What would a true communist society/country look like?

[Ian]

Why? Well, I'm gonna have to make Sandinista roll his eyes again and bring up human nature. Communism might work on paper. It doesn't work on actual human beings.

How does it even work on paper?

It's a theory. Just about any theory can be made to look alright if it's nothing more than broad concepts and numbers. People with nothing more than anacademic appreciation of communism can think that it's doable. At the very least, The Communist Manifesto "worked" for no other reason than because it inspired quite a few people to give it a try. Reckless muthafuckas.

[Jay G]

I think the utopian ideas work out sometimes, on a small scale. Communities can be formed on the basis of some overall idea. They can work for a while. Take the example of the Kibbutzim in Israel. They worked and were useful for their time and place.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why? Well, I'm gonna have to make Sandinista roll his eyes again and bring up human nature. Communism might work on paper. It doesn't work on actual human beings.

How does it even work on paper?

It's a theory. Just about any theory can be made to look alright if it's nothing more than broad concepts and numbers. People with nothing more than anacademic appreciation of communism can think that it's doable. At the very least, The Communist Manifesto "worked" for no other reason than because it inspired quite a few people to give it a try. Reckless muthafuckas.

What I'm trying to say is that even the theory, as espoused by those advocating it here, does not appear to look alright to me. Does it look alright to you? Have they even been reasonably clear about how the theory would work?

Your kind of posts are what generated my OP in the first place - there's this underlying sort of unargued assumption that "true communism" would be awesome, and that "in theory it's great." But, is it really great in theory? What's great about it, theoretically?

[Eriku]

The US, being the model capitalist society, has the largest concentration of wealth in the western world, and has systematically been marginalising workers ever since its rise to prominence.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/paid-s ... ights.html

This is not born out by the facts, as the workers in this model capitalist society have been living, generally speaking, far above the world average standard of living since the birth of the US. Even before the American Revolution, Americans were the among the most well off individuals in the world, generally speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car ... omparisons
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1430711120070515

Spend the most, get the least... Hmm... sounds like grubby capitalism is screwing y'all over.

U.S. Far Behind On Workers' Rights
Jenna Goudreau, 11.19.09, 10:30 AM EST
A new study finds 14 of the world's 15 most competitive countries provide progressive worker support policies. The U.S. is not one of them.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/paid-s ... rights.htm

Washington (22 May 2009) - A new five-year study reveals that private sector employer opposition to the efforts of American workers to form unions has intensified and become more punitive than in the past.

http://www.nupge.ca/node/2305

And so on and so forth.

You may have it good in a lot of ways, but there's a lot of shady stuff going on to ensure that the poor fund the rich.

People generally don't even question why they're only given two alternatives in an election (unless they want to throw away their vote on a renegade), and why they seem so similar.

They haven't seemed similar at all for a long time. Obama similar to McCain? Not even close.

They differ on certain contentious issues, played up by the media, so you'll have the population worried about their stances on gay rights, abortion, guns, etc. rather than how they systematically are aiding the priveleged classes. Home of the free, indeed.

Well, yes, the US has traditionally been the home of a free people. Ask most any immigrant. They love the freedom they've come to.

I notice in Hitchens' new book Hitch-22 he has some very complimentary passages about the US, somewhere around pages 240 to 250 I think (in that neighborhood). He refers to the greater protections of basic freedoms in the US as compared to even his beloved UK. My parents, and about a dozen immigrants I know personally from 4 different countries, all find the freedom, opportunity and generosity in the US to be something they value highly.

http://www.peacechicken.com/2008/09/23/ ... ouncement/

And this has to do with Obama and McCain prior to the election. Obama didn't even come close to providing any real change, did he? I appreciate some of the things in his rhetoric, but irl there's little to show for it.

[Ian]

Why? Well, I'm gonna have to make Sandinista roll his eyes again and bring up human nature. Communism might work on paper. It doesn't work on actual human beings.

How does it even work on paper?

It's a theory. Just about any theory can be made to look alright if it's nothing more than broad concepts and numbers. People with nothing more than anacademic appreciation of communism can think that it's doable. At the very least, The Communist Manifesto "worked" for no other reason than because it inspired quite a few people to give it a try. Reckless muthafuckas.

What I'm trying to say is that even the theory, as espoused by those advocating it here, does not appear to look alright to me. Does it look alright to you? Have they even been reasonably clear about how the theory would work?

