What would a true communist society/country look like?

[Toontown]

Oh come on...you really are a one trick pony aren't you. The black book of communism? Really, thats the best you have to offer Mr.100 million, fuck, might as well say the commies killed 20 billion people, would be about as accurate. I also never even mentioned Iraq so don't know where you're getting that from.

Argument that the book is one-sided

Some pointed out that the book's account of violence is one-sided. Amir Weiner of Stanford University characterizes the "Black Book" as seriously flawed, inconsistent, and prone to mere provocation. In particular, the authors are said to savage Marxist ideology.[14] The methodology of the authors has been criticized. Alexander Dallin writes that moral, legal, or political judgement hardly depends on the number of victims.[15] It is also argued that a similar chronicle of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an examination of colonialism and capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. In particular, the Black Book's attribution of 1 million deaths in Vietnam to Communism while ignoring the U.S. role has been criticized as a methodological flaw.[16]

Critics have argued that capitalist countries could be held responsible for a similar number of deaths. Noam Chomsky, for example, writes that Amartya Sen in the early 1980s estimated "the excess of mortality" in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of healthcare resources" at close to 4 million a year. Chomsky therefore argues that, "suppos[ing] we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers" to India alone, the "democratic capitalist experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of Communism everywhere.[17]

Journalist Daniel Singer has also criticized the Black Book for discussing the faults of communist states while ignoring their positive achievements; he says that "if you look at Communism as merely the story of crimes, terror and repression, to borrow the subtitle of the Black Book, you are missing the point." According to him, "The Soviet Union did not rest on the gulag alone. There was also enthusiasm, construction, the spread of education and social advancement for millions." He also argues that if communism can be blamed for famines, capitalism should be blamed for most or all deaths from poverty in the world at the present time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_ ... _one-sided

check this out: Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_black_ ... capitalism

Yeah, right. Who didn't know you were going to attack the messenger, using some Amir Weiner nincompoop, the Chumpski-bot who took 10 years to grudgingly admit there might have been just a touch of genocide in Cambodia - but then went ahead and tried to justify it anyway. Oh, and some Daniel Singer twerp, who chirps that telling the truth about communist crimes is "missing the point". What point? The crimes of communism was the point. Not the pathetic whitewashing attempts by the Three Blind Mice.

See how they run, like pigs from a gun, see how they're snide...

[Eriku]

Eriku, I'd love to believe that my country, the good, old USA, always made the right moves. Yeah, I'd love to believe that, but I don't. I'm appalled by the amount of waste, corruption, intolerance, bigotry and a lot of other things that most of us see going on, and when I see shit like that oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I have to work at not to get thoroughly depressed. At this point in time, I have no idea why we need an military empire upon which the sun never sets, with troops and bases positioned all over the world.

I'd also love to believe that there was some wonderful system that was going to come along and end the exploitation and inequities that exist in the world, many of which are encouraged and/or supported by the US government. Still, with all of the problems, I can't find any system that works better than a government that is based on democratic principles, and I can't find any economic system that works better than a mix of capitalism and socialism. It took the United States a long time to get around to things like ending slavery, giving women and others the right to vote, social security, etc., and about the best I can hope for is that things will move in the right direction and be better in the future.

If I do get depressed about everything I don't like, what good is that going to do? Other than the fact that I will be living a depressed life, the problems will be exactly the same. If I give up that morning cup of coffee I enjoy so much, will that end the exploitation of workers in third world countries? Will it even make a dent? At the risk of being thought of as callous by some, I think I'm better off drinking my coffee, feeling better about myself and doing what I can, in my own small way, to be my version of a good human being. (One of the things I do is spend time at an all-volunteer charity that provides food, clothing and shelter to people).

If somebody actually knows of a better system than democractic principles and capitalist/socialist economics, warts and all, I'm willing to support that. I think it has been demonstrated by history that communism is not that system, and, despite all of the bullshit conspiracy theories, etc., it failed because it doesn't work very well. Once again, if somebody actually has some real ideas other than what I would call "bullshit coffeehouse political rhetoric," please let give us the opportunity to consider those ideas.

The US has been a good example in a lot of ways with regards to civil rights, but that's not due to the benevolence of the government. Most of the rights, like suffrage for women, general rights for people of colour and things like these have been won by popular movements which were despised by the powers that be, and a fair bit of the population at large as well, who buy into the notions presented by the government in their attempt to stamp them as instigators... There's even been liquidations of perceived threats in what would be considered modern times. This is hardly anywhere close to the free and lovely society that it proclaims to be. And the principles it extols are often only guarded when it benefits the corporate sector, so a blind eye is turned towards harassment of unions, both in the US and abroad. You have CLEAR case studies, such as the one put forward by Chomsky and Herman with regards to East-Timor versus Cambodia, where Khmer Rouge, aided by the US-bombing, went on a genocidal rampage, while at the same time little was being done about Indonesia's harsh invasion of the island nation of East Timor, except making a fat profit by selling them the weapons. There are even explicit accounts of the US representative at the UN doing what he could so that the atrocities could proceed:

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the US ambassador to the UN at the time, wrote in his autobiography that "the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook [with regard to the invasion of East Timor]. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with not inconsiderable success." [40] Later, Moynihan admitted that as US ambassador to the UN, he had defended a "shameless" Cold War policy toward East Timor.

