What would a true communist society/country look like?

[Toontown]

Want to know what a true communist society would be like? Try talking to a few communists in a forum. Ask a few questions.

You won't get any answers to your questions, but you'll get a good idea what communists are like, which will give you a good idea what their society would be like.

So, it's basically the same as I've run into? A lot of capitalism-bashing and platitudes about "people not profits" without any meat on the bones?

That's been my experience, yes. And I have quite a lot of experience being propagandized at by commies. And this is hardly the first "What is true Communism?" thread I've read.

I mean, I just wanted to know if John Doe could grow tomatoes in the garden, sell them to his buddy for $10 and keep the money. That was too difficult to answer because of the complex web of "versions" of communism, that might either allow or deny that right, and that it would be some sort of sensitive balanced analysis (by whom we are not informed) that would occur down the line, after we've adopted communism, that would inform us of whether we would be allowed to sell tomatoes.

That's right. You have to fall for the propaganda first. Then you get used in the revolution. Then, if you're left half alive, they spring it on you. In all it's blazing glory. "They" being "the men who spurred us on", of course. What "it" is, is what "they" tell you it is. Or else.

[PsychoSerenity]

Oh, for the love of FSM. I was asking about the one HE'S advocating....

Well I'm sorry for posting on topic! If you're just interested in sandinista's vision of communism, why wasn't he mentioned in the OP?

But I don't see how you can expect him to answer you, any more than you'd answer me, if I started a thread asking "what would a right-wing libertarian society look like", and then asked you to explain whether or not there'd be fractional-reserve banking in your vision of it, and how that would affect my loans.

[Animavore]

Communism sounds pretty shitty to me (or at least the way cogito's putting it). I'd hate to live in a government controlled world. Well, one that's even more government controlled than it is now. No way would I want the bastards owning my property and not letting me hand down inheritance. Capitalism may not be perfect, and in some cases out-right corrupt but it's the best we've got so far.

[sandinista]

You seem interested Coito ergo sum, here's a starter, look around the site and you should be able to find some answers. Starter.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1005burkett2.htm

I've looked. It's not there.

I'm not going on a "do the research" hunt and peck to try to glean what YOU seem to already be aware of. Just post it, or cut and paste it.

Jesus - how fucking hard is it just to say whether in your communism a person can build a cottage out back of their house and rent it out and keep the rents? Why is it so fucking hard for you to just say what the answer is? What sort of research expedition do I have to go on to get you to state your position on a matter?

Dude - you're the one who keeps playing a shell game with the bevy of different "versions" of communism that are out there. I have no way of knowing which "version" you are espousing.

The answer is yes, no, or maybe if, depending on what system you're in. Nearly all are possible - so answering that question is irrelevant - unless it's combined with a full description, in detail, of this non-existent society, including all laws, probably an alternative history since you did mention it needing to be relevant to the real world, a full social psychology study of the non-existent people in it, - you just can't expect to get a simple and satisfying answer to a question like that. If you don't want to read up on communist theory yourself, why are you asking the question?

exactly. What I have been trying to say, you did a better job of it

But I don't see how you can expect him to answer you, any more than you'd answer me, if I started a thread asking "what would a right-wing libertarian society look like", and then asked you to explain whether or not there'd be fractional-reserve banking in your vision of it, and how that would affect my loans.

again, you nailed it.

Animavore

I'd hate to live in a government controlled world.

I see what you're saying when "government" refers to what exists now. The short term aim would be a "government" that truly represents the people. So, basically it would be a citizen controlled world, a world controlled by the people. It would also be a world controlled by a government that is accountable to the people. As it stands we live in a corporate controlled world where the people in power are unaccountable.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, for the love of FSM. I was asking about the one HE'S advocating....

Well I'm sorry for posting on topic! If you're just interested in sandinista's vision of communism, why wasn't he mentioned in the OP?

You might have read the thread. He gave a similar evasive response as you did. He couldn't give me ONE example of true communism, because there are supposedly "various" types of communism. So, I said for him to just tell me the one he's talking about.