Your kind of posts are what generated my OP in the first place - there's this underlying sort of unargued assumption that "true communism" would be awesome, and that "in theory it's great." But, is it really great in theory? What's great about it, theoretically?

Pump yer brakes fella. I'm not saying "great". I'm only saying that, as an economic theory, it arguably works on paper. But nobody who care about concepts like free enterprise, individual liberty, etc. can realistically think that it's great. That includes me.

[LaMont Cranston]

Coito, I think that some folks try to sell the idea that "true communism"...you know, the communism that's never been given a fair chance...would create a world in which there was greater fairness, equality, justice, etc. for all. As we have seen, the more you try to pin down somebody like sandi about specifics, the more evasive he becomes, and he really can't come up with anything remotely resembling a description of what that communist society would look like or how it would come to pass.

What's also true is that "minor details" like human nature and history don't seem to matter much to these people. What is true is that some people are going to acquire more wealth and power than others, and some of those people are going to be greedy, abusive assholes. On the other hand, quite a few people who attain positions of wealth and power (i.e. Warren Buffett) seem to get it that money and power are tools that can be used to do good works and make the world a better place. Contrary to what the sandis of the world would like to believe, not all capitalists are money-grubbing scumbags who have the intention of fucking over and exploiting the rest of the world.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why? Well, I'm gonna have to make Sandinista roll his eyes again and bring up human nature. Communism might work on paper. It doesn't work on actual human beings.

How does it even work on paper?

It's a theory. Just about any theory can be made to look alright if it's nothing more than broad concepts and numbers. People with nothing more than anacademic appreciation of communism can think that it's doable. At the very least, The Communist Manifesto "worked" for no other reason than because it inspired quite a few people to give it a try. Reckless muthafuckas.

What I'm trying to say is that even the theory, as espoused by those advocating it here, does not appear to look alright to me. Does it look alright to you? Have they even been reasonably clear about how the theory would work?

Your kind of posts are what generated my OP in the first place - there's this underlying sort of unargued assumption that "true communism" would be awesome, and that "in theory it's great." But, is it really great in theory? What's great about it, theoretically?

Pump yer brakes fella. I'm not saying "great". I'm only saying that, as an economic theory, it arguably works on paper. But nobody who care about concepts like free enterprise, individual liberty, etc. can realistically think that it's great. That includes me.

I didn't mean to imply that you think communism is great.

I am simply identifying this repeated refrain that shows up, often unintentionally, in any discussion of communism. This whole "it's great in theory" or "it would be a great ideal...." or that kind of language - it's a very common preface. I am simply have never gotten a rational explanation as to why anyone thinks that EVEN IN THEORY - EVEN ON PAPER -- that communism is anything other than horrid.

[Ian]

I am simply identifying this repeated refrain that shows up, often unintentionally, in any discussion of communism. This whole "it's great in theory" or "it would be a great ideal...." or that kind of language - it's a very common preface. I am simply have never gotten a rational explanation as to why anyone thinks that EVEN IN THEORY - EVEN ON PAPER -- that communism is anything other than horrid.

I suppose some people get so focused on achieving "equality" that they completely devalue the concept of "equity".

That's about as succinct as I can answer.

[sandinista]

Coito, I think that some folks try to sell the idea that "true communism"...you know, the communism that's never been given a fair chance...would create a world in which there was greater fairness, equality, justice, etc. for all. As we have seen, the more you try to pin down somebody like sandi about specifics, the more evasive he becomes, and he really can't come up with anything remotely resembling a description of what that communist society would look like or how it would come to pass.

What's also true is that "minor details" like human nature and history don't seem to matter much to these people. What is true is that some people are going to acquire more wealth and power than others, and some of those people are going to be greedy, abusive assholes. On the other hand, quite a few people who attain positions of wealth and power (i.e. Warren Buffett) seem to get it that money and power are tools that can be used to do good works and make the world a better place. Contrary to what the sandis of the world would like to believe, not all capitalists are money-grubbing scumbags who have the intention of fucking over and exploiting the rest of the world.

"pin me down" I haven't been evasive about anything. Unlike you, apparently, I simply don't have and don't claim to have ALL the answers. As much as you want me to be the all knowing leader, I am not. As for communism not being given a "fair chance", that, in fact is true. Most countries that tried to create an alternative to global capitalism were stomped on. It's a fact. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Chile, Guatemala, etc. New revolutions are happening currently in South and Central America, in large part because the US is too tied up in the middle east to interfere. Not that it has stopped the interference (Columbia/Coup in Venezuala in '02) but it hasn't been as vociferous. Of course history matters, what are you talking about? As for "human nature", I don't believe it is static, thats all. Not so mindblowing is it?