Communism is in the same ball park, and US apologetics while decrying communism as if it is evil incarnate is a matter of great bias, to my mind... if it depresses you then I have every understanding if you'd rather not think about it... but if you want to apply certain standards to communist atrocities, they will have to be applied to your own state as well. Is that unfair, or blinkered?

If you draw other conclusions from examples like these, I wouldn't mind hearing them... but it's well documented.

And just so there's no confusion, I've every bit as much disdain for certain policies carried out by the EU, like the rape of the African agro-economy through subsidy of farmers who then produce in excess, whereafter the market dumps the prices and ships it off to Africa, where farmers can't compete and are starving to death. This is not a matter of a snooty "Euro", as Toontown would have it, decrying the US in order to feel better about himself.

Speaking of which, I see he's now started to smear Chomsky, as is customary... yeah yeah, he denied genocide, supported Faurisson's holocaust denial... these claims have been debunked ages ago, and Chomsky is a boatload more consistent in his application of ethical standards than the US governments have ever been.

And, to add insult to injury:

The US had been secretly funding Pol Pot in exile since January 1980 the final year of the Carter Administration. The extent of this support - $85m from 1980 to 1986 - was revealed in correspondence to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the independent and non-partisan investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. On the Thai border with Cambodia, the CIA and other intelligence agencies set up the Kampuchea Emergency Group (KEG), which ensured that humanitarian aid went to Khmer Rouge enclaves in the refugee camps and across the border.

According to Former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "20,000 to 40,000 Pol Pot guerillas benefitted" from this aid. Mr. Holbrooke is now a top adviser to President Obama handling the Afghan-Pak war theater.

According to two US relief workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, "[t]he United States government insisted the Khmer Rouge be fed ... the US preferred that the Khmer Rouge operation benefit from the credibility of an internationally known relief organization". (Linda Mason and Roger Brown, "Rice, Rivalry and Politics: Managing Cambodian Relief", 1983).

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2010/0 ... s-congress

Nevermind the fact that Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was very much aided by the US carpet bombing of Cambodia prior to their rise to power, and to some extent the death toll that is heaped on Pol Pot was a result of that bombing.

The hypocrisy is despicable.

[Robert_S]

It's not like there's some Platonic ideal of "The proper way to run a society" We're making this shit up as we go along, most of us in good faith, some of us as insane and asinine power addicted control freaks from hell.

At times like this I like to refer to...


It puts things into some perspective.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

and like most of our current needs aren't dreamt up by advertising companies.

Some are encouraged by advertising companies. But, humans have needs - food, clothing, shelter - and wants - sex, entertainment, pleasure, hobbies, ego boosters, and the list is practically endless. Some would exist without advertising companies, some are brought to our attention by advertising companies, and some are manufactured by advertising companies.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

It's not just about people changing to care about only about society in general. Even if that were the case, people would still have extreme disagreements over what is bad and good for society in general.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

Maybe in some far-fetched science fiction scenario. Not in the modern world. Not even when it's forced upon them by a stubborn government, as history demostrated pretty vividly.

caring about society in general does not equate with Not caring about yourself and your family.

And capitalism does not equate to everyone not caring about society in general. And communism does not equate to everyone caring about society in general. It all depends on what one thinks is best for society in general, which is not objectively determinable and is the subject of a great degree of differing opinion.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

Maybe in some far-fetched science fiction scenario. Not in the modern world. Not even when it's forced upon them by a stubborn government, as history demostrates pretty vividly.

Social evolution seems to be fairly well connected with our ability to exchange information and ideas. And that has been growing exponentially lately - so a few decades will probably do it.

Do what, exactly? All agree on what is best for society and pursue that same goal?

[Jay G]

Detroit?

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh man...again with the "human nature" like humans are not capable of evolution.

I didn't say that. But how far away are we from that sort of evolution, where people only care about society in general and not about themselves and their family?

Maybe in some far-fetched science fiction scenario. Not in the modern world. Not even when it's forced upon them by a stubborn government, as history demostrated pretty vividly.

caring about society in general does not equate with Not caring about yourself and your family.

And I didn't say that either.

Human society just isn't ready for "true" communism.

What is "true" communism? Can you describe it in any degree of detail - how it works? What laws exist? How are they made and enforced? How property is divided? Who determines need and ability to give and how is it determined? That kind of thing?

[Ian]

True communism that turns out to be beneficial to its citizens sounds like one helluva tricky recipe. Sandinista keeps knocking historical examples as not getting it right, so I guess it must be a really hard cake to bake. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, East Germany, the Khmer Rouge, etc. - some of them added too much salt here, too much sugar there, too much temperature there... and lo and behold the cakes fell flat. Maybe someday somebody's going to get the recipe just... right... and the cake will finally be delicious.

[Coito ergo sum]

The fact that communism was rubbish shouldn't disguise the fact that capitalism smells of piss.

The fact that the world population has far outstripped any system's ability to cope with their bloated numbers probably accounts for the smell of piss.

Why do the most unpleasant, impoverished places on earth always have the biggest populations?

Educate women more and you'll find population growth declines... there's plenty of research on this.

And the capitalist system has hardly been trying its best to spread the riches, has it now?

A capitalist system doesn't try to do anything. A capitalist system is just an economic system with private ownership of property, primarily private ownership of the means of production of goods and services, and a high degree of freedom to exchange things for other things or money on privately set terms. Supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than by the state through central economic planning. Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including determining how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property

Capitalism is, at bottom, just private individuals peaceably doing what they like with their own things. There isn't an overarching entity "trying" to do something.

The US, being the model capitalist society, has the largest concentration of wealth in the western world, and has systematically been marginalising workers ever since its rise to prominence.

This is not born out by the facts, as the workers in this model capitalist society have been living, generally speaking, far above the world average standard of living since the birth of the US. Even before the American Revolution, Americans were the among the most well off individuals in the world, generally speaking.

People generally don't even question why they're only given two alternatives in an election (unless they want to throw away their vote on a renegade), and why they seem so similar.

They haven't seemed similar at all for a long time. Obama similar to McCain? Not even close.

They differ on certain contentious issues, played up by the media, so you'll have the population worried about their stances on gay rights, abortion, guns, etc. rather than how they systematically are aiding the priveleged classes. Home of the free, indeed.

Well, yes, the US has traditionally been the home of a free people. Ask most any immigrant. They love the freedom they've come to.

I notice in Hitchens' new book Hitch-22 he has some very complimentary passages about the US, somewhere around pages 240 to 250 I think (in that neighborhood). He refers to the greater protections of basic freedoms in the US as compared to even his beloved UK. My parents, and about a dozen immigrants I know personally from 4 different countries, all find the freedom, opportunity and generosity in the US to be something they value highly.

[Coito ergo sum]

True communism that turns out to be beneficial to its citizens sounds like one helluva tricky recipe. Sandinista keeps knocking historical examples as not getting it right,

And, despite the question being posed in the OP and many times throughout this thread, he has not explained what getting it right would look like in reality.

so I guess it must be a really hard cake to bake. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, East Germany, the Khmer Rouge, etc. - some of them added too much salt here, too much sugar there, too much temperature there... and lo and behold the cakes fell flat. Maybe someday somebody's going to get the recipe just... right... and the cake will finally be delicious.

What would that cake look like, though? What are the ingredients? Without knowing that, how can one bake the cake other than by a random or arbitrary mixture?

[Ian]

True communism that turns out to be beneficial to its citizens sounds like one helluva tricky recipe. Sandinista keeps knocking historical examples as not getting it right,

And, despite the question being posed in the OP and many times throughout this thread, he has not explained what getting it right would look like in reality.

so I guess it must be a really hard cake to bake. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, East Germany, the Khmer Rouge, etc. - some of them added too much salt here, too much sugar there, too much temperature there... and lo and behold the cakes fell flat. Maybe someday somebody's going to get the recipe just... right... and the cake will finally be delicious.

What would that cake look like, though? What are the ingredients? Without knowing that, how can one bake the cake other than by a random or arbitrary mixture?

The point is that there is no perfect recipe. The whole concept is a pipe dream. Why? Well, I'm gonna have to make Sandinista roll his eyes again and bring up human nature. Communism might work on paper. It doesn't work on actual human beings.

[Jay G]

I think the perfect communist society WAS achieved in the East End of London during the benign rule of the Kray twins.

[Coito ergo sum]

True communism that turns out to be beneficial to its citizens sounds like one helluva tricky recipe. Sandinista keeps knocking historical examples as not getting it right,

And, despite the question being posed in the OP and many times throughout this thread, he has not explained what getting it right would look like in reality.

so I guess it must be a really hard cake to bake. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, East Germany, the Khmer Rouge, etc. - some of them added too much salt here, too much sugar there, too much temperature there... and lo and behold the cakes fell flat. Maybe someday somebody's going to get the recipe just... right... and the cake will finally be delicious.

What would that cake look like, though? What are the ingredients? Without knowing that, how can one bake the cake other than by a random or arbitrary mixture?

The point is that there is no perfect recipe. The whole concept is a pipe dream.

"Pipe dream" implies that if the dream would come true it would be a good thing. None of the proponents have even begun to provide a description of what things would be like if this dream came true, and what they have described sounds more like a pipe nightmare.

Why? Well, I'm gonna have to make Sandinista roll his eyes again and bring up human nature. Communism might work on paper. It doesn't work on actual human beings.

How does it even work on paper?