If you want to describe a version of true communism, please do. You don't have to describe them all. Just describe your favorite one.

But I don't see how you can expect him to answer you, any more than you'd answer me, if I started a thread asking "what would a right-wing libertarian society look like",

If I was advocating that we go to a "libertarian society" then I would bloody well expect that I'd be asked that question. I'm not. I'm not a libertarian, o.k.?

I can tell you what my idea of a capitalist society with a constitutionally limited republican government with popularly elected representatives would look like. I can answer all the questions I posed to him. Yes, we could rent a cottage out to someone and keep the profits. Yes, we could grow tomatoes in the garden and sell them. It would be up to the individual to determine if and when he or she wanted to work, what career or profession or job to take, etc. In my society, there would be laws made within certain expressly laid out powers of the government and which could not interfere with certain individual liberties, among which would be the freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, association, belief, privacy, and some others. Laws would be made by popular vote of elected representatives.

Answering my own questions:

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? - Yes, there would be a government. The government would be structured with at least 1 representative for every 150,000 citizens in accordance with the last census. I would only have one "house" of the legislature (no senate). The country would be divided up into districts of about 150,000 citizens each, and redistricting would occur every 10 years with a national census. So, yes there would be elected leaders, and they would be empowered to make laws provided those laws do not infringe on fundamental liberties set forth in the constitution. I would have four, not three, branches of government - there would be an executive branch for law enforcement and military, a legistlature as noted for making laws, a judiciary for court cases, and a fourth branch for the bureacracies (I would remove the bureaucracies from the Presidential control). That kid of thing.

2. Would there be any laws? If so, how would they be made? Who would enforce them? - Oh,yes, there would be laws. They would be made by popular vote of the elected legislature. The executive branch would enforce the laws, along with local police forces.

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? - Yes, there would be private property rights, which would be protected as fundamental. The government would only be able to take property for a public purpose and with just compensation. Private business is just up to whatever people really want to do, within the law. They could make things, buy and sell them, and keep profits. Yes, buying and selling real and personal property would be allowed.

4. How would it be decided what an individual could do for a living? Who would decide? On what basis? - the individual would decide -t he state would have no power to force anyone to work, even if they were able.

5. Would there be an private business? If so, how would that work? Yes, there would be private businesses. People would be free to do anything they like, provided it is not specifically made unlawful by the legislature.

and then asked you to explain whether or not there'd be fractional-reserve banking in your vision of it, and how that would affect my loans.

I don't know what a "fractional reserve banking" is, and I haven't advocated that. Again, if that's something to do with this "right wing libertarian" society you think I advocate, then be clear on this: I don't.

But, if you are going to advocate communism or any other socio-economic system, you should damn well be able to articulate how it would work.

[Coito ergo sum]

I see what you're saying when "government" refers to what exists now. The short term aim would be a "government" that truly represents the people.

Which would be....what? An electoral system whereby people vote on representatives who then act on behalf of the people to make laws?

So, basically it would be a citizen controlled world, a world controlled by the people.

Which would be....how? Pure democracy? Everyone votes on everything? What?

It would also be a world controlled by a government that is accountable to the people.

How would you make the government accountable to the people?

As it stands we live in a corporate controlled world where the people in power are unaccountable.

How would you make it no longer corporate controlled and what would each individual be empowered to do? Pistol whip elected officials who get out of line?

[Animavore]

I see what you're saying when "government" refers to what exists now. The short term aim would be a "government" that truly represents the people. So, basically it would be a citizen controlled world, a world controlled by the people. It would also be a world controlled by a government that is accountable to the people. As it stands we live in a corporate controlled world where the people in power are unaccountable.

