What would a true communist society/country look like?

[sandinista]

Coito ergo sum

It's not our concern to make sure that others live the way we live

"our" meaning the US?

[Trolldor]

YES IT FUCKING IS!
You can not claim to be the leader of the freeworld and make no effort to ensure the freeworld is one of equality.

[Robert_S]

It has been our (The US's) concern.

There's an argument to be made that we individualists should deal with people on an individual basis, but if we are dealing with a group of individuals that identify as a group then it gets complicated.

If the vast majority of x country want to try communism, we ought to let them, provided they let all the individualists make there way out.

personally, I tend toward a mixed economy leaning more toward democratic socialism as the enterprises get larger and/or more dangerous.

[Trolldor]

Fuck it all. Money is an act of cowardice.We willingly apply value to the insubtantial. There comes a time were everyone indivual must be greater than the sumof his or her own parts.

[Robert_S]

Fuck it all. Money is an act of cowardice.We willingly apply value to the insubtantial. There comes a time were everyone indivual must be greater than the sumof his or her own parts.

I've lived on no money. It gets old after a while.

[Trolldor]

Goddamnit.

If I sue Jack Daniels, would I win?

"You have forced me to introspection!"

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

As regards the US's "duty" to spread their quality of life - assuming that their quality of life is best for everyone - does that also entail the spreading of democracy and liberalism? If so, through what measures? (eg. military force?)

[LaMont Cranston]

sandinista, Look, nobody is denying that there are inequities in the world, economically and otherwise, and it's always been that way, even before there were so-called "liberal democracies." If you want to blame all of those inequities on those liberal democracies, organized religions or anything else, you can go ahead on and do that, but, so far, you have not offered anything resembling a solution to the problems of the world.

Yes, college students get "carried away," or "excited" about political ideas that are new for them, and they think they have stumbled across ideas that are actually new. It's not like that. These "new" ideas have been around for a long time, and many of them have been demonstrated to not work. OK, if they're not overbearing or phoney, how about we go with "sophmoric?" After all, there's nobody who knows more about everything than a 19 years old who has just discovered a new idea that doesn't work.

There are many things I wish for, but so fucking what? I can't say that I wish for more people to be passionate about politics; it seems to me that there are plenty of people who are passionate about their political beliefs already, and many of them (i.e. the ones who admire Sarah Palin), are full of shit. Simply being passionate about politics, if you have naive political beliefs, only polarizes people and doesn't accomplish much of anything.

What's also true is that you can be interested in politics, and that doesn't mean you accept the status quo. If fact, passionate people often tend to be highly irrational about the state of the status quo. It seems to me that if rational people are going to do anything about the status quo, they must be willing to recognize the status quo for what it is. People like Gandhi and Martin Luther King took on the status quo and did some truly remarkable things. They were passionate and dedicated to the principles in which they believed, and it took guts to do what they did.

In your case, it is quite easy to point fingers at the problems of the world. Do you actually have any ideas other than ones that have already failed?

[sandinista]

As regards the US's "duty" to spread their quality of life - assuming that their quality of life is best for everyone - does that also entail the spreading of democracy and liberalism? If so, through what measures? (eg. military force?)

Thats a BIG "assuming". The US has no concern or desire for "spreading democracy" whatever the fuck that means, its all about creating global hegemony where the US (US corporations to be more accurate) benefit from the exploitation of other countries peoples and resources.

LaMont Cranston

...there are inequities in the world, economically and otherwise, and it's always been that way...

because something has "always been that way" doesn't mean it won't ever change. It's like saying, "ahhh we've always had wars, we've always had inequality, stop fighting against it and accept it." The classic thought pattern that the people in power have always wanted the masses to accept. I'm really glad there are people that DO NOT think that way.

Yes, college students get "carried away," or "excited" about political ideas that are new for them, and they think they have stumbled across ideas that are actually new.

Not at all, it's not like the think anything is "new", just new to them.

In your case, it is quite easy to point fingers at the problems of the world. Do you actually have any ideas other than ones that have already failed?

What has failed? What has succeeded. These terms are thrown around here like they are accepted or something. What do they mean? Failed in what way, for whom, for what reasons? Succeeded for whom, through what means? Success as defined as what, in what regard?

[sandinista]

As regards the US's "duty" to spread their quality of life - assuming that their quality of life is best for everyone - does that also entail the spreading of democracy and liberalism? If so, through what measures? (eg. military force?)

Thats a BIG "assuming". The US has no concern or desire for "spreading democracy" whatever the fuck that means, its all about creating global hegemony where the US (US corporations to be more accurate) benefit from the exploitation of other countries peoples and resources.

LaMont Cranston

...there are inequities in the world, economically and otherwise, and it's always been that way...

because something has "always been that way" doesn't mean it won't ever change. It's like saying, "ahhh we've always had wars, we've always had inequality, stop fighting against it and accept it." The classic thought pattern that the people in power have always wanted the masses to accept. I'm really glad there are people that DO NOT think that way.

Yes, college students get "carried away," or "excited" about political ideas that are new for them, and they think they have stumbled across ideas that are actually new.

Not at all, it's not like the think anything is "new", just new to them.

In your case, it is quite easy to point fingers at the problems of the world. Do you actually have any ideas other than ones that have already failed?

What has failed? What has succeeded. These terms are thrown around here like they are accepted or something. What do they mean? Failed in what way, for whom, for what reasons? Succeeded for whom, through what means? Success as defined as what, in what regard?

Part 1 of 9 I believe. Anyone interested in communism and the overthrow of communism and the questions of "success" or "failures" should give this a listen. It's not an easy subject, it's not as simple as people keep seemingly trying to paint it out to be.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum

It's not our concern to make sure that others live the way we live

"our" meaning the US?

It's not anyone's concern to make sure that others live the way we live, whether the "we" is the US, Canada, the UK, Saudi Arabia or Ecuador. Not sure what's funny about that.

[Coito ergo sum]

YES IT FUCKING IS!
You can not claim to be the leader of the freeworld and make no effort to ensure the freeworld is one of equality.

Sure you can. As long as the people of a country have the power to select their own leaders, I'm not sure what right an outside force has to impose "equality."

[Trolldor]

Fucked if I know.
I was drunk.

[Coito ergo sum]

Regarding the OP, I just took a look at the wikipedia article on Communism, and it does a pretty good job of explaining the point about there never having been a 'true' Communist country/society. Has anyone thought to read it?

We all know there never has been a true Communist society/country. The OP is asking anyone interested to opine about and describe in some reasonable detail what a true communist society/country would look like (if it indeed were to exist). The basic thrust is: if you could create one, what would a true communist country/society look like?

The reason for the question is because every description of what "true" communism would be that I have ever heard is advanced with a kind of sincere wish that "if only" we could have this "ideal" of a society/country, then things would be fantastic. But, what I hear described, to me, sounds like a nightmare, and what is called an "ideal" but "utopian" vision, seems to me, even in its best light, to be a dystopian hell.

[Coito ergo sum]

As regards the US's "duty" to spread their quality of life - assuming that their quality of life is best for everyone - does that also entail the spreading of democracy and liberalism? If so, through what measures? (eg. military force?)

No country has such a duty.