A reminder - or possibly just some information - because I see this misconception so often. You can have money in communist or anarchist societies. You can reward shitty jobs, or even all jobs with money to be used for luxuries! This does not go against the principles of these social systems, despite what people often imagine. You may not have individuals racking up huge amounts of assets in the form of business empires, but you as an individual can still, idk, do work and use the output of that work to buy beer or whatever.

That is not to say that everyone will agree that these societies should have that... But just consider this before you make the "what about the sewage workers" argument.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean if you redefine communism, sure. But a communist society as described by Marx is moneyless, classless and with not central government. Because if all your needs are met and resources shared amongst the commune, what purpose would money serve?

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

People redefine capitalism every time it suits the rich folk, why can't we redefine communism too?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you ever play 'communism has never been tried,' based on a rigid definition, then no.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your response, we can't redefine communism if you play the "communism has never been tried" card based on a rigid definition?

Is someone saying that? I don't think I am.

...are you?

I'm so confused.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It sounds like you've got it but don't want it.

Yes, linguistic descriptivism is fine... unless you engage in linguistic prescriptivism on the same subject.

Yes, you can redefine communism... so long as you're not one of those people whose defense of communism heavily involves a particular definition of communism.

If that's not you, personally - great. You know how a conditional statement works.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That seems somewhat tautological then, but okay. I'm not here to judge.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

More pointing out a sadly commonplace contradiction.

[–] Robaque@feddit.it 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Communism is by definition moneyless

But yes anarchy is less prescriptive

Personally though I'm sceptical that money can be without hierarchy, or that the distinction between necessities and luxuries is all that meaningful, since it's all very relative

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Sorry, I'm making my own classic blunder and using communism when I mean Socialism.