But democracy also promised a system which was "by the people, for the people" and yet this is not what we've got, we practically have a plutocracy, all these people in government tend to hold down second jobs as CEOs in some place or other which makes them have vested interests in policy making (personally I'd like to see some rule made where if you go for a job in the government you can only work in the government and not moonlight but that's not going to happen). What makes you think Communism would be any better? The only difference to me seems to be where in the case of capitalist politicians who have their fingers in a lot of pies and make policies to benefit them, the other, Communists, who control all the land and wealth, will still make sure they have a bigger piece of the pie and give themselves better land and property.

EDIT: I fucked up that last sentence somehow. I think you got what I meant?

[RuleBritannia]

Oh, for the love of FSM. I was asking about the one HE'S advocating....

Well I'm sorry for posting on topic! If you're just interested in sandinista's vision of communism, why wasn't he mentioned in the OP?

You might have read the thread. He gave a similar evasive response as you did. He couldn't give me ONE example of true communism, because there are supposedly "various" types of communism. So, I said for him to just tell me the one he's talking about.

If you want to describe a version of true communism, please do. You don't have to describe them all. Just describe your favorite one.

But I don't see how you can expect him to answer you, any more than you'd answer me, if I started a thread asking "what would a right-wing libertarian society look like",

If I was advocating that we go to a "libertarian society" then I would bloody well expect that I'd be asked that question. I'm not. I'm not a libertarian, o.k.?

I can tell you what my idea of a capitalist society with a constitutionally limited republican government with popularly elected representatives would look like. I can answer all the questions I posed to him. Yes, we could rent a cottage out to someone and keep the profits. Yes, we could grow tomatoes in the garden and sell them. It would be up to the individual to determine if and when he or she wanted to work, what career or profession or job to take, etc. In my society, there would be laws made within certain expressly laid out powers of the government and which could not interfere with certain individual liberties, among which would be the freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, association, belief, privacy, and some others. Laws would be made by popular vote of elected representatives.

Answering my own questions:

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? - Yes, there would be a government. The government would be structured with at least 1 representative for every 150,000 citizens in accordance with the last census. I would only have one "house" of the legislature (no senate). The country would be divided up into districts of about 150,000 citizens each, and redistricting would occur every 10 years with a national census. So, yes there would be elected leaders, and they would be empowered to make laws provided those laws do not infringe on fundamental liberties set forth in the constitution. I would have four, not three, branches of government - there would be an executive branch for law enforcement and military, a legistlature as noted for making laws, a judiciary for court cases, and a fourth branch for the bureacracies (I would remove the bureaucracies from the Presidential control). That kid of thing.

2. Would there be any laws? If so, how would they be made? Who would enforce them? - Oh,yes, there would be laws. They would be made by popular vote of the elected legislature. The executive branch would enforce the laws, along with local police forces.

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? - Yes, there would be private property rights, which would be protected as fundamental. The government would only be able to take property for a public purpose and with just compensation. Private business is just up to whatever people really want to do, within the law. They could make things, buy and sell them, and keep profits. Yes, buying and selling real and personal property would be allowed.

4. How would it be decided what an individual could do for a living? Who would decide? On what basis? - the individual would decide -t he state would have no power to force anyone to work, even if they were able.

5. Would there be an private business? If so, how would that work? Yes, there would be private businesses. People would be free to do anything they like, provided it is not specifically made unlawful by the legislature.

and then asked you to explain whether or not there'd be fractional-reserve banking in your vision of it, and how that would affect my loans.

I don't know what a "fractional reserve banking" is, and I haven't advocated that. Again, if that's something to do with this "right wing libertarian" society you think I advocate, then be clear on this: I don't.

But, if you are going to advocate communism or any other socio-economic system, you should damn well be able to articulate how it would work.

So basically you want to decide the organisation of the entire society by yourself.

[PsychoSerenity]

Oh, for the love of FSM. I was asking about the one HE'S advocating....

Well I'm sorry for posting on topic! If you're just interested in sandinista's vision of communism, why wasn't he mentioned in the OP?

You might have read the thread. He gave a similar evasive response as you did. He couldn't give me ONE example of true communism, because there are supposedly "various" types of communism. So, I said for him to just tell me the one he's talking about.

