What would a true communist society/country look like?

[klr]

Business wise, china is capitalist. The bosses creaming it off at the top, western consumers getting their cheap baubles and the poor workers on minimal wages and zero health and safety, just the way we like it.

[Trolldor]

In a communist society, since the community decides your ability and what it is that you need to "give" in order to get what the community thinks you "need," then you would not have that choice.

You seem quite fixated on this idea that a person would not have freedom to choose their own job. Why do you think the community would decide what job you can and can't do in a communist society? I don't think it's ever been suggested that that would be the case in any form of communism I've read about.

Of course they are.

See, communism doesn't work because people like control - for example, coito always has to picture a singular authority. He can't fathom a system of mutual benefit without an authority figure or body.
Communism happens on small scales all around country towns were people trade goods and services directly with one another instead of using cash, but it will never work on a large scale because we aren't that organised or that humble.
People would still be free to choose what jobs they want to do, all that would be required is that they demonstrate competence in that area - in other words, the same system we have now without the wall of finance in the way.

[PsychoSerenity]

In a communist society, the community would evaluate what the community needs done, and assign people with the ability to do it. You want to be an actor? Nope - the community needs ditch diggers.

That's a terrible argument. A communist society would likely have the same ratio of actors to ditch diggers as a capitalist society would, and in a capitalist society you can still only work where there's work available - so you'd have exactly the same opportunities.

That can't be. In our society today, you can quit your ditchdigger job regardless of what "the community" thinks and you can move out to LA and try your hand at acting. You can roll the dice, and see if you make it. In a communist society, since the community decides your ability and what it is that you need to "give" in order to get what the community thinks you "need," then you would not have that choice.

So, not only would an individual in a communist society be limited by whether there was "work available," but the individual would also be limited by the desire of "the community."

You are just repeating the same nonsense argument. The "work available" in a capitalist society is just a market based (and therefore lagging and inaccurate, with loopholes) form of the same "desire of the community". It still has no limit on your choices as long as you are able to perform at whatever you chose to do (and that same limit applies in capitalism if you want to eat).

Communism worsens everyone's lot.

What on earth are you basing this on?!

One, every place communism has yet been tried.

Two, the words of communist writers who tell us what they're talking about.

Three, Sandinista's own words, for example, where he says that to move to communism we would necessarily need to "downgrade" our lifestyle. That, to me, is a worsening of everyone's lot, if most people have to take a downgrade.

One, There has never been a real world, fair comparison, of communism and capitalism.

Two, I strongly suspect you have been misinformed here. Even I was surprised by the lecture that sandinista posted here.

Three, OK lets get this straight. If we were to bring equality to the whole world overnight, America would lose out quite a lot. But that is only because they have, for about half a century, been taking 10 times their fair share of the earth's natural resources, mostly in the form of oil, much of it effectively stolen, politically, economically, or with military force, from other countries.

With a move to communism, within a country, or throughout the world, there's no reason to think it would reduce the quality of the average persons life.

Greater inequality tends to increase problems in society,

Funny, it seems like communist Russia had far more problems and far more equality.

cooperation is more productive than competition,

Then why have the most competitive nations been the most productive?

Again, point one and two above.

and in a capitalist society there can be whole industries that exist only to keep themselves going, with no real benefit to society at all. If anything communism would improve everyone's lot, more than capitalism could.

You have any examples of this in the real world?

Yes plenty.

- A significant proportion of the financial industry for one. Hedge funds and the like only benefit the investors.
- Then there are huge numbers of corporate lawyers whose only real job is to compete with their opposite number in a rival company. Get rid of them all and nothing is lost.
- The same goes for most advertising; when cigarette advertising was banned, the tobacco companies all initially profited because they were no longer spending millions on advertising, but their market shares remained the same, because the rival advertising always used to pretty much cancel itself out anyway.
- And there are all sorts of magazines selling misinformation and nonsense, just so they can sell more misinformation and nonsense.
- How about the fashion/beauty industry? It perpetuates and exploits peoples insecurities for massive profits, while stifling true individuality and style.

