What would a true communist society/country look like?

[Coito ergo sum]

I am often told by many who favor Communism that it would be great to have Communism if we could have "true" communism. They say "Soviet Russia was not "true" communism," and that the Soviet states were "degraded" states, and "state capitalism" etc.

So, what would a true communist country look like?

As part of your answer, please explain:

1. Would there be a government? If so, how would the government be structured? Would there be elected leaders? What would they be empowered to do? Would the government be broken up into separate branches? If not, how would it be set up?

2. Would there be any laws? If so, how would they be made? Who would enforce them?

3. Would there be any private property rights? If so, what would they be like? If not, then how would buying/selling of real and personal property take place, if at all?

4. How would it be decided what an individual could do for a living? Who would decide? On what basis?

5. Would there be an private business? If so, how would that work?

?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
Anything else is "unpure".

And, obviously it won't work when people are involved.

[Pappa]

If it hadn't been ten years since I'd read communist theory, I'd have a go at answering this, but as it is, my memory's a bit vague on the details.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are many things about what I understand to be "true" communism that I find revolting, and insulting to human dignity.

One, my understanding is that true communism involves the abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Why does that suck? In my view it sucks because it means none of us gets to own his or her own house. And, if you or I buy a house from someone else, we can't rent it to anyone else. So, the question then becomes, who will generate the "rents of lands" that are to be applied to public purposes? Surely someone must do it, as property just doesn't rent itself out. So, that must mean there will be some folks designated to do it. Right? Can anyone think of anything other than a "bureaucracy" that would do that?

The next objectionable thing I find in "true" communism is the abolition of all right of inheritance. That means that if you work your whole life to give a little something to your kids, you can't do it. Someone else is going to take it. Who do you think that will be? If you can't give it to your kids, then who gets it?

The next objectionable thing I find is that true communism requires the confiscation of the property of all "emigrants and rebels." Wow! I move to another country, and forfeit everything I own. Nice. And, who decides who is a "rebel?" Remember the old mantra about how in a true communist country there won't really be a "state"? Really? Well - then what body of persons will decide who a rebel is? Rebel against whom, exactly?

And, true communism requires centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. So, no private banking. And, there is that "state" again, that we are told won't exist.

And, also, communism requires centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

And, then there is the communist requirement that factories and instruments of production be owned by the State and run in accordance with a common plan. Sounds wonderful.

Here's a good one. In "true communism," we have "equal liability of all to labour." Really????? You MUST work. No such thing as choosing to do something else....sounds like paradise, eh?

And, don't get me started on what is meant by "establishment of an industrial army." I sure hope the "state" doesn't tell me I have to be part of that. I guess I'll just become a "rebel" and have my property "confiscated."

[AshtonBlack]

Boring.

[sandinista]

I won't sit here and spend hours trying to explain things that have already been explained by people far smarter than me. I have neither the time nor the energy for such a project. Can give you a few links if you're interested though.

The Path to Human Development: Capitalism or Socialism?
http://www.monthlyreview.org/090223lebowitz.php

Why Socialism?
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

Why Marxism?
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1197ds.htm

[Coito ergo sum]

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
Anything else is "unpure".

And, obviously it won't work when people are involved.

And, that's another thing.

You say "obviously it won't work," and I agree.

But, I think it's even more obvious that no sane person would even ever WANT it to work. That's why I am weirded out when people say that "communism is great in theory, but it would never work."

How in the fuck is it even good in theory? I've never had a good answer to that. I mean - "from each according to his ability?" Really? No reference to "willingness to give," eh? If we are able, we give, right? If you don't want to farm, but the State needs farmers, then you fucking damn well farm. And then "to each according to his need?" Who decides what need?

I've had some folks explain it to me as if they seem to think that from each according to his ability and to each according to need means that the individual gets to determine what he or she is "able" to do, and the individual decides what he or she "needs." But, plainly, that can't be the case, otherwise people would all choose to be writers, artists or life coaches, and such, and eschew dangerous jobs like mining, and hard jobs like farming. Why would anyone take those jobs when there is no financial upside, and they are only entitled to what they "need" anyway? And, clearly what one's "need" is can't be decided by the individual himself, because I know I need a new car and a bigger house, but I doubt the "state" would agree. An individual's "need" would not be determined case-by-case, but rather collectively, and with a view toward equality. Where would one live? A family of 5 perhaps in a 900 square foot, one bathroom apartment with no A/C? Why not? Does one "need" more than that? What is going to assure you that "the state" will determine one's need to be more than that?

That cliche' "from each according to ability, to each according to need" seems to me to be an abomination. A horrible, awful concept, one that by its very nature MUST oppress the individual and destroy individual liberty.

[Coito ergo sum]

I won't sit here and spend hours trying to explain things that have already been explained by people far smarter than me. I have neither the time nor the energy for such a project. Can give you a few links if you're interested though.