If you want to describe a version of true communism, please do. You don't have to describe them all. Just describe your favorite one.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, there is no true communism any more than there is a true Scotsman.

I also said that I have no interest in describing a hundred year old social philosophy.

But I don't see how you can expect him to answer you, any more than you'd answer me, if I started a thread asking "what would a right-wing libertarian society look like",

If I was advocating that we go to a "libertarian society" then I would bloody well expect that I'd be asked that question. I'm not. I'm not a libertarian, o.k.?

Yeah well I had to go with something slightly different, or you'd claim that everything's fine the way it is, and you'd just describe the society you live in.

I can tell you what my idea of a capitalist society with a constitutionally limited republican government with popularly elected representatives would look like. I can answer all the questions I posed to him. Yes, we could rent a cottage out to someone and keep the profits. Yes, we could grow tomatoes in the garden and sell them. It would be up to the individual to determine if and when he or she wanted to work, what career or profession or job to take, etc. In my society, there would be laws made within certain expressly laid out powers of the government and which could not interfere with certain individual liberties, among which would be the freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, association, belief, privacy, and some others. Laws would be made by popular vote of elected representatives.

Answering my own questions:

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? - Yes, there would be a government. The government would be structured with at least 1 representative for every 150,000 citizens in accordance with the last census. I would only have one "house" of the legislature (no senate). The country would be divided up into districts of about 150,000 citizens each, and redistricting would occur every 10 years with a national census. So, yes there would be elected leaders, and they would be empowered to make laws provided those laws do not infringe on fundamental liberties set forth in the constitution. I would have four, not three, branches of government - there would be an executive branch for law enforcement and military, a legistlature as noted for making laws, a judiciary for court cases, and a fourth branch for the bureacracies (I would remove the bureaucracies from the Presidential control). That kid of thing.

2. Would there be any laws? If so, how would they be made? Who would enforce them? - Oh,yes, there would be laws. They would be made by popular vote of the elected legislature. The executive branch would enforce the laws, along with local police forces.

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? - Yes, there would be private property rights, which would be protected as fundamental. The government would only be able to take property for a public purpose and with just compensation. Private business is just up to whatever people really want to do, within the law. They could make things, buy and sell them, and keep profits. Yes, buying and selling real and personal property would be allowed.

4. How would it be decided what an individual could do for a living? Who would decide? On what basis? - the individual would decide -t he state would have no power to force anyone to work, even if they were able.

5. Would there be an private business? If so, how would that work? Yes, there would be private businesses. People would be free to do anything they like, provided it is not specifically made unlawful by the legislature.

Oh look, that's exactly what you did anyway.

and then asked you to explain whether or not there'd be fractional-reserve banking in your vision of it, and how that would affect my loans.

I don't know what a "fractional reserve banking" is, and I haven't advocated that. Again, if that's something to do with this "right wing libertarian" society you think I advocate, then be clear on this: I don't.

But, if you are going to advocate communism or any other socio-economic system, you should damn well be able to articulate how it would work.

Except that you have advocated fractional-reserve banking, because it's a fundamental part of the economic system you currently live in. Yet you didn't know what it was, and you couldn't tell me how it would effect my loans. I hope you can now see that sandinista can't answer your questions any more than you can answer mine - so stop expecting him to.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, for the love of FSM. I was asking about the one HE'S advocating....

Well I'm sorry for posting on topic! If you're just interested in sandinista's vision of communism, why wasn't he mentioned in the OP?

You might have read the thread. He gave a similar evasive response as you did. He couldn't give me ONE example of true communism, because there are supposedly "various" types of communism. So, I said for him to just tell me the one he's talking about.

If you want to describe a version of true communism, please do. You don't have to describe them all. Just describe your favorite one.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, there is no true communism any more than there is a true Scotsman.

Then I suppose nobody can argue that it would be a better system, for to do that, we would have to know what it is. If we can't know what it is, then who in their right mind would support it or advocate it?