Communism could cut out almost all of that.

Communism doesn't even OFFER to improve everyone's lot. It's telling you, flat out, "to each according to his need." "Need" is far below the level where people in western capitalist, market economies, or hybrid economies live. We don't live at the level of "to each according to his need." We live above that. If all we got was what we "need," and yet we still had to give/work with all of our "ability," that is - by its own terms - a downgrade. Now, even the vast majority of the relatively poor live well above their needs in non-communist societies.

For communism to be a step up, it must be that most of the US and Canada, for example, live below their needs right now, and that if we instituted communism that we'd take a step up to the point of living at our needs.

That is an absoloutly pathetic argument, based on the precise wording of a 100 year old, and probably translated, phrase. I really did expect better from you Coito. Just because it provides at minimum the basic needs for everyone in the community does NOT mean that communism couldn't also provide significantly more than basic needs for everyone in the community. The amount there is to share around depends on the amount that has been produced, and when you cut out all the capitalist waste I mentioned above, there would probably be more to share around.

[sandinista]

In a communist society, the community would evaluate what the community needs done, and assign people with the ability to do it. You want to be an actor? Nope - the community needs ditch diggers.

That's a terrible argument. A communist society would likely have the same ratio of actors to ditch diggers as a capitalist society would, and in a capitalist society you can still only work where there's work available - so you'd have exactly the same opportunities.

Communism worsens everyone's lot.

What on earth are you basing this on?! Greater inequality tends to increase problems in society, cooperation is more productive than competition, and in a capitalist society there can be whole industries that exist only to keep themselves going, with no real benefit to society at all. If anything communism would improve everyone's lot, more than capitalism could.

true that...on both accounts.

Really? You're the one who said that we in the US and Canada would get a downgrade through communism. Which is it? Are we going, overall, in general, going to live better under communism, or are we going to take a hit?

As I have said, man, on a number of occasions now..."living better" does not equate to consuming more. People, as in the majority of people around the world would benefit from less inequality. If people in north america had to "downgrade" it would be in the amount of consumption. That does not equate to living worse.

[Coito ergo sum]

In a communist society, the community would evaluate what the community needs done, and assign people with the ability to do it. You want to be an actor? Nope - the community needs ditch diggers.

That's a terrible argument. A communist society would likely have the same ratio of actors to ditch diggers as a capitalist society would, and in a capitalist society you can still only work where there's work available - so you'd have exactly the same opportunities.

Communism worsens everyone's lot.

What on earth are you basing this on?! Greater inequality tends to increase problems in society, cooperation is more productive than competition, and in a capitalist society there can be whole industries that exist only to keep themselves going, with no real benefit to society at all. If anything communism would improve everyone's lot, more than capitalism could.

true that...on both accounts.

Really? You're the one who said that we in the US and Canada would get a downgrade through communism. Which is it? Are we going, overall, in general, going to live better under communism, or are we going to take a hit?

As I have said, man, on a number of occasions now..."living better" does not equate to consuming more. People, as in the majority of people around the world would benefit from less inequality. If people in north america had to "downgrade" it would be in the amount of consumption. That does not equate to living worse.

Well, then you'll have to explain what we'd be giving up, because you're not being clear.

Living better does require some consumption - homes, comforts, foods, clothing, entertainment, etc. What would be downgraded, specifically? What consumption would be limited?

An individual does not benefit, necessarily, from "less inequality." An individual benefits by having his life improved. If John Smith is poor, makes $10,000 a year, lives in a 750 sq. foot apartment with one bathroom, and a rusty jalopy as a vehicle, it does not help him to make everyone else live the same way. It helps him if he can get a better car, a better apartment, and a higher salary.

[Coito ergo sum]

In a communist society, the community would evaluate what the community needs done, and assign people with the ability to do it. You want to be an actor? Nope - the community needs ditch diggers.

