What would a true communist society/country look like?

[sandinista]

You mean like in Communist China? Communist North Korea? Or, you mean like in old communist Soviet Russia? Or, the worker's paradise, Cuba?

Think back a bit...I'll give you a hint. Exploitation.

[Coito ergo sum]

You mean like in Communist China? Communist North Korea? Or, you mean like in old communist Soviet Russia? Or, the worker's paradise, Cuba?

Think back a bit...I'll give you a hint. Exploitation.

Do you ever just type out a full thought? Must everything be some obtuse side-reference?

I'm not going to guess at your meaning. You either know what you want to say, or you don't.

[LaMont Cranston]

sandinista, You say you want a revolution. Dude, all of us would like to see the fucking plan...

[sandinista]

sandinista, You say you want a revolution. Dude, all of us would like to see the fucking plan...

Why? you looking for a leader?

[PsychoSerenity]

sandinista, You say you want a revolution. Dude, all of us would like to see the fucking plan...

Why? you looking for a leader?

[LaMont Cranston]

sandinista, No, dude, I'm not looking for a leader. If I was, I wouldn't be looking to sophmoric types who spout phoney shit about how systems that have already failed are going to provide us with a better world. However, I'm sure that you really "wow" them down at the local coffee house with your take on how to solve the problems of the world.

[maiforpeace]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 25#p544289

[sandinista]

sandinista, No, dude, I'm not looking for a leader. If I was, I wouldn't be looking to sophmoric types who spout phoney shit about how systems that have already failed are going to provide us with a better world. However, I'm sure that you really "wow" them down at the local coffee house with your take on how to solve the problems of the world.

ooooh please stop you're hurting my little feelings

...and maiforpeace, people tend to fight and act like cunts when they have nothing better or constructive to offer. Cranston probably actually thinks that if he/she calls me sophomoric and phony or whatever that somehow he/she makes himself appear smarter. In actuality, it does the opposite. People with little or nothing to add just want to insult and cut down in an attempt to build themselves up, low self esteem problems I figure. What can you do? Internet world.

[LaMont Cranston]

sandinista, Your post reads like you opened up a can of generic woo and dumped it out on the page. Yeah, it's really one of life's great challenges for others to feel smarter than you. (You must run into that all the time.) I tell you what, I've got about 10 or 12 seconds to spare, why don't you write down all the intelligent ideas you are capable of coming up with...

[PsychoSerenity]

I'll try to explain it a different way.

If communism entails "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" then there must be someone to decide what the ability is and what the need is. That can be the individual, but if it's the individual then the individual might measure his own need really high when most everyone else would say that his need is not so great. One might say "I need central air" when one doesn't, or one might say, "I need two cars and an SUV" when one doesn't. It seems to me to be inescapable that someone other than the individual himself must make the determination of his need.

And it has been said by others here on this thread that it would be "the community" or "the people" that would decide that need. Yes, that could be the case. I'm willing to accept that. But, is that a good thing? I think not. Why? Because that means that what you "need" is now up to some political process that must take place. Is it a vote of all the people? Is it a committee or a planning bureau that makes the determination? Someone must make the determination. Either way, it means that the food in your refrigerator and the personal possessions you own and the money in your account have now become subject to a political process. There is no other way.

That means the community could very well say that you should live in a smaller house, and there you must live. The community could say you need to not turn on your air conditioner, even though you can pay the bill. The community could say that you only get 1/2 a gallon of milk, even though you want to pay for a gallon.

Don't you see that as a bad thing?

I don't see that as a thing.

You've taken the basic concept "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need", which could be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, and could be used as the basis for hundreds of distinct cultures, - and you've derived from it, your own personal idea of communist hell. You keep saying "There is no other way" or "It must be like this", but have you actually looked for other ways?

Try thinking of a few ways it could work well, and you might start to see it differently. When you think of a problem, try and think of lots of different solutions rather than just the ones you don't like.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'll try to explain it a different way.

If communism entails "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" then there must be someone to decide what the ability is and what the need is. That can be the individual, but if it's the individual then the individual might measure his own need really high when most everyone else would say that his need is not so great. One might say "I need central air" when one doesn't, or one might say, "I need two cars and an SUV" when one doesn't. It seems to me to be inescapable that someone other than the individual himself must make the determination of his need.

And it has been said by others here on this thread that it would be "the community" or "the people" that would decide that need. Yes, that could be the case. I'm willing to accept that. But, is that a good thing? I think not. Why? Because that means that what you "need" is now up to some political process that must take place. Is it a vote of all the people? Is it a committee or a planning bureau that makes the determination? Someone must make the determination. Either way, it means that the food in your refrigerator and the personal possessions you own and the money in your account have now become subject to a political process. There is no other way.

That means the community could very well say that you should live in a smaller house, and there you must live. The community could say you need to not turn on your air conditioner, even though you can pay the bill. The community could say that you only get 1/2 a gallon of milk, even though you want to pay for a gallon.

Don't you see that as a bad thing?

I don't see that as a thing.

You've taken the basic concept "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need", which could be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, and could be used as the basis for hundreds of distinct cultures, - and you've derived from it, your own personal idea of communist hell. You keep saying "There is no other way" or "It must be like this", but have you actually looked for other ways?

Yes, and I haven't found one. If you know of one, please by all means describe it. Most such descriptions that I have heard that attempt to explain why it would be a good thing involve broad generalizations that amount to "we'll all just get along."

Try thinking of a few ways it could work well, and you might start to see it differently.

You seem to have something in mind. What might that be?

When you think of a problem, try and think of lots of different solutions rather than just the ones you don't like.

I was just wondering who decides what each individuals "need" and "ability" are, and if it's "the people" or "the community" I wonder exactly what that means - how can a "community" decide anything without a political system (whether it be pure democracy, representative government, or some other allocation of authority)?

Your response - to tell me to think of ways to argue against my own position doesn't make sense. It's o.k. if you can't articulate what you're asking me to figure out on my own, but it is no answer to say "your argument is wrong because you haven't thought about the alternatives." If you are aware of a palatable alternative, then by all means, share it.

[PsychoSerenity]

Never mind Coito, you seem to have an unusual aversion to seeing anything positive in the concepts of communism. I don't think there's anything I can say to you, that would make you see it from the point of view of someone who would advocate it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Never mind Coito, you seem to have an unusual aversion to seeing anything positive in the concepts of communism. I don't think there's anything I can say to you, that would make you see it from the point of view of someone who would advocate it.

Why? Because I don't state your position for you?

You haven't even tried. Why do you need to be reassured that I will agree with you before you state your point of view?

I've evaluated what I have read, and what people have told me about different concepts of communism. At the heart of it, it appears to be anathema to Enlightenment liberalism, and there does not appear to be a way to base a system on "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need" without crushing individual liberty. If I'm missing something, I'd sure like to know. Please enlighten me.

[sandinista]

What is this "individual liberty" you speak of that you're concerned with being "crushed"?

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

I wouldn't say that individual liberty necessarily is incompatible with communism. You can still have freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of religion and so on whilst evenly splitting a groups total income amongst all members - this is provided that all members of the group are willing participants. Historically, though, "communist" regimes have had to eliminate freedoms in order to force compliance upon the members of the state.

It is, however, distinctly anti-libertarianism.