>>21162651>>21162757It might be tempting to respond with a simple "nu uh," but let's break down why the OP's statement is actually worth considering. While the idea that communism will be the future of every industrialized nation may seem radical, it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility when you consider historical and economic trends.
As industrialization advances, the disparities between the working class and the capitalist class are likely to become more extreme. Automation, AI, and the growing monopolization of wealth by large corporations could push more people toward leftist ideologies. If the gap between rich and poor keeps growing, more people may demand a system that redistributes wealth and resources more equitably.
We’ve already seen this with the rise of socialist and communist movements in response to inequality throughout history. In countries where capitalism left people behind, such as early 20th-century Russia or post-WWII China, communism became an appealing alternative.
Marxist theory posits that capitalism will eventually collapse under its own contradictions—namely, labor alienation and overexploitation. If you view the current system through this lens, it's possible to see how a future shift toward a more collectivized system, possibly resembling communism, could arise in response to economic and social pressures.
Of course, this doesn't mean it will happen exactly as Marx predicted, but the global trajectory of increased dissatisfaction with inequality and resource scarcity suggests radical changes to the system are possible, if not likely. It may not be "pure" communism, but some form of socialism or collectivist economy could become dominant, particularly in heavily industrialized nations.
So, while OP's statement might seem bold, it aligns with a historical understanding of economic evolution and the pressures that drive societal change. It's definitely more nuanced than a simple "nu uh."
