What would a true communist society/country look like?

[LaMont Cranston]

There are some other things that have not been said about the advantages of living in a democratically-based country with a capitalist economic system vs living in a communist state. Most of us, including myself, prefer to live in countries that offer the most opportunities to live the best lives we can. Even if we do not succeed at fully realizing the fullest extent of those opportunities, we still want to be able to dream our dreams and see if we can fulfill them.

Most of us, sooner or later, figure out that there can be a huge difference between youthful fantasies and reality, and we all deal with that however we do. I can dream of playing centerfield for the NY Yankees, but if I can't hit a curveball and run like the wind, that dream just isn't going to happen. Is it the fault of capitalism that I'm not going to realize that dream? No, the way the numbers work out is that very few people are ever going to roam CF in Yankee Stadium, and I am not going to be one of them. Still, for most of us, democratically-based capitalist countries have consistently demonstrated that they provide more opportunities than communist systems, and they provide greater chances to realize our dreams.

We can talk about how those people who work at McDonalds, etc. are being exploited or whatever, but, in my community, I am under the distinct impression that most of those people who work at those places live in pretty decent houses, they have TVs, refrigerators, lots of food, cars and many of the other things that with living in what we consider to be a modern country.

Is there room for improvement? Absolutely! Would most of us like to see less corruption, bigotry and all of the other abuses of power? You bet your ass we'd like to see that, but, in the meantime, how about we face the undeniable fact that communism was tried in a number of places, and it failed. Communism didn't work, and, most likely, not many other countries are going to embrace it as a solution to whatever problems they have. Get over it...

[Eriku]

I fail to see what's so great about the capitalist system.

For me it's excellent, being here in the western world, typing away at my laptop... for more than half the population of the world that's living off less than two dollars a day it is absolutely SHITE.

It might not be workable, the communist system, but for most people this system isn't working either.

[Clinton Huxley]

The fact that communism was rubbish shouldn't disguise the fact that capitalism smells of piss.

[Eriku]

And I thought I was being succinct...

[Ian]

sandinista, There is something very basic that you seem to me missing. (Actually, there are quite a few things, but let's just deal with this one for now.) What you are missing is that quite a few of us, myself included, think that doing things for profit is pretty cool. If I can invent a better mousetrap, write a great book or do lots of other things, why shouldn't I be rewarded?

That's a good point. Writing a book. Under communism, you could spend a year of your life writing a masterpiece and then market it. Your reward for doing that? Your needs are met, the same as if you didn't write the book. Under capitalism, you take the risk of writing the book, and if it's what people want, they will buy it and you will make money. If you're JK Rowling and write something that people REALLY REALLY want, then you can become a billionaire ---- and she was on the dole 20 years ago, living in poverty. What does communism offer the JK Rowling of 20 years ago, scribbling out her first drafts of Harry Potter? Her needs met. That's it. Capitalism offers her more.

Similarly, Steven King - in the 1970s before he wrote Carrie, he was living in a trailer in Maine, making a few hundred bucks a week. He wrote on a makeshift board in a laundry room of the trailer. He and his wife were dirt poor. He wrote. He sold Carrie, and he made money off every copy. He gave the customers what they wanted, and he made money and improved his situation. Communism offers him the trailer he already had, and the ability to keep writing in order to keep getting those basic needs met. That's it.

Excuse me if I laugh when I read your words "peoples mindsets will change if society changes." Just what is going to bring about those changes in any society that will change those mindsets?

People seemed to LOVE the traditional American mindset. That's why more people immigrated to the United States than any other country in the world for the last 200 years. What did they want? Liberty. Opportunity. Opportunity to do what? Opportunity to better their situation, for themselves and their family. And, what did it create? In about 150 years the US had the highest standard of living in the world, with the "betterment of the people" being achieved by people being given the liberty and opportunity to better themselves.

Hurrah for the above posts. I love the book-writing analogy. I'm actually writing a book. I'm doing it for my own satisfaction, and I don't really care if almost nobody reads it. Compliments from friends and family will be good enough. But if it inspires people and ends up selling millions of copies, and Hollywood wants to buy the movie rights to it from me, I see no reason why I shouldn't be well rewarded. Sure, I'll pay taxes on that reward, and I'll be happy to do so. But in a true communist country I'd be taxed to the point where I really shouldn't have bothered publishing it. Some of those taxes will just go towards making my lazy couch potato neighbor more comfortable. And if my family ends up no better than his, why would I really bother even trying to publish it?

