What would a true communist society/country look like?

[Pappa]

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.

I'm not sure I would regard a Communist society as a utopia anyway, but my own personal utopia would perhaps be another of your hells. I'd opt for an anarchist society, not hugely different from a communist one in certain specific respects but very different in it's method of getting there and presumably quite different in its outcome too.

One of the problems of defining a communist society in it's details is that Marx never really painted a picture of what such a society might look like or how it would work, and nor did Lenin. Everything called "Communism" after that was certainly just state socialism anyway, that can be discounted for the purpose of this discussion. I'm just echoing what has already been said by others in this thread, but you'd have the same problem defining a democracy or a capitalist society in such specific terms before it actually existed.

[FBM]

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.

rat 'cher.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

I'm not sure I would regard a Communist society as a utopia anyway, but my own personal utopia would perhaps be another of your hells. I'd opt for an anarchist society, not hugely different from a communist one in certain specific respects but very different in it's method of getting there and presumably quite different in its outcome too.

I've had a similar discussion with people who advance versions of anarchist societies. With anarchism, however, what I find is that most people advancing the idea have some generalized principle in mind, but little, if any, idea of how that would work in practice.

I have asked others, "what do you mean by anarchy?" and "what would that mean for daily life?" For example: Would there be speeding laws on the roadways? Would there be any laws governing what side of the road one must drive on? How are those laws made? How are they enforced? Would there be a governmental authority? Some other kind of authority? What about taxes? Would there be any taxes? What kind and how would they be levied?

One of the problems of defining a communist society in it's details is that Marx never really painted a picture of what such a society might look like or how it would work, and nor did Lenin.

Well, that doesn't stop a person who presently advocates or supports communism to describe just what it is they are talking about. And, if they can't, I question how one can thoughtfully support that which one does not have the ability to describe in any reasonable detail....

Everything called "Communism" after that was certainly just state socialism anyway, that can be discounted for the purpose of this discussion. I'm just echoing what has already been said by others in this thread, but you'd have the same problem defining a democracy or a capitalist society in such specific terms before it actually existed.

You wouldn't have the trouble stating what you wanted. It would be easy to say that people would be free to privately own, buy and sell real property, and to exclude others from trespassing on or using their real property. You could say that people would be free to own their own personal property, and to buy and sell it, and produce goods and services privately and to buy and sell those services at prices set via agreement with a willing buyer. You could say that leaders would be elected by a majority vote, and that they would make laws within prescribed limitations. Maybe you wouldn't use specific names or economic terms - but you could most certainly answer all the questions I posed in the OP.

And, stating it another way, what this OP is really doing is suggesting that anyone advancing or supporting the idea that "true" communism would be a good thing, back that up with some description as to what true communism is. I fail to see how that is in any way an unreasonable question.

[Pappa]

I've had a similar discussion with people who advance versions of anarchist societies. With anarchism, however, what I find is that most people advancing the idea have some generalized principle in mind, but little, if any, idea of how that would work in practice.

I have asked others, "what do you mean by anarchy?" and "what would that mean for daily life?" For example: Would there be speeding laws on the roadways? Would there be any laws governing what side of the road one must drive on? How are those laws made? How are they enforced? Would there be a governmental authority? Some other kind of authority? What about taxes? Would there be any taxes? What kind and how would they be levied?

An anarchist society would be a patchwork of small communities, each deciding themselves how to rule their affairs. Maybe they'd form federations or treaties to benefit themselves and each other, but maybe they wouldn't too. There would not be any central government, because if there was it wouldn't, by definition, be an anarchy. Each community would be different to all the others, with their own laws (of they chose to have any). Any laws would be enforced in whichever way the community agreed was the way they wanted - maybe in Chantham that would be by mediation, but in nearby Melsbury it would be by witch hunt. Same with taxes, they may or may not exists and would be chosen by the members of the community. A lot of the questions about law and taxes don't make as much sense in an anarchy because for the most part they don't apply, or they don't apply with consistency from place to place.

I expect this would be a version of hell for you, but I see it as a society in which everyone can find a place they feel at home.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've had a similar discussion with people who advance versions of anarchist societies. With anarchism, however, what I find is that most people advancing the idea have some generalized principle in mind, but little, if any, idea of how that would work in practice.

