It doesn't work like that. In a collective (voluntary, as all collectives must be), no one is seeking to be better than his fellows. All pull together for their own, and the common good. There is literally no difference in 'status' between the school teacher and the guy forking hay to the cows. All productivity is regarded as noble. You won't 'loose status' unless you fail to be productive. That's the lowest of the low, in communist terms.
It merely requires Persons of morals not practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy indulging moral turpitude.
Now, that would depend upon one's definition of the moral, wouldn't it? So, what is the moral, the sacrifice of the one for the sins of the many, (Jesus Christ), or one's right to live for one's own desires, one's own wishes, one's own dreams, one's own life, against the demands and needs of all, (John Galt)? Or if you wish it symbolic, Man on the cross, or Man on his own pedestal? Ayn Rand: "It is not in the nature of man—nor of any living entity—to start out by giving up, by spitting in one’s own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption, whose rapidity differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one’s mind; security, of abandoning one’s values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man’s nature and of life’s potential."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man-worship.html
Its impracticality is its immorality: To sacrifice the best to the worst is evil beyond redemption; or as stated by the collectivists: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Or as interpreted by me: From each according to their virtue, to each according to their vices.
Keep in mind it's an economic system. It has no position on morality whatsoever. It's literally 'bean counting'. And yes, it's very practical. It provides a good (though modest) standard of living for those willing.
Is it practical to keep throwing horses off a cliff until they learn how to fly? Is it moral from the horses’ point of view?
Really? Well, let's see. It counts on the ”bean maker” to make the ”beans” it needs to count to give to those whose beans” they aren't.” What happens if the ”bean maker” says no? They take them by force. Under what justification? They need ”beans” to count? Or is it altruism, the immoral morality of practicing human sacrifices for the good of all? The practical is the moral.
In a collective, EVERY able bodied adult works - no exceptions. You're confusing capitalist provision of luxuries like welfare, with communism.
Only ..they don't. You have the communist ruling class, and their goons .. who I guess you could say work, if beating people to death for not toeing the party line is considered work.
I'm not talking about the faux communism spruiked by 'states' and posturing Progressives. I'm talking about the actual thing. There is no room (at all) for non-productive members in a collective. Collectives don't have the resources to support the idle, nor do they have a 'ruling class'. The clue is in the word: collective. And of course, they are voluntary.
No such thing has ever existed nor will ever exist.. "the collective" defies human nature, ants and the Borg are examples of collectives, to have a human collective you need enforcers (the Elite). The pilgrims tried a collective, and they starved until they parceled out plots for their members to use as they saw fit. Most people just are not going to work hard for someone else, and those that do eventually burnout from carrying the dead weight of "most people" . I'm old, know people that tried the hippie communes.. they ALWAYS failed.
And yet you're entirely wrong. Communes can and do work, and there are PLENTY of examples of working communes around the world to prove it. Religious groups, agricultural cooperatives, even extended cohabiting families who share a home and costs. Many iterations, and many examples of each of those iterations. FTR, the reason you have it wrong is because your understanding of collectivism is wrong. They ONLY work when all members participate voluntarily. And more importantly, they volunteer on the understanding that there is no free lunch. Every adult member must contribute equally, and no member is rewarded more than another. Also, dead weight cannot be accommodated in a collective, because there is no surplus with which to do so. Dead weight can only be accommodated in a capitalist system - a system which produces sufficient surplus to fund the non-productive. And yes, people can and do 'work for someone else' - when that someone is doing the same for them in return. The only instances in which we won't work for someone else is when that someone is not contributing. And rightly so. No one should have to work for non-contributors (apart from the very old, the very young, and the very sick).
