If we use as in previous post the idea of relative transformations then the real purpose of the marxist theory of stages weakens, the historical inevitability of a final communist stage. The future could show any number of relative transforms but never settle on communism.
But this is a false worry: this situation will force us to define what we mean by communism with a derivation of its future status. But that is easy, up to a point (there is still a lot of work to do): the communal ownership factor is a clear derivation of the source of wealth in the commons. The ‘bourgeoisie’ takes from the commons to create private property and it makes sense in the end of return all of this to the commons.
That is also derivable from the needs of the many in evolution, not social darwinist evolution, but the evolution of groups and person, and persons to their full development. If you hadn’t noticed, self-development is almost impossible for a worker in a capitalist system. People do not have the resources beyond a ‘living’ to pursue development.
There are many ways to derive communism, but we should speak now of neo-communism, and be clear we have barely scratched the surface. It is a useful reminder of work to be done, since we have taken the word for granted as a stage given.
But we can derive the basics easily as a defintion in relation to the ‘end of capitalism’, full or partial, on the surface of a planet.