I have asked others, "what do you mean by anarchy?" and "what would that mean for daily life?" For example: Would there be speeding laws on the roadways? Would there be any laws governing what side of the road one must drive on? How are those laws made? How are they enforced? Would there be a governmental authority? Some other kind of authority? What about taxes? Would there be any taxes? What kind and how would they be levied?

An anarchist society would be a patchwork of small communities,

So, you'd just do away with nations and let each town fend for itself? People live in cities sometimes with 10 million people in them today, would those be one community, or would they, in an anarchists society, be compelled to break up into smaller units?

each deciding themselves how to rule their affairs. Maybe they'd form federations or treaties to benefit themselves and each other, but maybe they wouldn't too.

That sounds like the early United States, where there were separate colonies that federated to benefit themselves and each other....some decided, four score years or so later, that they no longer wanted to be federated.

There would not be any central government, because if there was it wouldn't, by definition, be an anarchy. Each community would be different to all the others, with their own laws (of they chose to have any).

So, each community would have a government central to its community?

Any laws would be enforced in whichever way the community agreed was the way they wanted - maybe in Chantham that would be by mediation, but in nearby Melsbury it would be by witch hunt. Same with taxes, they may or may not exists and would be chosen by the members of the community. A lot of the questions about law and taxes don't make as much sense in an anarchy because for the most part they don't apply, or they don't apply with consistency from place to place.

I expect this would be a version of hell for you, but I see it as a society in which everyone can find a place they feel at home.

I don't have an opinion about it yet, because your description makes little sense. I'm not sure how it would even work.

You'd have some major drawbacks, for example, with some communities having more resources than other communities, and being entitled to no assistance. The communities that do really well, because their population gets lucky or takes an opportunity to exploit certain resources available to it, would gain an advantage over its neighbors. People would try to move to the better community, resulting that community having to exclude others. Communities that aren't doing as well will perceive the better community as exclusionary and as getting an advantage on the backs of the neighboring communities. Disputes will erupt over resources.

If one lives in a town then they will be subject to that town's laws. I suppose they could leave, of course, but there is no guarantee that other towns will accept them.

Your description doesn't appear to be "anarchy" since you are contemplating governments existing, only on smaller scales.

There are plenty of problems that will arise through your system, too, that seem obvious to me. Towns will get into disputes with other towns. Towns will raise military forces. Towns will set up tolls and checkpoints. Towns will make alliances, and leaders in certain towns will gain popularity through the success of the town - if you as town leader bring in resources from outside the town and make the townspeople happy, then you will be popular. That will provide an incentive for towns to maneuver against other towns, take their resources, and exploit their people. More powerful towns will gain power, and grow.

From your description, what it really seems to me is that you're just rolling back the clock to the "city-state" era of human development, prior to the development of the "nation state." People, still being people, will behave like they do - acting in their own interest, generally speaking.

EDIT: how would your society be different from one in which federate states and cities/towns had a right of secession. In other words, if we simply gave every city, town, or other political subdivision a right to secede from its current national affiliation, would that be what you're looking for?

[Pappa]

So, you'd just do away with nations and let each town fend for itself? People live in cities sometimes with 10 million people in them today, would those be one community, or would they, in an anarchists society, be compelled to break up into smaller units?

The size and scale of the communities and units would be entirely up to the communities themselves.

So, each community would have a government central to its community?

That would be entirely up to the communities themselves.

I don't have an opinion about it yet, because your description makes little sense. I'm not sure how it would even work.

I think that's my point.... it wouldn't "work" in the kind of way you mean by that word.

You'd have some major drawbacks, for example, with some communities having more resources than other communities, and being entitled to no assistance. The communities that do really well, because their population gets lucky or takes an opportunity to exploit certain resources available to it, would gain an advantage over its neighbors. People would try to move to the better community, resulting that community having to exclude others. Communities that aren't doing as well will perceive the better community as exclusionary and as getting an advantage on the backs of the neighboring communities. Disputes will erupt over resources.

I'd be fine with that.

Your description doesn't appear to be "anarchy" since you are contemplating governments existing, only on smaller scales.

The only thing that the different forms of anarchy share with each other are a lack of central, national government, so the thing I describe is anarchy in it's purest sense. Governments may or may not exists, depending on the communities' wishes.

There are plenty of problems that will arise through your system, too, that seem obvious to me. Towns will get into disputes with other towns. Towns will raise military forces. Towns will set up tolls and checkpoints. Towns will make alliances, and leaders in certain towns will gain popularity through the success of the town - if you as town leader bring in resources from outside the town and make the townspeople happy, then you will be popular. That will provide an incentive for towns to maneuver against other towns, take their resources, and exploit their people. More powerful towns will gain power, and grow.

