What would a true communist society/country look like?

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

AnInconvenientScotsman, Gee, I don't know anybody who is for morbid obesity; I know I'm not for it, and we all knows that, ultimately, it affects the larger society with lost production, increased health care costs, etc. However, just how to you intend to keep people from pigging out? Who is going to enforce that shit, and how are they going to do it?

Since War World II, obestity and the health problems related to it have become an epidemic in the USA, and as people in China and other places start eating like Americans, they turn into fat slobs too. America, regardless of how you feel about it and its problems, has succeeded in growing and producing so much food, and, yes, I know a lot of it is pure shit, that it's people can eat like pigs. I mean, how many countries in the world actually have all-you-can-eat places in virtually every town and city?

Please understand, I'm not saying I feel good about that situation. I don't. In an idealized world, I'd prefer that we fed everybody, there was no war, everybody had shelter, clothing, good water, opportunities to improve their lives and we weren't fucking over the environment. Still, we all have to live in the world the way it presently exists. In all my experience and studies and everything else, I can't see a system that works better than capitalism, and I can't see a government system that works better than democracy. Actually, what works best appears to be some kind of mixture of capitalist democracy with some socialism thrown in.

Please don't tell me that every democracy is flawed and filled with corruption. I'm painfully aware of that; we all are. What I'm saying is that I have yet to see a better set of concepts and ideas, and it's pretty obvious that some sort of idealized form of communism isn't one of them. Communism was tried, and it failed. Hey guys, it doesn't fucking work!

As rational human beings, I think considering ways to make the better place is a truly wonderful thing to do, but please don't try and sell the idea that communism would really work if we had only given it a fair chance.

I hope to god you don't actually think that I support communism

[LaMont Cranston]

AnInconvenientScotsman, No, I do not think that. I basically threw that thing out to anybody who thinks they have any ideas about how the world could be a kinder and gentler place. I'm met enough political types to know that most of them are full of shit. Back in my days in Berkeley, you couldn't take a piss without running into far-left types who were convinced they knew how the world could and should be changed, and, dammit, they were going to do it. Like I said, dispute all the flaws and all the corruption, I can't find anything that works better than some version of democracy, and a mixture of capitalist and socialist economic systems.

[sandinista]

LaMont Cranston, whats a "political type" of person? Everyone is political. Name someone...an adult, who is not political.

[Coito ergo sum]

It depends on who you're referring to as "we". If you mean the people who have a healthy, balanced diet, then yes we may well be able to. It's the Burger King regulars who would need to take a hit for it to work. Of course, that's only as far as food is concerned...

awwww but I WANT to drive my SUV to burger king 3 times a day and fill my fat face with shit. Freedom!

No, you want to live in a place where you're not allowed to go where you like, and eat what you like. Come on, man! Join adulthood! I'm sure you are perfectly capable of determining where you'd like to eat without being prohibited from going to a particular restaurant! I have more confidence in you than that....

You're right, though, the only freedom we should have is the freedom to do the "right" thing.

You want to smoke! Fuck that! It's bad for you! And, it drains the health care system! You want to drink alcohol? Get the fuck out of here you drunk! The way to live is a clean and sober life! And, don't even THINK about going out for Chinese food! That's not good enough for you! Here's your government approved food pyramid menu. Today is salisbury steak (made of tofu to look like steak), and salad and 6 ounces of soy milk. No no, Sandinista! Get out of the freezer! This is not ice cream day. Ice cream day is on Friday night, and only when the shortages are alleviated.

Now, it's time for your calesthenics because you don't exercise enough.

All of those things - smoking, drinking, eating, the lot - are all fine and good as long as you don't take it to excess. We live in a society and your actions have consequences. People shouldn't be allowed to eat themselves into morbid obesity and so on. It's completely unreasonable and it harms people around them.

That sounds wonderful. Who would not agree that we should not take things to "excess." By definition, "excess" means "too much." The key, however, is not whether someone goes to excess, but WHO DECIDES what is "excessive."

Those things, eating, smoking, drinking, are all "fine" IN YOUR OPINION. In the opinion of vegans, who are just as much citizens and humans as you are, any consumption of meat or animal products is not "just fine," and they say that such consumption harms people around them and that we live in a society and our actions have consequences. Teetotallers and Prohibitionists tell us the same thing about alcohol. And, the anti-smoking Nazis say the same thing about smoking. They say NONE of it is acceptable. ALL of it is unreasonable.

Is it? Maybe.

