If we go back to the original Marxist model yes, but not even Marx embraced that one. But I think it's more interesting to deal with Communism as Lenin shaped it, because that's what most of us think off, when we say Communism.
Here it's interesting to ask how much could we twist the Leninist model and still have something we would reasonable call communism. Poland kept private farming, GDR had in the first many decades semi-private light industry, in Yugoslavia it was legal to fire people. These aspects was important for why these three countries was relative well functioning, removal (or rather partly removal) of the planned economy would also have been positiove. But the question is when do Communism stop being Communism and just become a undemocratic version of Social Democratism?
right, there was great diversity even within the "Communist bloc".
I think the Yugoslav model would be closest to how a 21st century "communism" could arise, built on a network of cooperatives. Mondragon employs about 70k people, Venezuela built an impressive network of cooperatives under Chavez, and even in the USA cooperatives employ a few hundred thousand people.
of course, the of-itself emancipatory power of co-ops is limited. they are still subject to market discipline, sometimes dependent on finance capital, and must turn a profit to survive.
an interlocking of credit unions and public/state banks, and/or state lending policies that are favorable to co-operative enterprises would allow a degree of independence from finance capital, and a democratic economy-within-the economy.
so, the 20th Century, "Leninist" command economy will not rise again, but in order to take control of history away from un-regulatable capital, co-ops must develop a political consciousness and/or link up with explicitly political organizations, larger labor organizations, etc.
Gar Alperowitz is the main scholar-activist on this subject.
http://www.garalperovitz.com/what-then-can-i-do/
Poll
