhere in the distance a bird-surrogate McDonalds paper bag rustles faintly...
Yes it is the unknown. But a true attempt at communism is the unknown also.. Also have you noticed how women from communist countries are a little more attractive and sexy.. Communism = Sexy women...
Well..... maybe. You also have to consider the possibility that the powerful might just decide that they don't want to work for survival...... maybe they will simply take from and exploit those who are weak. There are many people who are able to survive on their own or have little need of assistance. In that case, a commune slows them down. They have to share their skills with others who have nothing to give to the group.
most theories are based on assumptions, the fact that he is basing his theory on is that in a post apocaliptic world materialism would not exist thus rendering material things (nice cars, gold bars, and everything we obsess over) irrelevent
Gold will never be irrelevant. It has survived as the best medium of exchange through every collapsed empire. The barter system would quickly be replaced.
Yea, I agree that Gucci and cell phones would lose tremendous value, but not gold or property. And there will still be demands for luxuries in a world of self-sustenance.
No money exists in a pure communist economy so most of what is discussed is all theoretical. What has existed is socialism. 2nd point. What socialist country has been a leading edge in anything? Not many because the whole system is designed for status quo, not innovation. There is either greed or complacency. Capitalism uses greed to motivate for innovation and progress. Let's not count the space race because Russia had to devote a lot of it's resources just to barely keep ahead of the US for the short period of time. Lastly, i respect anyone(this is NOT directed at anyone in particular) who wants to live in a socialist country. By all means please move there but don't go thinking that your way is best and therefore take means of changing our country to conform with your socialist agenda. I'm sure there are plenty of other socialist countries that perfectly fit your socialist guidelines and would love to have you be their citizen for the good of the many.