But, you know what? Freedom means you don't have to behave as other people deem "reasonable." You have "liberty," and as such if you want drink until you fall down, smoke until you get cancer and eat until you break a 50 inch waste, then that's what an individual may do. It's the individuals freedom, and that freedom comes with the responsibility of governing his or her own behavior to avoid getting drunk, smoking "too much" (which varies from person to person) and eating too much.

What YOU think is "excess" is none of your damn business, frankly. There are some people who exercise too much for their own good, and they harm themselves by doing so. Maybe they should go to a psychologist and get their obsessive behavior checked out, but it sure is not the business of "the state" or "us" to interfere in that person's personal life.

[LaMont Cranston]

sandinista, When I refer to "political types," I'm talking about those people who believe that a certain set of political concepts (their set) are by far the best set of ideas available, and that's about all they can talk about. Yes, to one degree or another, we are all political types, but some people take politics to the point of obsession, the same way that some people take such things as religion or atheism.

Dude, I think that people are entitled to arrive at whatever set of beliefs, opinions and viewpoints that they do, but I'm more interested in such things as whether or not the person is a good husband/wife, parent, respectful of their own parents, friend, member of their community, etc. I'm more interested in seeing if the person is honest, loyal, kind, forgiving, compassionate, etc. than I am in hearing some overbearing wannabe intellectual or believer carry on, often stimulated by cheap wine or too much coffee, about how they know how to fix all the problems of the world because they understand some political system better than I do.

That's what I mean by "political types." I used to run into those people all the time. In fact, I used to be one. Fortunately, I'm not one anymore, and I rarely run into those folks.

[sandinista]

sandinista, When I refer to "political types," I'm talking about those people who believe that a certain set of political concepts (their set) are by far the best set of ideas available, and that's about all they can talk about. Yes, to one degree or another, we are all political types, but some people take politics to the point of obsession, the same way that some people take such things as religion or atheism.

Dude, I think that people are entitled to arrive at whatever set of beliefs, opinions and viewpoints that they do, but I'm more interested in such things as whether or not the person is a good husband/wife, parent, respectful of their own parents, friend, member of their community, etc. I'm more interested in seeing if the person is honest, loyal, kind, forgiving, compassionate, etc. than I am in hearing some overbearing wannabe intellectual or believer carry on, often stimulated by cheap wine or too much coffee, about how they know how to fix all the problems of the world because they understand some political system better than I do.

That's what I mean by "political types." I used to run into those people all the time. In fact, I used to be one. Fortunately, I'm not one anymore, and I rarely run into those folks.

I think most people think that "their set of political beliefs are the best", from left to right to center and anything in between. Some people talk (are obsessed with) sports, some TV, some video games, movies, some politics. Personally I would rather have someone go on and on about politics than lindsy lohan or what have you. Even if they do not have the same opinion as myself. Society suffers to much from apathy (for good reason mind you). That apathy is very much a political act as well. As for "parents, social traits etc", I would say most people are interested in those things as well. There is time for politics and family. This just happens to be a politics forum. University's are also a place of political debate, at least they should be. My question would be, if politics don't interest you and you don't like "political types" why are you writing in the "politics" forum?

[LaMont Cranston]

sandinista, I'm interested in many things, but that doesn't mean I'm obsessive about them. Among the things that interest me are history, religion, spirituality, philosophy, science, the nature of consciousness, utopian communities, unconditional love and so on. There are ideas being expressed in this thread that interest me, and that's why I'm being a participant..

Yes, colleges can be hotbeds of political rhetoric. I went to Berkeley in the 1960's, and it was the hottest of the college hotbeds. In my experience, college students tend to get a bit carried away with their take on how they are going to solve the problems of the world, and it turns out to be pretty much out of touch with the realities of the world.

I didn't say that politics doesn't interest me. It does, as much as it does. I vote, I pay taxes and I'm involved in activities in my community. I'm also interested in sports, music, gardening, culture trends and a lot of other things. I'm a theist, but that doesn't mean that I want to spend my days around true-believer, Jesus freak types who are convinced that everything was created out of whole cloth 6000 years ago. I feel the same way about overbearing, phony intellectual political types who think that some system that failed, like communism, is going to solve the problems of the world.

So far, you have offered nothing in the way of presenting ideas or in describing a system that would actually work better than what passes for democracy backed up by an economic system that's a mix of capitalism and socialism. If you can present or describe such a system, let's see what you've got.

[RuleBritannia]

[sandinista]

sandinista, I'm interested in many things, but that doesn't mean I'm obsessive about them. Among the things that interest me are history, religion, spirituality, philosophy, science, the nature of consciousness, utopian communities, unconditional love and so on. There are ideas being expressed in this thread that interest me, and that's why I'm being a participant..