The Path to Human Development: Capitalism or Socialism?
http://www.monthlyreview.org/090223lebowitz.php

Why Socialism?
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

Why Marxism?
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1197ds.htm

I'll be happy to read them.

My questions were pretty basic though. Is there a government? How is it structure? Are there laws? Who makes them? Who decides what profession one can be in? Who decides what one's "need" is? Who decides what one's "ability to give" is? How? They wouldn't take a long time to answer..... Tackle one of them for me.

EDIT - I read over all three of the above links, and none of them explains what communism would look like in reality. It's the usual stuff I get when I raise this question with people who, like you, have supposedly studied this stuff. It's rather general, and tells us what they are fighting against, and announces lofty goals of "seeing maximization of human potential," etc. - but it doesn't say what a Communist country ought to look like if it was a communist country. See my specific questions above.

It seems to me that many folks who espouse Marxist Communist theory have given little thought to its real world application, and what the country they're fighting for would actually look like. What would it mean to the individual human?

[sandinista]

When you speak of "work" what do you mean. When I see the mess the world is in presently, its just as obvious capitalism doesn't work. Work for who?

[PsychoSerenity]

So, what would a true communist country look like?

Much like a true Scotsman.

As far as I'm concerned, communism is a collection of social theories, some of which were put into practice and some of which failed. Others however have carried on to influence our society today.

I think potentially almost any model of society could exist, as long as the upbringing of the people was such that they supported it - so asking what it would look like is irrelevant - What would you like society to look like?

Why base you ideas of what it could look like, on one or another social models that are a hundred years old?

[klr]

Can people even agree on what "true communism" means? I very much doubt it.

If it hadn't been ten years since I'd read communist theory, I'd have a go at answering this, but as it is, my memory's a bit vague on the details.

Don't bother, you have better things to do.

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
Anything else is "unpure".

And, obviously it won't work when people are involved.

End of thread.

I'm no ideologue. While I detest the nastier side(s) of capitalism, I have even less time for any system that would ask people to suspend those very urges that tend to make them so productive and motivated in the first place.

When you speak of "work" what do you mean. When I see the mess the world is in presently, its just as obvious capitalism doesn't work. Work for who?

In order to make that judgement stick, you'd need to establish a few metrics first. Such as what does "success" mean?

Not to mention the fact that "communism" in practically all of it's guises has a very poor track record. Also, there are many shades of capitalism. To issue a blanket condemnation of it is to fall into the same trap as citing any particularly bad "communist" regime as an example of why the basic concept could never work.

[Coito ergo sum]

When you speak of "work" what do you mean. When I see the mess the world is in presently, its just as obvious capitalism doesn't work. Work for who?

It works for most people. Most individuals grow up and get to choose what education, if any, they want, and have some control over what profession they take. Most people earn some money, and can support themselves and their families, and can choose where they live and how they live. It seems the greatest good for the greatest number, comparing non-Communist countries with Communist countries, is more likely to arise in the non-Communist countries.

What possible benefit could we derive from a single-party country, that strips the individual of private property rights, and forces all individuals to rent from the government? What possible benefit could we derive from a state that deprives us of the right to leave our children our life's savings? What possible benefit can arise from a system that says that the individual MUST provide labor, even he or she doesn't want to provide labor? Who will be the "rebels" that get stripped of their possessions, and who will decide who those rebels are?

[Feck]

Just one point about inheritance ..the way you put it sounds great ,but then why should I for example become stinking rich not on my own efforts or qualities but off my parents backs ? How is that fair or just ?

[sandinista]

kir

In order to make that judgement stick, you'd need to establish a few metrics first. Such as what does "success" mean?

Not to mention the fact that "communism" in practically all of it's guises has a very poor track record. Also, there are many shades of capitalism. To issue a blanket condemnation of it is to fall into the same trap as citing any particularly bad "communist" regime as an example of why the basic concept could never work.

True. Same question I was asking, what is the definition of "work".

[LaMont Cranston]

Just where do you run into these people who favor communism? Back when I was a student at Berkeley, I used to run into political types all the time, but I haven't run into anybody who actually favored communism in years.

Bottom line, communism is a system that was given a try, and it didn't work out very well. In order for any system to work, it must into account the way people really are, not the way we'd like them to be. We can know that if we took all the wealth in the world and divided it up equally so that everybody had an equal share what things would look like if we went away for an hour. There would be some people with a lot of stuff in front of them, and there would be quite a few people saying things like "I gave it to that guy over there for safekeeping," or "Somebody came along with a deck of cards and asked if I wanted to play a little poker."

Like it or not, that's the way people are, and, democracy, with all its flaws and corruptions, at least holds out the possibility that everybody has a voice, however feeble, in the process. There are quite a few people who have used capitalism to accumulate great wealth, and at least some of these people (i.e. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etc.) who come to the realization that there's nothing to do with all that money but spend it on things that, hopefully, will make the world a better place.

What appears to world best in the modern world is some kind of mixture of capitalism and socialism, but communism? Sorry, it was cancelled because of low ratings.