I also said that I have no interest in describing a hundred year old social philosophy.

Which you said doesn't exist.

But I don't see how you can expect him to answer you, any more than you'd answer me, if I started a thread asking "what would a right-wing libertarian society look like",

If I was advocating that we go to a "libertarian society" then I would bloody well expect that I'd be asked that question. I'm not. I'm not a libertarian, o.k.?

Yeah well I had to go with something slightly different, or you'd claim that everything's fine the way it is, and you'd just describe the society you live in.

I would describe what I was advocating.

And, one can advocate keeping things the way they are without stating that things are "fine." One might simply suggest that since no coherent alternative has been offered, we ought not change it at the moment.

I can tell you what my idea of a capitalist society with a constitutionally limited republican government with popularly elected representatives would look like. I can answer all the questions I posed to him. Yes, we could rent a cottage out to someone and keep the profits. Yes, we could grow tomatoes in the garden and sell them. It would be up to the individual to determine if and when he or she wanted to work, what career or profession or job to take, etc. In my society, there would be laws made within certain expressly laid out powers of the government and which could not interfere with certain individual liberties, among which would be the freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, association, belief, privacy, and some others. Laws would be made by popular vote of elected representatives.

Answering my own questions:

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? - Yes, there would be a government. The government would be structured with at least 1 representative for every 150,000 citizens in accordance with the last census. I would only have one "house" of the legislature (no senate). The country would be divided up into districts of about 150,000 citizens each, and redistricting would occur every 10 years with a national census. So, yes there would be elected leaders, and they would be empowered to make laws provided those laws do not infringe on fundamental liberties set forth in the constitution. I would have four, not three, branches of government - there would be an executive branch for law enforcement and military, a legistlature as noted for making laws, a judiciary for court cases, and a fourth branch for the bureacracies (I would remove the bureaucracies from the Presidential control). That kid of thing.

2. Would there be any laws? If so, how would they be made? Who would enforce them? - Oh,yes, there would be laws. They would be made by popular vote of the elected legislature. The executive branch would enforce the laws, along with local police forces.

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? - Yes, there would be private property rights, which would be protected as fundamental. The government would only be able to take property for a public purpose and with just compensation. Private business is just up to whatever people really want to do, within the law. They could make things, buy and sell them, and keep profits. Yes, buying and selling real and personal property would be allowed.

4. How would it be decided what an individual could do for a living? Who would decide? On what basis? - the individual would decide -t he state would have no power to force anyone to work, even if they were able.

5. Would there be an private business? If so, how would that work? Yes, there would be private businesses. People would be free to do anything they like, provided it is not specifically made unlawful by the legislature.

Oh look, that's exactly what you did anyway.

I don't know of a country that is set up the way I suggested. But, then again, I am a proponent of capitalism as opposed to communism, so if you ask me to describe what it is I am advocating I will tell you what I'm advocating. If you want me to describe some other system, just let me know, and I'll do it. I don't know what "right wing libertarian society" would look like, to anticipate you reasking that question.

and then asked you to explain whether or not there'd be fractional-reserve banking in your vision of it, and how that would affect my loans.

I don't know what a "fractional reserve banking" is, and I haven't advocated that. Again, if that's something to do with this "right wing libertarian" society you think I advocate, then be clear on this: I don't.

But, if you are going to advocate communism or any other socio-economic system, you should damn well be able to articulate how it would work.

Except that you have advocated fractional-reserve banking, because it's a fundamental part of the economic system you currently live in. Yet you didn't know what it was, and you couldn't tell me how it would effect my loans. I hope you can now see that sandinista can't answer your questions any more than you can answer mine - so stop expecting him to.

You are still holding to the notion that Sandinista can't answer the question of whether in the system he advocates a person would be allowed to grow their own tomatoes, sell them and keep the profits? That's what you're trying to pretend here?