Yes, colleges can be hotbeds of political rhetoric. I went to Berkeley in the 1960's, and it was the hottest of the college hotbeds. In my experience, college students tend to get a bit carried away with their take on how they are going to solve the problems of the world, and it turns out to be pretty much out of touch with the realities of the world.

I didn't say that politics doesn't interest me. It does, as much as it does. I vote, I pay taxes and I'm involved in activities in my community. I'm also interested in sports, music, gardening, culture trends and a lot of other things. I'm a theist, but that doesn't mean that I want to spend my days around true-believer, Jesus freak types who are convinced that everything was created out of whole cloth 6000 years ago. I feel the same way about overbearing, phony intellectual political types who think that some system that failed, like communism, is going to solve the problems of the world.

So far, you have offered nothing in the way of presenting ideas or in describing a system that would actually work better than what passes for democracy backed up by an economic system that's a mix of capitalism and socialism. If you can present or describe such a system, let's see what you've got.

I think that if you asked most people in the third world or the poor from all around the world they would argue the idea that liberal democracies" "work". they "work" for the wealthy, both individually and wealthy countries in general. That wealth is at the expense of the poor. That, to me, doesn't equate with "work". College students tend to get, what you called "carried away", i would call, "excited" about new political ideas because in a lot of cases it's the first time they've learned about them. I don't think that makes them "phoney" or even "overbearing". I wish more people were passionate about politics instead of accepting the status quo.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think that if you asked most people in the third world or the poor from all around the world they would argue the idea that liberal democracies" "work". they "work" for the wealthy, both individually and wealthy countries in general. That wealth is at the expense of the poor.

Here is an area of fundamental disagreement. It's not a zero-sum game. It is possible to make a poor country more well off without taking anything away from anyone else. It is possible to raise the standard of most everyone in society, despite the fact that there will be some wealthier than other. Some people will never be reached, however. Canada is a great example. Windsor and Toronto had a lot of vagrants (the times I have visited there), despite their supposed egalitarian welfare state. Some people won't be reached no matter what you try to do.

[sandinista]

Seems like you're questioning the existence of exploitation.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seems like you're questioning the existence of exploitation.

How could it seem like that? Of course there's "exploitation." That doesn't mean that everyything is a zero-sum game and that the only way the rich get richer is for the poor to get poorer (which is what you've argued).

[sandinista]

Seems like you're questioning the existence of exploitation.

How could it seem like that? Of course there's "exploitation." That doesn't mean that everyything is a zero-sum game and that the only way the rich get richer is for the poor to get poorer (which is what you've argued).

Capitalism requires exploitation. One of my problems with the system. The "zero-sum" game is a classic "libertarian" argument, you say you're not one? Of course everyone on the planet cannot live like north america. Not enough resources. Over consumption. Vast inequality. But hold on...let me guess...sometime in the future people will invent new "things" so that everyone on earth can live like americans. Another Utopian capitalist paradise.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seems like you're questioning the existence of exploitation.

How could it seem like that? Of course there's "exploitation." That doesn't mean that everyything is a zero-sum game and that the only way the rich get richer is for the poor to get poorer (which is what you've argued).

Capitalism requires exploitation.

It depends what your definition of "exploitation" is. It doesn't require that anything be unfair.

Exploitation can mean something as simple as "exploitation of resources" - i.e. we mine coal and sell it. Yes, it does require that.

One of my problems with the system.

You'll have to describe what "exploitation" is, in your mind.

[

The "zero-sum" game is a classic "libertarian" argument, you say you're not one?

Yeah. I'm not one. "Zero sum" is not a libertarian term. We are all allowed to use the English language, and it was appropriate to the point you made, that the poor have to get poorer for the rich to get richer. Reality - empirical evidence - shows they don't.

[

Of course everyone on the planet cannot live like north america. Not enough resources. Over consumption. Vast inequality. But hold on...let me guess...sometime in the future people will invent new "things" so that everyone on earth can live like americans. Another Utopian capitalist paradise.

I don't know if everyone on the planet can live like North America. They certainly can live they way they want to live. It's not our concern to make sure that others live the way we live. Nobody is stopping India, for example, from raising the standard of living of their people. In fact, they're doing it. And, it's being done through commerce.

[Pappa]

Regarding the OP, I just took a look at the wikipedia article on Communism, and it does a pretty good job of explaining the point about there never having been a 'true' Communist country/society. Has anyone thought to read it?