Maybe.... and maybe different communities will form alliances against them, or not.

From your description, what it really seems to me is that you're just rolling back the clock to the "city-state" era of human development, prior to the development of the "nation state." People, still being people, will behave like they do - acting in their own interest, generally speaking.

I think there would be a great deal more diversity than the "city-state" model.

EDIT: how would your society be different from one in which federate states and cities/towns had a right of secession. In other words, if we simply gave every city, town, or other political subdivision a right to secede from its current national affiliation, would that be what you're looking for?

I don't think it would be the same as a society born of anarchist revolution at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, you'd just do away with nations and let each town fend for itself? People live in cities sometimes with 10 million people in them today, would those be one community, or would they, in an anarchists society, be compelled to break up into smaller units?

The size and scale of the communities and units would be entirely up to the communities themselves.

Kind of like it is now...except that we don't have a right of secession. Countries are free to merge now, if they want to....

So, each community would have a government central to its community?

That would be entirely up to the communities themselves.

Kind of like it is now.

I don't have an opinion about it yet, because your description makes little sense. I'm not sure how it would even work.

I think that's my point.... it wouldn't "work" in the kind of way you mean by that word.

I meant - I'm not sure what that would even look like, other than people organizing into communities and governing themselves, kind of like what people did over the last 10,000 years.

You'd have some major drawbacks, for example, with some communities having more resources than other communities, and being entitled to no assistance. The communities that do really well, because their population gets lucky or takes an opportunity to exploit certain resources available to it, would gain an advantage over its neighbors. People would try to move to the better community, resulting that community having to exclude others. Communities that aren't doing as well will perceive the better community as exclusionary and as getting an advantage on the backs of the neighboring communities. Disputes will erupt over resources.

I'd be fine with that.

That's what we have now, except our communities are nations.

Your description doesn't appear to be "anarchy" since you are contemplating governments existing, only on smaller scales.

The only thing that the different forms of anarchy share with each other are a lack of central, national government, so the thing I describe is anarchy in it's purest sense. Governments may or may not exists, depending on the communities' wishes.

Except you also said that communities might federate or join together, and the size of the community would be up to the community - so, there's nothing stopping communities from banding together as nations, based on what you said. And, the nation-state makes sense in the world, because it solves issues like getting power from the mountains to coastal regions - sharing resources among distant lands - making commerce easier and more efficient - allowing for producing food in certain areas and doing other things in other areas to raise efficiencies, etc.

There are plenty of problems that will arise through your system, too, that seem obvious to me. Towns will get into disputes with other towns. Towns will raise military forces. Towns will set up tolls and checkpoints. Towns will make alliances, and leaders in certain towns will gain popularity through the success of the town - if you as town leader bring in resources from outside the town and make the townspeople happy, then you will be popular. That will provide an incentive for towns to maneuver against other towns, take their resources, and exploit their people. More powerful towns will gain power, and grow.

Maybe.... and maybe different communities will form alliances against them, or not.

Kinda like it is now, and has been for 10,000 years. Athens and Sparta were two communities. They ruled themselves according to radically different sets of rules. When they needed to, they banded together. Eventually, a unified Greece became more efficient and manageable due to a variety of factors, and the nation of Greece was born. Now you want to break it up and make them start out again as separate cities or communities. I'm not sure on what basis you would force them to do that, and why would the same forces that operated to bring Greece together not bring a similar nation together even after you broke it up?

From your description, what it really seems to me is that you're just rolling back the clock to the "city-state" era of human development, prior to the development of the "nation state." People, still being people, will behave like they do - acting in their own interest, generally speaking.

I think there would be a great deal more diversity than the "city-state" model.

On what basis do you think that? It seems to me highly likely that if you did away with all national governments today there would be a huge incentive for cities to band together again just like they did to amass greater power and be able to compete for food, water and resources with neighboring lands. You'd wind up with a world at war for centuries, it seems to me, as regions consolidate.

I mean - look at the southwest US - break up the US, and now you have communities like Phoenix and Los Angeles fighting to survive. When the "community" up river turns off the water by damning it up, or polluting it, then you'll have the Phoenixians and the Los Angelians warring with the up-river communities for water, or paying the steep charge that would be levied....

