Asklemmy

No, we have historical examples of various X forms of Socialism that were supposed to be the intermediate state between capitalism and communism. All of the turned out to be authoritarian nightmares, but none of them actually made it to the communism stage of development.

Essentially truly supporting communism is merely saying we could be living in a post-scarcity state. The oligarchs ain't gonna let that happen though and their captive governments aren't about to let that happen though.

I propose that human greed leads to the corruption of both capitalist and communist systems in actual practice. The difference is that in capitalism, greed is publically encouraged and publically rewarded, while in communism, greed is publically discouraged and privately rewarded. Inequality is present in both practices ostensibly (with few historical exceptions). Whatever economic systems are implemented by humanity, some people are winners and some are losers.

The question of what system is best cannot be settled by only historical anecdotes. Historical record is too biased towards its own context, though we can look at patterns that have emerged through recorded history to try and achieve a more objective understanding; we have to examine a system as it exists right now. We must accept that no system will be exempt from human greed and focus our efforts on policies that fight against it wherever possible. This is not an enlightened centrist position; this is the position of someone who wants to maximize the number of societal winner and minimize the number of losers.