[Jay G]

Coito, I think that some folks try to sell the idea that "true communism"...you know, the communism that's never been given a fair chance...would create a world in which there was greater fairness, equality, justice, etc. for all. As we have seen, the more you try to pin down somebody like sandi about specifics, the more evasive he becomes, and he really can't come up with anything remotely resembling a description of what that communist society would look like or how it would come to pass.

What's also true is that "minor details" like human nature and history don't seem to matter much to these people. What is true is that some people are going to acquire more wealth and power than others, and some of those people are going to be greedy, abusive assholes. On the other hand, quite a few people who attain positions of wealth and power (i.e. Warren Buffett) seem to get it that money and power are tools that can be used to do good works and make the world a better place. Contrary to what the sandis of the world would like to believe, not all capitalists are money-grubbing scumbags who have the intention of fucking over and exploiting the rest of the world.

"pin me down" I haven't been evasive about anything. Unlike you, apparently, I simply don't have and don't claim to have ALL the answers. As much as you want me to be the all knowing leader, I am not. As for communism not being given a "fair chance", that, in fact is true. Most countries that tried to create an alternative to global capitalism were stomped on. It's a fact. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Chile, Guatemala, etc. New revolutions are happening currently in South and Central America, in large part because the US is too tied up in the middle east to interfere. Not that it has stopped the interference (Columbia/Coup in Venezuala in '02) but it hasn't been as vociferous. Of course history matters, what are you talking about? As for "human nature", I don't believe it is static, thats all. Not so mindblowing is it?

It seems to me that at least one country that tried it (USSR) did lots of "stomping" of it's own, both internally and externally.

Why is it that those countries that tried communism seemed to have ended up in dictatorship?

[Eriku]

Coito, I think that some folks try to sell the idea that "true communism"...you know, the communism that's never been given a fair chance...would create a world in which there was greater fairness, equality, justice, etc. for all. As we have seen, the more you try to pin down somebody like sandi about specifics, the more evasive he becomes, and he really can't come up with anything remotely resembling a description of what that communist society would look like or how it would come to pass.

What's also true is that "minor details" like human nature and history don't seem to matter much to these people. What is true is that some people are going to acquire more wealth and power than others, and some of those people are going to be greedy, abusive assholes. On the other hand, quite a few people who attain positions of wealth and power (i.e. Warren Buffett) seem to get it that money and power are tools that can be used to do good works and make the world a better place. Contrary to what the sandis of the world would like to believe, not all capitalists are money-grubbing scumbags who have the intention of fucking over and exploiting the rest of the world.

"pin me down" I haven't been evasive about anything. Unlike you, apparently, I simply don't have and don't claim to have ALL the answers. As much as you want me to be the all knowing leader, I am not. As for communism not being given a "fair chance", that, in fact is true. Most countries that tried to create an alternative to global capitalism were stomped on. It's a fact. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Chile, Guatemala, etc. New revolutions are happening currently in South and Central America, in large part because the US is too tied up in the middle east to interfere. Not that it has stopped the interference (Columbia/Coup in Venezuala in '02) but it hasn't been as vociferous. Of course history matters, what are you talking about? As for "human nature", I don't believe it is static, thats all. Not so mindblowing is it?

It seems to me that at least one country that tried it (USSR) did lots of "stomping" of it's own, both internally and externally.

Why is it that those countries that tried communism seemed to have ended up in dictatorship?

With communism being described as a classless stateless society, a dictator would render it a contradiction in terms...

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, I think that some folks try to sell the idea that "true communism"...you know, the communism that's never been given a fair chance...would create a world in which there was greater fairness, equality, justice, etc. for all. As we have seen, the more you try to pin down somebody like sandi about specifics, the more evasive he becomes, and he really can't come up with anything remotely resembling a description of what that communist society would look like or how it would come to pass.

What's also true is that "minor details" like human nature and history don't seem to matter much to these people. What is true is that some people are going to acquire more wealth and power than others, and some of those people are going to be greedy, abusive assholes. On the other hand, quite a few people who attain positions of wealth and power (i.e. Warren Buffett) seem to get it that money and power are tools that can be used to do good works and make the world a better place. Contrary to what the sandis of the world would like to believe, not all capitalists are money-grubbing scumbags who have the intention of fucking over and exploiting the rest of the world.