It all boils down to human nature. People may care about the welfare of society in general, but they also care about their own lives. It's inevitable and unavoidable. Without personal incentives, people just won't be as motivated to work harder or more efficiently, be innovative, do inspirational things, etc. Because their needs are seen to, and doing any more will not help them. Now multiply that attitude across an entire nation. A system which runs so utterly counter to human psychology cannot compete as well. Communism works alright purely as an economic theory, but it never seemed to take into account that (like a billion drab-blue Mao suits) it just doesn't fit well on human beings.

[sandinista]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

[Eriku]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

and like most of our current needs aren't dreamt up by advertising companies.

[Ian]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

Maybe in some far-fetched science fiction scenario. Not in the modern world. Not even when it's forced upon them by a stubborn government, as history demostrates pretty vividly.

[sandinista]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

Maybe in some far-fetched science fiction scenario. Not in the modern world. Not even when it's forced upon them by a stubborn government, as history demostrated pretty vividly.

caring about society in general does not equate with Not caring about yourself and your family.

[PsychoSerenity]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

Maybe in some far-fetched science fiction scenario. Not in the modern world. Not even when it's forced upon them by a stubborn government, as history demostrates pretty vividly.

Social evolution seems to be fairly well connected with our ability to exchange information and ideas. And that has been growing exponentially lately - so a few decades will probably do it.

[Eriku]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

Maybe in some far-fetched science fiction scenario. Not in the modern world. Not even when it's forced upon them by a stubborn government, as history demostrates pretty vividly.

Social evolution seems to be fairly well connected with our ability to exchange information and ideas. And that has been growing exponentially lately - so a few decades will probably do it.

I reckon our willingness to change will depend on the planet giving us unequivocal signs about us exhausting it, i.e. a climate crisis will be needed to induce the paradigm shift required.

[Ian]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

Maybe in some far-fetched science fiction scenario. Not in the modern world. Not even when it's forced upon them by a stubborn government, as history demostrated pretty vividly.

caring about society in general does not equate with Not caring about yourself and your family.

And I didn't say that either.

Human society just isn't ready for "true" communism. Not for a while, if ever. Every communist government in history has had to force their policies down most of their citizens' throats.

It kinda makes me think of a parent giving their kids nothing but vegetables, saying "You'll get used to it! It's good for you! Sooner or later, I'm sure you'll learn to love it!" Maybe it is healthy, but is that the right thing to do?

[PsychoSerenity]

Some of you have been mentioning motivation, so this might be relevant:

[LaMont Cranston]

sandinista, Yes, how dare we bring up human nature. After all, what could human nature possibly have to do with the way the human beings behave? Nobody has said that humans are not capable of evolution. If fact, most of us would probably agree that human beings are most definitely capable of evolution.

However, even if we accept human evolution as a fact (or even a probability), just what reasons could you possibly have for thinking that humans are going to evolve in such a way that it will result in the creation of your little, communist conception of utopia? Can you give any reasons that any of the rest of us might assume, hope, believe, whatever, that the great masses of mankind are going to move in that direction?

[sandinista]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

Maybe in some far-fetched science fiction scenario. Not in the modern world. Not even when it's forced upon them by a stubborn government, as history demostrated pretty vividly.

caring about society in general does not equate with Not caring about yourself and your family.

And I didn't say that either.

Human society just isn't ready for "true" communism. Not for a while, if ever. Every communist government in history has had to force their policies down most of their citizens' throats.

It kinda makes me think of a parent giving their kids nothing but vegetables, saying "You'll get used to it! It's good for you! Sooner or later, I'm sure you'll learn to love it!" Maybe it is healthy, but is that the right thing to do?

You didn't say that? hmmm looks like it. Human society is ready for anything IMO. Sooner or later the kids usually do love it. Feeding you're kids whatever they want (mcshit every day) is a worse idea.