That's a terrible argument. A communist society would likely have the same ratio of actors to ditch diggers as a capitalist society would, and in a capitalist society you can still only work where there's work available - so you'd have exactly the same opportunities.

That can't be. In our society today, you can quit your ditchdigger job regardless of what "the community" thinks and you can move out to LA and try your hand at acting. You can roll the dice, and see if you make it. In a communist society, since the community decides your ability and what it is that you need to "give" in order to get what the community thinks you "need," then you would not have that choice.

So, not only would an individual in a communist society be limited by whether there was "work available," but the individual would also be limited by the desire of "the community."

You are just repeating the same nonsense argument. The "work available" in a capitalist society is just a market based (and therefore lagging and inaccurate, with loopholes) form of the same "desire of the community". It still has no limit on your choices as long as you are able to perform at whatever you chose to do (and that same limit applies in capitalism if you want to eat).

Reread what you wrote. You have no business accusing anyone of making a "nonsense argument," with tripe like that.

A capitalist society is not a "form of the same desire of the community." Capitalism allows the individual to make money, generally speaking, as he pleases, and he need not adhere to some community determination of what he's able to do, or what he needs to do.

The difference that I illustrated was the difference between the individual deciding what he or she wants to do, in light of economic realities, and "the community" in some way telling the individual what he can and can not do. In communism, a person might have a great idea to develop and market a groundbreaking product - but, why would he or she do it, since no matter what he can only realize what "the community" determines to be his "need?" And, if he had that great idea and thought it was a groundbreaking concept, but "the community" disagreed (still waiting to know how communism works in that regard -- by vote? By committee? What?), then he'd be shit out of luck, right? The community controls the means of production, and he's not allowed to produce a new product unless the community says it's o.k.

Communism worsens everyone's lot.

What on earth are you basing this on?!

One, every place communism has yet been tried.

Two, the words of communist writers who tell us what they're talking about.

Three, Sandinista's own words, for example, where he says that to move to communism we would necessarily need to "downgrade" our lifestyle. That, to me, is a worsening of everyone's lot, if most people have to take a downgrade.

One, There has never been a real world, fair comparison, of communism and capitalism.

LOL - there we go again - the argument that I used to start this thread. You say we haven't seen a "real world fair comparison of communism and capitalism." Really? O.k., then what is the real communism like?

Two, I strongly suspect you have been misinformed here. Even I was surprised by the lecture that sandinista posted here.

Then enlighten me.

Even one of the most basic things is never explained by proponents of communism: how does the community, in your "real" communism, decide what an individual's abilities and needs are, such that the community can determine what to require from an individual and what that individual needs?

Three, OK lets get this straight. If we were to bring equality to the whole world overnight, America would lose out quite a lot. But that is only because they have, for about half a century, been taking 10 times their fair share of the earth's natural resources, mostly in the form of oil, much of it effectively stolen, politically, economically, or with military force, from other countries.

Last time I checked, we buy the oil, and OPEC has basically controlled the price, for decades.

With a move to communism, within a country, or throughout the world, there's no reason to think it would reduce the quality of the average persons life.

There is every reason to think that, as I have explained before. Communism, flat out, says that an individual only gets what he or she "needs." We live well above our needs, on average, so by definition, unless we're talking about a country where the population is starving in large numbers, to drop down to a "needs only" level is clearly going to reduce the average lifestyle considerably.

Greater inequality tends to increase problems in society,

Funny, it seems like communist Russia had far more problems and far more equality.

cooperation is more productive than competition,

Then why have the most competitive nations been the most productive?

Again, point one and two above.

See my responses above.

and in a capitalist society there can be whole industries that exist only to keep themselves going, with no real benefit to society at all. If anything communism would improve everyone's lot, more than capitalism could.

You have any examples of this in the real world?

Yes plenty.

- A significant proportion of the financial industry for one. Hedge funds and the like only benefit the investors.
- Then there are huge numbers of corporate lawyers whose only real job is to compete with their opposite number in a rival company. Get rid of them all and nothing is lost.
- The same goes for most advertising; when cigarette advertising was banned, the tobacco companies all initially profited because they were no longer spending millions on advertising, but their market shares remained the same, because the rival advertising always used to pretty much cancel itself out anyway.
- And there are all sorts of magazines selling misinformation and nonsense, just so they can sell more misinformation and nonsense.
- How about the fashion/beauty industry? It perpetuates and exploits peoples insecurities for massive profits, while stifling true individuality and style.

Communism could cut out almost all of that.

I meant, do you have any examples of communism succeeding in that regard.

Communism doesn't even OFFER to improve everyone's lot. It's telling you, flat out, "to each according to his need." "Need" is far below the level where people in western capitalist, market economies, or hybrid economies live. We don't live at the level of "to each according to his need." We live above that. If all we got was what we "need," and yet we still had to give/work with all of our "ability," that is - by its own terms - a downgrade. Now, even the vast majority of the relatively poor live well above their needs in non-communist societies.

For communism to be a step up, it must be that most of the US and Canada, for example, live below their needs right now, and that if we instituted communism that we'd take a step up to the point of living at our needs.

That is an absoloutly pathetic argument, based on the precise wording of a 100 year old, and probably translated, phrase.

O.k., you don't think Communism works the way Marx said it worked in the Communist Manifesto and the Gotha Program, etc. Feel free to provide me with your sources for the true, modern workings of Communism. What expositions on communism should I be reading?

I really did expect better from you Coito.

Stop it with the condescension. You're not showing much. All you've said amounts to mere "communism would be an improvement." Nothing in the way of detail is provided. You all my arguments "nonsense" and provide effectively no rebuttal. You just tell me I'm wrong, without providing any explanation of how.

Just because it provides at minimum the basic needs for everyone in the community does NOT mean that communism couldn't also provide significantly more than basic needs for everyone in the community.

LOL - please direct me to the source on communism that suggests that communism would provide "significantly more than basic needs for everyone in the community. I'd love to read it. No need for lengthy cuts-and-pastes - a link will do, or a citation to a source that I can get from the library or the bookstore. I would LOVE to discuss it with you in detail.

If this is some fantasyland you've invented in your head that "communism will make everybody live wonderful, carefree lives 'significantly above their basic needs'" then don't be insulted that I don't take your word for it. Surely, if that system were devised, someone has written about it.

The amount there is to share around depends on the amount that has been produced, and when you cut out all the capitalist waste I mentioned above, there would probably be more to share around.

Where communism has been tried, the waste is far greater. On what basis do you claim that your version of communism will cut waste? Is it anything like the waste that we see in public projects nowadays?

[Coito ergo sum]

In a communist society, since the community decides your ability and what it is that you need to "give" in order to get what the community thinks you "need," then you would not have that choice.

You seem quite fixated on this idea that a person would not have freedom to choose their own job. Why do you think the community would decide what job you can and can't do in a communist society? I don't think it's ever been suggested that that would be the case in any form of communism I've read about.

Of course they are.

See, communism doesn't work because people like control - for example, coito always has to picture a singular authority.

I don't picture a singular authority, and have never stated or implied that I picture a singular authority. Quite the opposite.

\ He can't fathom a system of mutual benefit without an authority figure or body.

You'll need to explain, then how laws are made and how "need" and "ability" are determined without any determiner. If you are suggesting that each individual would decide for himself, than that ain't communism.

Communism happens on small scales all around country towns were people trade goods and services directly with one another instead of using cash, but it will never work on a large scale because we aren't that organised or that humble.

Trading goods and services directly without using cash is called "barter," not communism.

People would still be free to choose what jobs they want to do, all that would be required is that they demonstrate competence in that area - in other words, the same system we have now without the wall of finance in the way.

Demonstrate competence to whom?

In a capitalist system, a person demonstrates competence by succeeding. He or she makes a better widget and sells more product. The customer decides who has demonstrated competence.