"pin me down" I haven't been evasive about anything. Unlike you, apparently, I simply don't have and don't claim to have ALL the answers. As much as you want me to be the all knowing leader, I am not. As for communism not being given a "fair chance", that, in fact is true. Most countries that tried to create an alternative to global capitalism were stomped on. It's a fact. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Chile, Guatemala, etc. New revolutions are happening currently in South and Central America, in large part because the US is too tied up in the middle east to interfere. Not that it has stopped the interference (Columbia/Coup in Venezuala in '02) but it hasn't been as vociferous. Of course history matters, what are you talking about? As for "human nature", I don't believe it is static, thats all. Not so mindblowing is it?

It seems to me that at least one country that tried it (USSR) did lots of "stomping" of it's own, both internally and externally.

Why is it that those countries that tried communism seemed to have ended up in dictatorship?

With communism being described as a classless stateless society, a dictator would render it a contradiction in terms...

That is true, with those aspects included in the definition.

The question then becomes....how are laws made in a stateless society? How are they enforced? What would we call lawmaking bodies and law enforcement bodies other than "state?"

Assuming there is no state, then how are the "needs" of the people determined and by whom? And how is what each individual is "able" (not "willing"...but, "able") to give determined, and by whom? What would we call someone or some group of people who make such determinations?

[Coito ergo sum]

I am simply identifying this repeated refrain that shows up, often unintentionally, in any discussion of communism. This whole "it's great in theory" or "it would be a great ideal...." or that kind of language - it's a very common preface. I am simply have never gotten a rational explanation as to why anyone thinks that EVEN IN THEORY - EVEN ON PAPER -- that communism is anything other than horrid.

I suppose some people get so focused on achieving "equality" that they completely devalue the concept of "equity".

That's about as succinct as I can answer.

Nicely put.

[Eriku]

Coito, I think that some folks try to sell the idea that "true communism"...you know, the communism that's never been given a fair chance...would create a world in which there was greater fairness, equality, justice, etc. for all. As we have seen, the more you try to pin down somebody like sandi about specifics, the more evasive he becomes, and he really can't come up with anything remotely resembling a description of what that communist society would look like or how it would come to pass.

What's also true is that "minor details" like human nature and history don't seem to matter much to these people. What is true is that some people are going to acquire more wealth and power than others, and some of those people are going to be greedy, abusive assholes. On the other hand, quite a few people who attain positions of wealth and power (i.e. Warren Buffett) seem to get it that money and power are tools that can be used to do good works and make the world a better place. Contrary to what the sandis of the world would like to believe, not all capitalists are money-grubbing scumbags who have the intention of fucking over and exploiting the rest of the world.

"pin me down" I haven't been evasive about anything. Unlike you, apparently, I simply don't have and don't claim to have ALL the answers. As much as you want me to be the all knowing leader, I am not. As for communism not being given a "fair chance", that, in fact is true. Most countries that tried to create an alternative to global capitalism were stomped on. It's a fact. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Chile, Guatemala, etc. New revolutions are happening currently in South and Central America, in large part because the US is too tied up in the middle east to interfere. Not that it has stopped the interference (Columbia/Coup in Venezuala in '02) but it hasn't been as vociferous. Of course history matters, what are you talking about? As for "human nature", I don't believe it is static, thats all. Not so mindblowing is it?

It seems to me that at least one country that tried it (USSR) did lots of "stomping" of it's own, both internally and externally.

Why is it that those countries that tried communism seemed to have ended up in dictatorship?

With communism being described as a classless stateless society, a dictator would render it a contradiction in terms...

That is true, with those aspects included in the definition.

The question then becomes....how are laws made in a stateless society? How are they enforced? What would we call lawmaking bodies and law enforcement bodies other than "state?"

Assuming there is no state, then how are the "needs" of the people determined and by whom? And how is what each individual is "able" (not "willing"...but, "able") to give determined, and by whom? What would we call someone or some group of people who make such determinations?

Am not an advocate for communism, nor am I well-versed in communist theory... just telling you you can't slag off communism for its dictators

I am equally curious about the actual implement of this dream state, and I'll agree with you all that no good answer seems forthcoming...

[Ian]

With communism being described as a classless stateless society, a dictator would render it a contradiction in terms...

Remember: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.