Communities with nuclear power plants would be very popular, too, and also targets for wars from neighboring communities. Cities would see endless supplies of coal and other resources not too far away, and they'd conquer them.

EDIT: how would your society be different from one in which federate states and cities/towns had a right of secession. In other words, if we simply gave every city, town, or other political subdivision a right to secede from its current national affiliation, would that be what you're looking for?

I don't think it would be the same as a society born of anarchist revolution at all.

It sounds the same as what you describe.

New Yorkers will need water, or millions will die. They can't get it on the island. They will either band together with the metro-NY area, or there will be war. Do you not agree?

[Pappa]

Kind of like it is now...except that we don't have a right of secession. Countries are free to merge now, if they want to....

No.

Kind of like it is now.

No.

Except you also said that communities might federate or join together

I also said they might not.

..., and the size of the community would be up to the community - so, there's nothing stopping communities from banding together as nations, based on what you said. And, the nation-state makes sense in the world, because it solves issues like getting power from the mountains to coastal regions - sharing resources among distant lands - making commerce easier and more efficient - allowing for producing food in certain areas and doing other things in other areas to raise efficiencies, etc.

In which case, why don't we have a world state? Surely that would be best of all?

Kinda like it is now, and has been for 10,000 years. Athens and Sparta were two communities. They ruled themselves according to radically different sets of rules. When they needed to, they banded together.

A little, but every example you give seems to be based around a very restricted set of society types, mostly violent.

Eventually, a unified Greece became more efficient and manageable due to a variety of factors, and the nation of Greece was born. Now you want to break it up and make them start out again as separate cities or communities. I'm not sure on what basis you would force them to do that, and why would the same forces that operated to bring Greece together not bring a similar nation together even after you broke it up?

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything.

On what basis do you think that? It seems to me highly likely that if you did away with all national governments today there would be a huge incentive for cities to band together again just like they did to amass greater power and be able to compete for food, water and resources with neighboring lands. You'd wind up with a world at war for centuries, it seems to me, as regions consolidate.

I mean - look at the southwest US - break up the US, and now you have communities like Phoenix and Los Angeles fighting to survive. When the "community" up river turns off the water by damning it up, or polluting it, then you'll have the Phoenixians and the Los Angelians warring with the up-river communities for water, or paying the steep charge that would be levied....

Communities with nuclear power plants would be very popular, too, and also targets for wars from neighboring communities. Cities would see endless supplies of coal and other resources not too far away, and they'd conquer them.

Again, all the examples you give and scenarios you put forward are mostly about violent and self-interested communities.

New Yorkers will need water, or millions will die. They can't get it on the island. They will either band together with the metro-NY area, or there will be war. Do you not agree?

It's not really a relevant question, because I don't see an anarchist society being spawned by the world we currently live in.

[Coito ergo sum]

Kind of like it is now...except that we don't have a right of secession. Countries are free to merge now, if they want to....

No.

O.k. - what's different?

People band together as they see fit....check...
Communities can federate if they want to...check...

Kind of like it is now.

No.

How is it different?

People can form communities all they want now. It happens all the time. The only difference I see is that they can't secede from nations.

Except you also said that communities might federate or join together

I also said they might not.

Of course, they might not. And, they might not today too. Like the European Union. They might not have, but they did.

..., and the size of the community would be up to the community - so, there's nothing stopping communities from banding together as nations, based on what you said. And, the nation-state makes sense in the world, because it solves issues like getting power from the mountains to coastal regions - sharing resources among distant lands - making commerce easier and more efficient - allowing for producing food in certain areas and doing other things in other areas to raise efficiencies, etc.

In which case, why don't we have a world state? Surely that would be best of all?

Why would that "surely" be the best of all?

But, plenty of forces influence why communities form the way they do, only one of which is efficiency. Some others are geography, race, and religion.

Kinda like it is now, and has been for 10,000 years. Athens and Sparta were two communities. They ruled themselves according to radically different sets of rules. When they needed to, they banded together.

A little, but every example you give seems to be based around a very restricted set of society types, mostly violent.

I'm not sure where you can reach the assumption that the society you're talking about will be non-violent. When people are hungry, they will kill for food. When people are cold, they will kill for warmth. The same is true today as it was 1000 years ago, or 2500 years ago. What happens is leaders feel the pressure from their followers, and have to take action to satisfy that pressure if they want to maintain power.

