The idea that resources could be held for a common good is not new. I think Acts chapter 4 verses 32-35 are relevant here.I simply throw it in as an indication that the idea of a simple communism has old historical roots. Well ok .. I am being a tad contentious, sorry.
Marx took the whole thing much further and suggested, using a form of Hegelian dialectical materialism, that such a society would be the inevitable result of dynamic interaction between interested parties. That is, feudalism gave way to the power of the merchants because ultimately the feudal Lords became reliant on the wealth created by the urban merchants. In turn, the urban merchants could function better with free labour and all the tensions that would bring etc., etc.,
Whilst certain elements of the process are self evident there was perhaps an overly simplistic assumption that the end result would be a utopian workers paradise. One could, with the advantage of hindsight, argue that there could many loops and dynamic interactions before any such state is reached. In a sense Trotsky could see this and said sod it lets foster revolution everywhere and nip it all in the bud. Stalin, on the other hand, was quite happy shooting those he was convinced were trying to usurp power at home.
Lenin was somewhere between the two with the added gift of actually inspiring devotion (rather than fear) in those who heard him deliver his message. Quite where Russia and the revolution would have gone had he lived is anyone's guess.
I simply throw it in as an indication that the idea of a simple communism has old historical roots. Well ok .. I am being a tad contentious, sorry. 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks