What would a true communist society/country look like?

[PsychoSerenity]

I don't know what "right wing libertarian society" would look like, to anticipate you reasking that question.

And that's exactly the same reason why you can't expect someone to give the exact details of a 'true' communist society.

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.

But my point is, the fractional-reserve banking is a "yes, no or maybe" answer. There's no requirement for it in any society - you may say you support it, but that decision can only really me made in the context of all the other details of the society - and it's a completely irrelevant piece of information without all the other details of the society. Which goes back to my point about it being a question that doesn't have a simple answer.

If you want to know what individual policies or movements sandinista supports, then ask him. But every person you ask will give you different answers, so you're never going to find out what a 'true' communist society/country would look like.

I'm sorry but I can't explain it better than that, so if you still don't understand me, then I don't understand you either, and we'll just have to agree to disagree, and have a pint or two.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know what "right wing libertarian society" would look like, to anticipate you reasking that question.

And that's exactly the same reason why you can't expect someone to give the exact details of a 'true' communist society.

I would expect it if someone is suggesting they like it, or think it's a good idea - or support it, or advocate it. Howe can they do any of those things without knowing what it is? The thing is, he CLAIMS to know what he's talking about. That's the difference, don't you see?

It's like someone saying they like football, but then disclaiming any ability to describe what the fuck it is because there's several kinds. A person can still describe the kind they like - it might be European football. It might be American football. It might be Aussie football. Who knows? They're the ones saying they know it!

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.

But my point is, the fractional-reserve banking is a "yes, no or maybe" answer. There's no requirement for it in any society - you may say you support it, but that decision can only really me made in the context of all the other details of the society - and it's a completely irrelevant piece of information without all the other details of the society. Which goes back to my point about it being a question that doesn't have a simple answer.

If you want to know what individual policies or movements sandinista supports, then ask him.[/quote]

I have.

[

But every person you ask will give you different answers,

Not every person. There are, generally speaking, not that many types of communism. It's not like one person's "communism" is capitalism. It's a finite set of principles where at some point what a person supports is not, in fact, communism.

But, in any case, I asked him. I didn't get a straight answer.

[

so you're never going to find out what a 'true' communist society/country would look like.

I can get a straight answer from someone who says they support or advocate communism what they think the thing that they support or advocate actually is.

[

I'm sorry but I can't explain it better than that, so if you still don't understand me, then I don't understand you either, and we'll just have to agree to disagree, and have a pint or two.

I do understand you. You're just getting it wrong. Sandinista said he knows. He's just evading actually giving the answers. He claimed to know earlier in the thread but he preferred giving me links that he said would provide me with the answers to my questions (I looked at them, and they didn't). So, this isn't a situation where he says he doesn't know the answers, and therefore can't tell me. He said that he knows - he's just being cagey. My theory as to why communists and advocates of communism are cagey and evasive is because they know that when they say some of the major principles and effects of communism out loud, it looks horrible.

[Trolldor]

As simple as I can define it:
A true communist society would be one where everything is shared, but nobody is in charge of distribution.

[Coito ergo sum]

As simple as I can define it:
A true communist society would be one where everything is shared, but nobody is in charge of distribution.

I've never heard it described as such, but if that's what it is, then it sounds like a downright abysmal system. What a horrid state of affairs.....

[Don't Panic]

As simple as I can define it:
A true communist society would be one where everything is shared, but nobody is in charge of distribution.

I've never heard it described as such, but if that's what it is, then it sounds like a downright abysmal system. What a horrid state of affairs.....

Why horrid? Why is it so important to be able to own your home? Why do you need to rent out the cottage at the end of the garden? If everything you need is provided for you then why the desire to accumulate wealth?

The theory of communism is based on a very simple principle, one of community, everyone working for the betterment of society, not just themselves. It's a Utopian ideal, one that can never work in the real world because humans are genetically programmed to be competitive, to be the best so as to attract the best mating partner and propagate our genes.

I don't see us overcoming that anytime in the near future so why even speculate on what a communist society would be like?

[Coito ergo sum]

As simple as I can define it:
A true communist society would be one where everything is shared, but nobody is in charge of distribution.

I've never heard it described as such, but if that's what it is, then it sounds like a downright abysmal system. What a horrid state of affairs.....

Why horrid?

Well, if "everything" is shared, then there wouldn't be any personal belongings. That would suck if we weren't free to stock our refrigerators the way we like without them being raided by the neighbors. People who collect stamps as a hobby would probably not appreciate it when the neighbor came over for postage to mail a letter.

Unless you mean by "everything, " that "not" everything would be shared.

Also, "nobody" is in charge of distribution? You mean, if I make birdhouses in my house and sell them to neighbors I can't control the distribution of them? I think that a society where nobody controls the distribution of things would be quite horrid. Things would just be there kind of randomly. Or, by "nobody" do you mean something other than "nobody?"

Why is it so important to be able to own your home?

I like to have a place to live. At some points in my life it has been important to me to "own" the home. At other points it was better for me, in my life, to "rent" the home. I'd prefer it be "at no cost to me," though.

Why do you need to rent out the cottage at the end of the garden?

