Capitalism, a poor system for managing communism

[Pawn Power]

Hope in Common (http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21526)

Here, David Graeber takes an uncommon position in stating that:
Communism then is already here. The question is how to further democratize it. Capitalism, in turn, is just one possible way of managing communism—and, it has become increasingly clear, rather a disastrous one. Clearly we need to be thinking about a better one: preferably, one that does not quite so systematically set us all at each others' throats.

To be sure you have to read the whole article to get the context, but what do you think of this placement of communism in relationship to capitalism?

[Hyacinth]

It's an absurd piece, as is clearly relies upon the equivocation between "communism" and "cooperation" or even "economics"; yet, some sort of cooperation and coordination is necessary in any social organization, but to call that 'communism' robs the term of any significance. So, yes, it is true that capitalism is, all things considered, a poor system of managing an economy, but it is *not* a system for managing communism, anymore than despotism is a system for managing democracy.

[YSR]

I think it's a well-founded argument, looking at communism anthropologically as Graeber does. Communism is a set of practices and ideas, as well as a "theory" propounded by Marx. If communism is indeed part of our "social DNA" than it should be part and parcel of how we live. Capitalism exists and controls that impulse, but communism is indeed under these layers of control.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's curious. I'm fairly sure it wasn't Marx who defined communism as any instance of 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs', in fact, that would play no part in his definition of communism (because it's not necessary for communism to exist). Communism is a classless and hence stateless society. Working together to get stuff done? I mean, I'm not sure if the writer realizes this, but centralizing the workplace so that people work together, thus increasing productivity, was an invention of capitalism, how this can be called 'socialism' is something of a mystery.
Though really, that's not even the worst part of the article.