Is Democratic Communism A viable Alternative?

 
Karl Marx wrote, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
His dream was a classless society and the elimination of "haves" and "have-nots."
Everyone would have access to education and the freedom to choose whatever field of
endeavor they show an interest and aptitude for.
Freedom of choice, just as in our society now, must be weighed against the dangers and
benefits to others. If a student wants to be a doctor but demonstrates a complete
lack of ability in medicine, he or she would be encouraged to find something else.
In any free society one can do as he likes as long as it doesn't endanger
or violate the rights of others. This should be the the cornerstone of any civilized Social Contract.


The Communist system would require the workers to seize control of the means of production,
and the subsequent scrapping of money altogether, as it would no longer be needed.

I strongly disagree with Marx on several key points, especially the abolition of religion, which
is necessary for the human soul, and the destruction of the traditional family unit in exchange
for a "communal" family structure which would produce bastard children.  That sounds more
like the Marquis De Sade than a sound social system.

Capitalism is simply not sustainable; industry must continually grow in order to post gains in the
Stock Market and keep the economy healthy.
Industrial growth cannot be sustained indefinately on our finite planet.  Sooner or later
industry will run out of room and coping strategies and Capitalism will heave its dying breath,
with disasterous results for the bulk of the world's population.

"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a
finite world is either a madman or an economist."
—Kenneth Boulding

We have seen Totalitarian Communism such as Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism.
That does not mean that Communism isn't viable at all.

Gene Roddenberry, in Star Trek, portrays a future where Democratic Communism has
been instituted in order to ensure the survival of the Human race.
Money does not exist and people work to improve themselves and their society.
Goods are manufactured mostly but automated systems, freeing people from drudgery.
"Replicators" which disintegrate and reintegrate molecules to produce whatever is needed
are most likely not possible for centuries to come, but in the meantime we can rely on automated 
factories with minimal human supervision.

To avoid global calamity it may be necessary to adopt some form of Democratic Communism,
where the Bill of Rights is still law, and the ambitious power-seekers are kept in check.

Manufacturing goods when they are NEEDED, instead of over producing and encouraging
conspicuous consumtion is obviously more sustainable.

In such a system we would never need to worry about health insurace,
retirement funds, paying for our children's educations or even need to worry about keeping
a roof over our heads.
In this case, freedom from money is true freedom.
To quote Marx again, "Working men of the world unite;
You've nothing to lose but your chains.
When you need to PAY for everything,
isn't money simply chains imprisoning you?

It's just common sense.
Either we stop wasting the world's resources or we bring about a disaster the human race
might not survive.

Whatever system of government and economy we choose, it had better be
better than Capitalism if we want to avoid smothering ourselves in
greed and the waste it produces.