But, in any case, since "fractional reserve banking" is just a bank keeping only a portion of its reserve capital on hand, allowing it to loan out more money. I wasn't familiar with the term you used, but I am familiar with the concept. I am fine with it, subject to adequate banking regulation that protects account holders from being screwed in the case of bank failures.

So, I can answer your questions, and have answered them all. And, it's perfectly acceptable for him to say to any particular question, "I don't know" or "I can't answer that." But he hasn't said that. He's (a) said there are too many versions of communism that he won't answer it, (b) he's said that the answer to the question about tomato sales and cottage rentals that the answer can be yes, no or maybe (as you did), and (c) he's said that the answer is somewhere buried in some links that he's provided. That's not saying "I don't know" or "I can't answer that." That's evasion, pure and simple.

[LaMont Cranston]

RuleBrittania, Once again, I know about communal living situations in the United States, and there is most definitely an image that communes (now called intentional communities) are composed of dope smoking hippies who behave with all the stereotypes that go with that image. The communes I know, based on visits, knowing people who lived in them, research, etc. that have lasted from the 1960's until the present time are the following:
1-The Farm in Tennessee--This place really was originally created by and for hippies. The founder, Steve Gaskin, took a bunch of people from the Haight-Ashbury in the 1960's, and, over the years, lots of people have come and gone.
2-Twin Oaks in Louisa, Virginia
3-A community in Northern California that I choose not to name at this time.
In the United States it is absolutely true that those communities that have lasted have done so because they were willing to change with the time. In each place, the group has found a nitch where they can live the way they want to live.

By the way, of course there is a greater society. You and I and everybody else...like it or not...are part of it. Or, if you, somehow, are not, please explain how you have managed to do that.

No, making stuff isn't capitalism, but in the cases of Amana and Oneida, they most definitely became quite successful capitalist ventures. Amana's appliance division was taken over by Whirlpool, and the washers, refrigerators, etc. are sold all over the world. You might even have one in your home. The three communities I mentioned above have also successfully pursued business endeavors. Whether you want to believe it or not, these communal groups are not filled with people spouting the virtues of Marxism. If the communities fall apart, it's usually for reasons such as the death of the leader leaves a vacuum, and all of the young people in the group want to split. With no young people around to carry the torch, the elders eventually die off, and the community becomes a tourist mecca a la Amana.

If communal living situations are different in Europe, I'd love to hear about how they are different and how they manage to survive and endure.

[sandinista]

Sandinista can't answer the question of whether in the system he advocates

Out of curiosity, which post did I make that "advocated" any kind of system? You seem stuck on that, and frankly I can't remember saying anything of the sort.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sandinista can't answer the question of whether in the system he advocates

Out of curiosity, which post did I make that "advocated" any kind of system? You seem stuck on that, and frankly I can't remember saying anything of the sort.

Alright, we'll back it up a notch.

Do you support or advocate for communism? You seemed to, and you offered links purporting to support communism.

If it's not something you're in favor of, then I'll stop assuming that it is something you're in favor of.

[sandinista]

Sandinista can't answer the question of whether in the system he advocates

Out of curiosity, which post did I make that "advocated" any kind of system? You seem stuck on that, and frankly I can't remember saying anything of the sort.

Alright, we'll back it up a notch.

Do you support or advocate for communism? You seemed to, and you offered links purporting to support communism.

If it's not something you're in favor of, then I'll stop assuming that it is something you're in favor of.

Depends on how you define communism. I do support social movements that counter liberal democratic hegemony.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sandinista can't answer the question of whether in the system he advocates

Out of curiosity, which post did I make that "advocated" any kind of system? You seem stuck on that, and frankly I can't remember saying anything of the sort.

Alright, we'll back it up a notch.

Do you support or advocate for communism? You seemed to, and you offered links purporting to support communism.

If it's not something you're in favor of, then I'll stop assuming that it is something you're in favor of.

Depends on how you define communism.

However you define it.

That's what I've been asking for. Your definition.

I do support social movements that counter liberal democratic hegemony.

That may or may not be communism, which is a socio-economic system and not merely a "social movement."