Carlson is banned, but nonetheless I feel compelled to respond.
But how do you provide all of that when only working 20 hours a week? Where on Earth is there a modern society that can survive on everyone working just a few hours a day?
Ever heard of automation and all that stuff? It was already estimated in first half of the 20th century that advanced nations would need only about 4 hours of work a day. Capitalism has already created technology to enable every single person to live without fear of poverty and homelessness with minimum work. However, capitalist social relations demand that this technology is used to enslave many for the profits of a few. That's why, despite micocomputer revolution and all that shit, today people work more than medieval serfs. Without constraints that capital has put on it, technology could be used to greatly reduce toil and transform the nature of the work itself.
In a world where nobody will get a promotion, nobody earns extra pay or rations for working harder than the others, what is the incentive?
Oh, if it was the case, the capitalist society would long ago collapse due to epidemy of laziness! Here people who work acquire nothing, and people who acquire everything don't work.
You ask me about incentives, but what if there were no disincentives? With technology being used to eliminate many boring and unpleasant tasks, and nature of the other changed. Many people of upper social standing who had enough leisure liked to work because for them it was not to earn a living but a creative process, a kind of hobby. Louis XVI, for example, loved ironworking. So the communist society would end with alienated labor- which isn't done to fullfil human needs or creativity but to meet the external agenda of the boss. In these circumstances, work could be seen more as a nice, mind- and body-excercising distraction from constant revelry.
Obviously I understand if you see this as too optimistic. Of course, there will be still sense of mutual obligation. Perhaps people will contribute what they are capable of because "that's just they way the things are". If that will not suffice for some antisocial individuals, well, no one forces them to do anything for the common good, but again the rest isn't forced to take care of them either. I don't think the community would be need to be so cruel as to deny them even basic things. They could have food and shelter but no gaming consoles without engaing in some productive work.
Then again, I don't like to talk about post-revolutionary society in too much detail. I find it counter-productive. That's one of reasons Marx criticized utopian socialists- he wasn't interested in readymade "foolproof" blueprints for "just" society, but in real movement that matures through its own experience and self-criticism. Once humanity is free, it's up to people to work out the best solutions to the problems they will face.
And don't give me that "no money" bullshit. Every communist nation throughout history has gotten a thriving black market running even if foreign cash and barter were the only means of transaction, a black market that was implicitly tolerated and even participated in by the government.
I have repeatedly told that they weren't communist and there can't be no such thing as "communist nation" since it can only exist on the world scale (and communism abolishes "nations"). In fact, you're just regurgiating propaganda of these states! Do you believe that they were also "democratic"? Because that's their second favorite word. Sorry, I'm just so old-fashioned that I don't buy into the idea that society with money, profits, wages, banks, commodity production (and all of them were present there, which makes your argument doubly nonsensical) etc. can be described as "communist". If we want to stick to true meaning of words and not to use some newspeak in which world is turned upside down, it's just common sense to declare that.
Once again, you're going entirely against human nature. We're a competitive species, and people always want to earn more than they already have.
Not this thing again.... Capitalism is human nature? Why not feudalism, or slavery? What makes it so special that it is above history? Some medieval nobleman would also refuse to believe that future world will not be ruled by principles of faith and code of honour, but by mundane cash payment. Ideas ruling in every epoch are ideas of the ruling class. And so the idea of what is "natural" for us!
Look at the every primitive tribe is enough to disprove outdated Hobbesian conception of "war of all against all" (which was itself an ideological expression of the rising capitalism). Scientists agree that cooperation was essential in evolution and survival of Homo sapiens.
If capitalism was human nature, why rulers had to convince people to just "follow" their nature even by force? Ordinary folk often revolted in defense of their traditional ways of living. For them "natural" was solidarity and reciprocity of gift- what E.P. Thompson termed "moral economy". There's plenty of literature about that, like Mauss's "The Gift" or Polanyi's "The Great Transformation". Though I'm not idealising the past or something, that would be reactionary. Capitalism was indeed progressive in contrast to previous modes of production, all I want is to show that humans can live and actually lived differently.
BTW, as for "people always want to earn more than they already have"- sorry, that's strawman, communism is not about equal division of poverty or something, but about "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability".
This is what's consistently happened with communist nations that tried to implement their practices in real life.
That is, if you think that permanent war economy is the implementation of communism. Which means you didn't really bother dealing with my arguments.
As for your post, Satan, I doubt whether I should respond to that. Communists got their ideas because they drank too much alcohol? Really? What next, Marx was a pedo? Also, equating original content of communism with content of fascism.
