What would a true communist society/country look like?

[RuleBritannia]

"Pure communism" is a stateless (social anarchism/libertarian socialism) and classless society, where the means of production (real & private property) is commonly owned.

Marx described it as the inevitable final stage of society after capitalism and socialism.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Yes, but surely someone, somewhere who advocates Communism must have an example or an idea in their head about what a good communist system would look like?

How in the world can anyone advocate a system that they have no idea of how they envision it working in practice?

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?

Well, the idea was that there are people advocating that Communism would be a good thing to have, if we could have "true" communism. I'm interested in knowing what they mean by that (or what one such person advocating that thing means by that). Nobody needs to speak for everyone. I merely haven't heard one person - ever - give a good explanation of a Communist society that I would ever want to live in. Sandinista seems to be into Communism. I started this thread hoping he would have some insight into how he envisions it working.

Frankly, if a person advocating a philosophy or a political theory doesn't know how it would really apply in the world, then I wonder how it is that the person concluded it was a good thing in the first place.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Pure communism" is a stateless (social anarchism/libertarian socialism) and classless society, where the means of production (real & private property) is commonly owned.

Marx described it as the inevitable final stage of society after capitalism and socialism.

Yeah - I know.

However, how does that work? Are there laws? If not, how is anti-social or violent behavior regulated or punished? If yes, who makes the laws and how?

If the means of production is commonly owned, then how is it decided what is produced? Vote of the entire populace on every aspect of the economy? Or, are their elected leaders? How are they elected?

And, if we have people making laws, police enforcing them, and a body of people other than the whole population making rules concerning what is produced and how (and who does what), then whither statelessness?

Does any one really want to live an a socio-anarchist or libertarian-socialist society? Does anyone really want to live in a society where the means of production and real property are commonly owned? Doesn't that mean that the individual can't do as he pleases with his tomato plants? And, can't rent out the cottage in the back? Why would anyone want that?

[RuleBritannia]

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.

I would say that's a product of democracy not capitalism.

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.

Communist country would be an oxymoron, Marx described pure communism as stateless.

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?

That be a very crude descriuption of the socialist states between capitalism and pure communsim (again how Marx decribed it).

What possible benefit could we derive from a state that deprives us of the right to leave our children our life's savings?

Depends who "we" is. Society as a whole could benefit from such a boost to the treasury, though the individuals being "taxed" would have little to no benefit.

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?

If were're talking about pure communism then there would be no authority to compel and individual to provide labour.

Who will be the "rebels" that get stripped of their possessions, and who will decide who those rebels are?

The bourgeoisie (capitalist class) would be the rebels, the proletariat (working class) would be those who decide.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

I've had several persons describe themselves as Marxists over the last year. And, sandinista seems to be an advocate.

[LaMont Cranston]

RuleBrittania, OK, so Marx said it was the inevitable final stage of society after capitalism and socialism. From what I can tell, Marx called it wrong, but, if it is inevitable, just when is this inevitability supposed to happen?

[Thinking Aloud]

This is what a true communist society/country would look like.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

witnesses_all_suffering_soon_to_end.jpg

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

If were're talking about pure communism then there would be no authority to compel and individual to provide labour.

So what would the Stateless society look like? I mean - what if someone commits a crime? Who is the police force? And, a rose by any other name....right?

Marx referred to a lot of State functions in the Communist Manifesto - the State collects rents, the State determines who needs what, the state demands labor (and tells the people what they must do), the State confiscates property, the State creates an agricultural army, the State takes away freedom of religion, etc.

I'm really at a loss as to how people's behavior is regulated in a stateless society. Who inspects the crops for salmanella and e-coli? Who makes sure that food i the markets is not sold after expiration or when spoiled? Who makes sure that the aspirin is not tainted? Who arrests Billy Bob for drunk driving? Who enforces banking regulations? Are there any banking regulations?

[RuleBritannia]

However, how does that work? Are there laws? If not, how is anti-social or violent behavior regulated or punished? If yes, who makes the laws and how?

I assume it would be like to the Athenian democratic model where society as a whole applies the law (mob rule).

If the means of production is commonly owned, then how is it decided what is produced? Vote of the entire populace on every aspect of the economy? Or, are their elected leaders? How are they elected?

"Commonly owned" doesn't mean that everyone on the planet owns every factory, only those who work in the factory own it.

And, if we have people making laws, police enforcing them, and a body of people other than the whole population making rules concerning what is produced and how (and who does what), then whither statelessness?

State and government aren't the same thing.

Does any one really want to live an a socio-anarchist or libertarian-socialist society?

I think there are many.

Does anyone really want to live in a society where the means of production and real property are commonly owned?

See above.

Doesn't that mean that the individual can't do as he pleases with his tomato plants? And, can't rent out the cottage in the back? Why would anyone want that?

As long as the individual is the only person working with the tomato plant (the means of production) then they can do as they wish with it.

