Any system is physically possible as long as it can be imagined. The key is the content of the system, ie genes. Hence the necessity of eugenics when trying to implement a revolutionary political project.
Socialism is a stage of civilization. Thus, it is more complex than lower, inferior kinds of societies. Market capitalism has to be maintained by the state, else it regresses back to a traditional “rent-seeking” economy. (One could argue that this is happening to us).
If you can’t leave your doors unlocked, you can’t have Communism. A stateless, classless society requires high IQ people with good impulse control. You could have it in Japan, possibly.
George Kingsley Zipf has demonstrated that self-propagating systems tend to follow the path of least resistance. So for Communism, anarchism, syndicalism, corporatism, etc to work, they should not require much effort to follow.
Of course, what is the ‘least amount of effort’ to one race is different to another. To an African or autistic person, doing nothing is the path of least resistance. Whereas to a white man or East Asian, following an organized technological program is easier than starving in the woods.
Recall that it isn’t particularly hard to survive in Africa. Food grows everywhere, and the temperature is always warm. So ‘doing nothing’ is the baseline path.
Meanwhile, Japan is very scarce in resources. So the baseline path is squeezing as much value out of objects as humanly possible. Hence the perfectionism of Japanese.
Also this isn’t necessarily my idea. I read a post on /pol/ a long time ago that was making the same point: that it’s the quality of the people running the system, not the system itself.
My big problem with this /pol argument is that the culture-power-people situation is a feeback loop.
I think, in general, the sorts of people who go to places like 4chan or incel forums is that they like to “make a certain point” and to “have the answer to the problem” but doing so requires that they gloss over mind-boggling dependency structures in the social system.
Feedback loops are tricky to understand. It makes it even trickier to figure out what kinds of social policies or cultural changes would result in a good outcome if we are in an ecosystem with a lot of cyclic dependencies. It’s easier to advance a specific policy if every dependency is non-cyclic - you just say, A ->B, B-> C, C-> D, etc. But if there is a cyclic dependency in the structure, and you change the state of one node, who knows what kind of changes might propagate and grow infinitely throughout the whole system?
This also happens in programming. To give a few examples, functional languages are easier to test and ensure correctness, recursion is trickier to implement, and Directed Acyclic Graphs are preferred for many problems.
But communism was already tried in east germany, where the genetics are about as good as it gets, and it sucked. Genetics can only fix a bad system so much. And communism is inherently bad because it is composed of lies.
What you are suggesting is like making people treat their children like their parents and vice versa. This inversion is not much different from communism. White people would do better at it because we’re smarter, but it would still be an inferior system because it is based on a lie that is incompatible with reality.
“The key is the content of the system, ie genes.”
That is only one component. If you feed both weak and strong guinea pigs poison the strong ones will do better but why subject them to that? Otherwise what you’re talking about is creating new species. Guinea pigs resistant to poison. And similarly you could make humans adapted to lying, as I imagine Russians have done to an extent. But that’s still cruel and unnecessary.
The only human system that communism has actually functioned long-term under is a basic hunter-gatherer society. As soon as you get social complexity (i.e. hierarchy, career specialization, etc.), property rights are a necessity.