Eventually, a unified Greece became more efficient and manageable due to a variety of factors, and the nation of Greece was born. Now you want to break it up and make them start out again as separate cities or communities. I'm not sure on what basis you would force them to do that, and why would the same forces that operated to bring Greece together not bring a similar nation together even after you broke it up?

I wouldn't force anyone to do anything.

Well, then it won't happen, because there is no possible reason why the world would break up into tiny communities all dealing separately with each other.

On what basis do you think that? It seems to me highly likely that if you did away with all national governments today there would be a huge incentive for cities to band together again just like they did to amass greater power and be able to compete for food, water and resources with neighboring lands. You'd wind up with a world at war for centuries, it seems to me, as regions consolidate.

I mean - look at the southwest US - break up the US, and now you have communities like Phoenix and Los Angeles fighting to survive. When the "community" up river turns off the water by damning it up, or polluting it, then you'll have the Phoenixians and the Los Angelians warring with the up-river communities for water, or paying the steep charge that would be levied....

Communities with nuclear power plants would be very popular, too, and also targets for wars from neighboring communities. Cities would see endless supplies of coal and other resources not too far away, and they'd conquer them.

Again, all the examples you give and scenarios you put forward are mostly about violent and self-interested communities.

Where do you expect to find a community of people that will not seek fuel for their fires, power to light their lightbulbs, cloth for their children's clothes and the like? That's all "self-interest" is at bottom: keeping oneself and one's family fed, clothed, housed and safe. If community A has a shortage, and community B a surplus, but community B won't provide what community A wants, then there is a chance community A will take action to get what it needs, especially if B is viewed as unreasonable. And, it is possible that A and B might both be acting in good faith and with a reasonable basis.

New Yorkers will need water, or millions will die. They can't get it on the island. They will either band together with the metro-NY area, or there will be war. Do you not agree?

It's not really a relevant question, because I don't see an anarchist society being spawned by the world we currently live in.

Of course not, but you brought it up, and you didn't really mention how it would start.

Maybe it would be after a total breakdown of world civilization as it is, and a huge depopulation of urban areas, in which case, the NY problem would not be a reality. However, similar problems would be a reality. These are examples that apply anytime groups of people live together, it seems to me. If you have a group of people living on a small river, and another group of people living a little bit upstream, then there are going to be disputes when the people up river piss and shit in river and it flows downstream to the next town.

Anytime you have two communities near each other, they will have differences of opinion, just like any two individuals. After all, communities are just groups of individuals.

I mean - I've heard examples of anarchist societies like yours before. It seems they are all based on some assumption that people will just start working together in a spirit of altruism such that everyone will help everyone else. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that would happen. I'm not suggesting that people are evil or by and large want to hurt each other. But, we do see that humans will have differences. If one group of people is doing well, they will tire of being called upon repeatedly by communities not doing as well. Sooner or later, the group of people doing well will say, "we've helped you X times already, maybe it's time you did this for yourself?"

[PsychoSerenity]

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.

I'm surprised at how much of this surprised me. If even half of it is half true (and I have no particular reason to doubt any of it, Michael Parenti seems to be someone who should know what he's talking about) then I have been massively influenced by the capitalist world-view. Thanks sandinista.

[sandinista]

you're very welcome Psychoserenity. A lot of what the west "knows" and thinks about communism in general is a result of a very slick propaganda system. Nice to see you gave it a listen. It really is an excellent lecture.

[Trolldor]

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.

I'm surprised at how much of this surprised me. If even half of it is half true (and I have no particular reason to doubt any of it, Michael Parenti seems to be someone who should know what he's talking about) then I have been massively influenced by the capitalist world-view. Thanks sandinista.

Once again, the capitalist world view means absolute jack shit. What you've been influenced by is the democratic world view, the idea that the individual has a say. How tradgic.
Communism can only, and will only, ever degenerate in to fascism.
The idea of communism is great, it just fails to account for people.

[sandinista]

Communism can only, and will only, ever degenerate in to fascism.

capitalism is more likely to develop into fascism than communism ever would, A fascists worst enemy is a communist.

[Trolldor]

A fascist may be a communist's worst enemy, but it's also his future.

[Robert_S]

I don't think the chances for communism working in the US are all that great. But I have seen quite a few communists helping people who are down and out, which saves them from the Christers at least. They also tend to be able to point out flaws in the current system that liberals overlook.