[RuleBritannia]

RuleBrittania, OK, so Marx said it was the inevitable final stage of society after capitalism and socialism. From what I can tell, Marx called it wrong, but, if it is inevitable, just when is this inevitability supposed to happen?

He didn't say that I know of.

[RuleBritannia]

So what would the Stateless society look like? I mean - what if someone commits a crime? Who is the police force? And, a rose by any other name....right?

There have been many stateless societies (anarchist communities), each of cause run in different ways.

Marx referred to a lot of State functions in the Communist Manifesto - the State collects rents, the State determines who needs what, the state demands labor (and tells the people what they must do), the State confiscates property, the State creates an agricultural army, the State takes away freedom of religion, etc.

But that wasn't pure communism it was the socialist stage, created by the self organisation of the proletariat into workers councils. Marx never said anything about a single (vangaurd) party, that was an invention of Lenin.

I'm really at a loss as to how people's behavior is regulated in a stateless society. Who inspects the crops for salmanella and e-coli? Who makes sure that food i the markets is not sold after expiration or when spoiled? Who makes sure that the aspirin is not tainted? Who arrests Billy Bob for drunk driving? Who enforces banking regulations? Are there any banking regulations?

I don't know. I think it would only work if all of those living in the society did so voluntarily such as a commune.

[Coito ergo sum]

So what would the Stateless society look like? I mean - what if someone commits a crime? Who is the police force? And, a rose by any other name....right?

There have been many stateless societies (anarchist communities), each of cause run in different ways.

Yes And, looking at the first one - the Icelandic Commonwealth from 930 to 1230, I stand by my assertion that it would be no place any sane person would want to live. One, as noted in your link, "enforcement of law was entirely a private affair." The writings of Snorri Sturleson in the Icelandic Sagas gives us a picture of what this means: Eirik the Red has a gripe with some guy who might be named Ragnar or Hrothgar, or whatever, so Eirik gets some men together, they go to Ragnar's house and set it on fire, stabbing anyone who runs out the door to avoid being burned to death.

They followed a version of old "common law" back in that day, and they could meet at certain communal meetings, like the "Althing" and vote on whether Eirik the Red did right, or should be deemed an outlaw. Which, they actually did do, and voted him to be an "outlaw" (killable on sight by anyone), and so Eirik fled to Greenland with Leif Eirikson.

I haven't read through all the rest, but the first few sound about as uninviting as medieval Iceland.

Marx referred to a lot of State functions in the Communist Manifesto - the State collects rents, the State determines who needs what, the state demands labor (and tells the people what they must do), the State confiscates property, the State creates an agricultural army, the State takes away freedom of religion, etc.

But that wasn't pure communism it was the socialist stage, created by the self organisation of the proletariat into workers councils. Marx never said anything about a single (vangaurd) party, that was an invention of Lenin.

Yes, I know that the idea was to transition to a Stateless society, but they never described how that would be done (Marx and Engels, or on what basis they made the claim that it would EVER occur, or even explain why it would be "good").

I'm really at a loss as to how people's behavior is regulated in a stateless society. Who inspects the crops for salmanella and e-coli? Who makes sure that food i the markets is not sold after expiration or when spoiled? Who makes sure that the aspirin is not tainted? Who arrests Billy Bob for drunk driving? Who enforces banking regulations? Are there any banking regulations?

I don't know. I think it would only work if all of those living in the society did so voluntarily such as a commune.

It seems to me that without any way to enforce a law, then there's nothing to stop Crafty Chris from defrauding Credulous Cathy and giving the finger to anyone that complained. Unless Pistol Pete took justice into his own hands and shot Crafty Chris in the face....

[RuleBritannia]

I haven't read through all the rest, but the first few sound about as uninviting as medieval Iceland.

I agree, I wouldn't want to live there either.

Yes, I know that the idea was to transition to a Stateless society, but they never described how that would be done (Marx and Engels, or on what basis they made the claim that it would EVER occur, or even explain why it would be "good").

It was seen inevitable, to Marx and Engels the only purpose of the state was to maintain the status quo of the capitalist and working classes. With a classless society there would be no need for the state and it would just disappear.

It seems to me that without any way to enforce a law, then there's nothing to stop Crafty Chris from defrauding Credulous Cathy and giving the finger to anyone that complained. Unless Pistol Pete took justice into his own hands and shot Crafty Chris in the face....

I assume it would be enforced the same way as in an Athenian democracy, mob rule.

[Pappa]

People lived in stateless societies for most of human history. I think the majority of them were sane and I also think most of them would probably prefer it to living under the control of a state. I know I would and I believe myself to be sane.

[Coito ergo sum]

People lived in stateless societies for most of human history. I think the majority of them were sane and I also think most of them would probably prefer it to living under the control of a state. I know I would and I believe myself to be sane.

they were hunter gatherers, and had the "state" necessary at the time - a chieftan and "elders." You want that now?

When someone steals your stuff or hurts a family member, you want the enforcement of the law to be a private matter? You'll just go out there and pop a cap in 'is ass?

Do you favor deregulation? If not, why not?