Communism, like Capitalism, should be highly modified to fit a country's issues. Classical Communism as by Marx and Engels is almost impossible to implement thanks to human nature.
-1highly modified to fit a country’s issues
Not "highly" but Marxism Leninism is the only version which had that build in, hence we have Socialism with Chinese Characterstics or Juche which are still both ML.
Classical Communism as by Marx and Engels is almost impossible to implement thanks to human nature.
You already responded to my main question, like someone who never read anything except Manifesto or probably not even manifesto, else you would know that Marx and Engels never given a ready blueprint for communism, they left that to the people who would implement it, because they weren't dogmatics unlike the bunch of proudhons, lassales etc. and that even during the Marx life his political stance was being refined by revolutionary events - the biggest one would be formulation of the dictatorship of the proletariat doctrine after Paris Commune.
-1Would you mind giving just a quick explanation of what "classical communism" is?
-1
How about not ending capitalism, but trying as hard as possible to anticipate and balance the negative effects of wealth concentration with the overall beneficial effects of competative innovation?
-2Competitive innovation doesn't require capitalism, while wealth concentration is literally the point of the system.
2Can you point to an example of a socialist country (by your definition of socialist) that is superior in a certain industry innovation-wise compared to a capitalist (by your definition of capitalist) country?
Also, Idk what you define capitalism as, but I'm pretty sure meriam webster doesn't call it "a system for concentrating wealth". That might be a common result for many types of capitalism, but it is not the defining characteristic.
1