Part of the horrid state of affairs is having to justify what I peaceably do with my own cottage. Where do you get off suggesting I can't? A society where I am not free to learn how to build something, and build it, and then rent it out to someone to make a few bucks, or let my family or friends stay there for free, or trade the right to stay in the cottage for handyman services around the house, sounds really horrid to me. That's basic freedom.

If everything you need is provided for you then why the desire to accumulate wealth?

Because it's not up to you to decide what I "need." Basic needs are not universally agreed upon. You don't "need" air conditioning. You don't "need" a house that's 1,000 square feet (a person can live in 500 square foot house easily). What is "needed?"

The theory of communism is based on a very simple principle, one of community, everyone working for the betterment of society, not just themselves.

If you get a group of 100 people together, you will likely get a large number of different opinions of what is for the "betterment of society." Someone, ultimately, must decide which of the differing courses of action will be followed. Thus, the individual who wants to be a painter and make beautiful portraits and thinks that "society needs painters too" could be overruled by "society" and prohibited from doing his painting, because "society" needs him to chop wood instead. A society where an individual is not at liberty to do as he or she pleases with his or her life (within the law, peaceably), sounds to me a very horrid state of affairs, and that is the necessary result of what you describe.

It's a Utopian ideal,

It sounds more Dystopian. I mean, an individual MUST work for the betterment of "society?" Sounds positively Orwellian in a 1984 sort of way.

one that can never work in the real world because humans are genetically programmed to be competitive, to be the best so as to attract the best mating partner and propagate our genes.

who would even WANT it to work in the real world? It means that you can't do as you please, and lead the life you want to lead. It's not even about "competition" for me. It's about deciding to be a journalist rather than a ditch digger, or open an ice cream store instead of farm the land.

I don't see us overcoming that anytime in the near future so why even speculate on what a communist society would be like?

Because people bandy it around as something that would be good "if only" we could make it really work. Like you said - you present it as a "utopian ideal." Yet, that boggles my mind. I would hate it. Even with your best description of it, what you consider "utopian," I see a prison.

[Trolldor]

It's not shared if anyone can take it and use it without consideration.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not shared if anyone can take it and use it without consideration.

If nobody is in charge of distribution, as he said, then there is nothing to stop anyone from claiming that an individual must share some of what he has, and if there is no ownership (as implied by his question, "why is it so important that you own your own house?") then on what basis does one deny something to another?

Who decides what is sufficient sharing? Each individual? If so, how would that be different than what we have now?

[PsychoSerenity]

Well, if "everything" is shared, then there wouldn't be any personal belongings. That would suck if we weren't free to stock our refrigerators the way we like without them being raided by the neighbors. People who collect stamps as a hobby would probably not appreciate it when the neighbor came over for postage to mail a letter.

Unless you mean by "everything, " that "not" everything would be shared.

Coito where did you learn to share? Raiding the neighbours fridge while they're out, isn't what I'd call sharing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, if "everything" is shared, then there wouldn't be any personal belongings. That would suck if we weren't free to stock our refrigerators the way we like without them being raided by the neighbors. People who collect stamps as a hobby would probably not appreciate it when the neighbor came over for postage to mail a letter.

Unless you mean by "everything, " that "not" everything would be shared.

Coito where did you learn to share? Raiding the neighbours fridge while they're out, isn't what I'd call sharing.

Don't you see the point?

If "everything" is shared, then on what basis would one deny food to someone else?

Who decides what must be shared? Is there an authority that controls the distributes food? Well, no, that can't be because he told me that "nobody" controls the distribution. You can't just "assume" that people will be in agreement as to what is a fair distribution of food, can you?

So, again - AS DESCRIBED, the system is pretty awful.

[Trolldor]

It's not shared if anyone can take it and use it without consideration.

If nobody is in charge of distribution, as he said, then there is nothing to stop anyone from claiming that an individual must share some of what he has, and if there is no ownership (as implied by his question, "why is it so important that you own your own house?") then on what basis does one deny something to another?

Who decides what is sufficient sharing? Each individual? If so, how would that be different than what we have now?

What we have now is America producing the world's largest hamburger while children starve in the third world.

That's what we have now.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not shared if anyone can take it and use it without consideration.

If nobody is in charge of distribution, as he said, then there is nothing to stop anyone from claiming that an individual must share some of what he has, and if there is no ownership (as implied by his question, "why is it so important that you own your own house?") then on what basis does one deny something to another?

Who decides what is sufficient sharing? Each individual? If so, how would that be different than what we have now?

What we have now is America producing the world's largest hamburger while children starve in the third world.

That's what we have now.

LOL - be that as it may, it doesn't make the system described seem any less horrible.

Oh, as an aside, it's not just "America." Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Leichtenstein, The Vatican, Monaco, Italy, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Yugoslavia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Turkey, China, Japan...and the list goes on and on, all have plenty of food. The US gives away more foreign aid than all of them combined, though.

[Trolldor]

Good effort, but you're not quite there yet. Keep it up.

[Coito ergo sum]

Good effort, but you're not quite there yet. Keep it up.

LOL - another nice evasion. When you're prepared to discuss the issue, come back.

Instead, we'll just figure you're concept of communism is "everybody gets along and has plenty of everything and behaves politely to each other."

[Coito ergo sum]

duplicate