In a communist system, there would not be a free market since either the State, or "the community" would control the means of production and all property (no private property in a communist country). And, if you are only entitled to what the community thinks you "need" regardless of what you do, then what would be the point of taking any risks? Nobody would.

You folks seem to be of the mistaken assumption that communism is just capitalism without a wasteful financial system. Interesting notion, but not one I've seen written about in any text or publication concerning communism.

[Toontown]

The Chinese Sweatshop is not a 'commie thing'. It's funded and operated by, and to produce goods for, most of the world's capitalist enterprises.

lol.

Oh, sorry. I was not aware that "the world's capitalist enterprises" had taken over and were running China.

Is white also black?

[Trolldor]

lolol.

K, so the nike sweatshop outsourced by Nike, paid for by Nike and used to create Nike products belongs to... China?

[PsychoSerenity]

A capitalist society is not a "form of the same desire of the community." Capitalism allows the individual to make money, generally speaking, as he pleases, and he need not adhere to some community determination of what he's able to do, or what he needs to do.

Of course it is! That's basic economics, supply and demand; the whole point of the market system is to get resources, including labour, to where they are most valued by the society.

As for the rest of it. Oh fuck it. This is ridiculous. You actually seem to believe that communism would have everybody working, in jobs they didn't want to do, as hard as they could, with no choice, and would give them back the minimum they need to survive! All you can see is your own personal concept of communist hell, and nothing anyone says can get you to stop coming out with the same nonsense.

There's just no point in discussing it.

[Toontown]

What an interesting ball of commies you've unearthed here, CES. Seldom have I seen such interesting commies. And they are so good at answering simple questions. They are the most interesting commies in the world. Far more interesting than the commie contingents at most atheist political forums.

However, I fear you have annoyed them with your stubborn, unanswerable questions. "Decided by whom?", indeed. What an annoying question.

Obviously, the Uber-Cat-Dog will decide.

Thanks a lot, CES, for getting them all stirred up. You know what they're capable of when they get stirred up. Does the number 100,000,000 ring a bell?

Soon, no doubt, the commies will be wanting to have a purge. Thanks to your annoying meddling.

Happy now?

[Toontown]

lolol.

K, so the nike sweatshop outsourced by Nike, paid for by Nike and used to create Nike products belongs to... China?

The country it's in presumably belongs to China. If it's in China, it is ruled by Chinese laws and regulations. Unless, as you seem to suggest, Nike has indeed taken over the Chinese government.

Frankly, I had no idea it was that easy. However, it is not without precedent. A U.S. fruit company once took over a South American country, or so I've been tearfully told.

Commies are such wimps.

[sandinista]

A capitalist society is not a "form of the same desire of the community." Capitalism allows the individual to make money, generally speaking, as he pleases, and he need not adhere to some community determination of what he's able to do, or what he needs to do.

Of course it is! That's basic economics, supply and demand; the whole point of the market system is to get resources, including labour, to where they are most valued by the society.

As for the rest of it. Oh fuck it. This is ridiculous. You actually seem to believe that communism would have everybody working, in jobs they didn't want to do, as hard as they could, with no choice, and would give them back the minimum they need to survive! All you can see is your own personal concept of communist hell, and nothing anyone says can get you to stop coming out with the same nonsense.

There's just no point in discussing it.

It's the "communism" picture painted by western propaganda. Everyone wearing the same clothes, working in dirty factories, standing in breadlines, getting sent to "the gulag/prison" for smiling, etc. It's a religious belief based on propaganda and capitalist dogma. The same as the "human nature" argument or the "TINA" argument (there is no alternative...to capitalism). Old hat. Nothing new here. Some member of the communist party in the former soviet union once said that the cold war was "won" by the US because their propaganda was far superior to the soviet unions. Very true. It was always the case that the west wanted it's citizens to fear communism, and thus painted the bleakest picture possible.

[Feck]

[sandinista]

good coffee Feck?