How would a Communist society look like?

[Concordeia]

What specifically are you referring to then?

I mean corruption.

What? What does that even mean?

Well, two examples are both Russia and Somalia in their communist period. Because both sides controlled a big chunk o he money of the people, they had the authority to spend it in whaever manner thy wanted. Both sides spent that money on the military.

Corruption can be controlled and minimized by a combination of transparency (making government records available to the public) and internal auditing and investigations.

Also, most modern European states don't just spend their money on whatever. They have defined goals and objectives (provision of social services).

[Sungai Pusat]

I mean corruption.



Well, two examples are both Russia and Somalia in their communist period. Because both sides controlled a big chunk o he money of the people, they had the authority to spend it in whaever manner thy wanted. Both sides spent that money on the military.

Corruption can be controlled and minimized by a combination of transparency (making government records available to the public) and internal auditing and investigations.

I don't think that any government winning an election would spend money on giving records. All part of 'cut-down on administrative costs'?

Just kidding, it my be, but once you're in office, you have the tendency of using your power against the people's will. After all, not everyone agrees wi or policies, but the majority do.

Also, most modern European states don't just spend their money on whatever. They have defined goals and objectives (provision of social services).

Sure, example of bad spending I can give is the Greek bailout. The EU agreed to bail Greece out, even when it was heavily in debt, sending a message that it's ok to spend irationally.

[Concordeia]

Corruption can be controlled and minimized by a combination of transparency (making government records available to the public) and internal auditing and investigations.

I don't think that any government winning an election would spend money on giving records. All part of 'cut-down on administrative costs'?

Just kidding, it my be, but once you're in office, you have the tendency of using your power against the people's will. After all, not everyone agrees wi or policies, but the majority do.

Also, most modern European states don't just spend their money on whatever. They have defined goals and objectives (provision of social services).

Sure, example of bad spending I can give is the Greek bailout. The EU agreed to bail Greece out, even when it was heavily in debt, sending a message that it's ok to spend irationally.

I have to go to bed now, but I will finish by saying that Greece's current economic troubles are a good example of how NOT to act. Goodnight all.

[Eireann Fae]

You imply that public-sector businesses cannot be productive or efficient.

I'm not implying. I'm saying that is the case. First of all, it's not the government's job to run businesses. 2nd of all, there is no competition, no profit motive. By definition that makes them not productive and efficient.

USPS can get a letter from Florida to Washington for what now, 49¢? There's no competition in that industry because FedEx/UPS just can't undercut the work the USPS does at that price. And before you talk about the USPS running a negative, they're designed to never profit. Sometimes they profit a bit (and the excess funds go to other government programs), and sometimes they take a loss. They're designed to get as close to $0 at the end of the year as possible.

Also, I like free education being publicly available. It's not the best system, by far, but I think it's an essential one.

Also also, if the government ran Internet infrastructure and leased the lines to competing ISPs instead of encouraging monopolies in that sector, prices could be ridiculously low.

There's no reason the government can't run businesses. "Not its job" is not an excuse. NASA does great things when they have the money for it, and private industries have only recently began skimming the surface (literally) in spaceflight, and that only when NASA started being geared down. I really hope Virgin et al keep up the fine work they're doing, but NASA was a hell of an organization before they got gutted. NOAA and the USGS do fine work as well.

[Eireann Fae]

I don't think that any government winning an election would spend money on giving records. All part of 'cut-down on administrative costs'?

Just kidding, it my be, but once you're in office, you have the tendency of using your power against the people's will. After all, not everyone agrees wi or policies, but the majority do.

You jest, but I don't think there should be such a thing as "Government Classified", and I'm seriously dismayed at the Government's repeatedly wiping their ass with the FOIA ;x

[Maurepas]

You ever see those guys from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the ones that "Never voted for the King", something like that I think,

[Great Nepal]

Communism as it is said in theory is impossible. Closest one you can get is USSR.

[Occupied Deutschland]

USPS can get a letter from Florida to Washington for what now, 49¢? There's no competition in that industry because FedEx/UPS just can't undercut the work the USPS does at that price. And before you talk about the USPS running a negative, they're designed to never profit. Sometimes they profit a bit (and the excess funds go to other government programs), and sometimes they take a loss. They're designed to get as close to $0 at the end of the year as possible.

FedEx and UPS can't undercut the USPS because...the USPS can afford to operate at a tremendous deficit AND have a monopoly over first-class mail. They have a guaranteed customer base of about 3,000,000 people (the population of the US). Plus, I wouldn't call a 8.5 billion dollar shortfall operating close to zero.
Additionally, the postal service just now came out with flat-rate boxes. UPS and FedEx have been doing flat-rate boxes practically since their inception.

(If you don't read any of the others, read the 1st one from the Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05939.html
http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2 ... sps-ahead/ (it's older)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010 ... ws-b-loss/
http://www.usps.com/communications/news ... 10_107.htm

[Novistranaya]

Well, if your society was composed of five people, communism would be quite viable

Not quite, it would still be just as beneficial to be a capitalist/barter economy, it is just far less necessary. As you have incentive to help your entire community for your own survival and the overall low level of resources you could harvest would likely be low enough that equal distribution is the only method of mutual survival.

A communist society would look not unlike a typical Amish/Mennonite community, the communist methodology is not suitable for any thing above cottage industry and would tend towards tribalism, which means small populations would be a necessity. Lack of private property and incentive could have devastating effects on the supply of food but they would not necessarily starve with modern farming techniques.

Personally wouldn't mind living in a community described above in bold (with Arminian tendencies as opposed to Calvinist of course)

[Quailtopia]

I would like to get some replies from people who call themselves Communist.

Actually, there are a number of books that display a pretty good version of a reform/socialist society. The Culture novels by Iain M. Banks, while Trotskyist in creation, are a pretty good example of a Communist society.

EDIT: It's also a pretty good argument against primitivism, and arguments that state that primitivism is the only practical form of Communism(which is pretty weird, because it isn't Communist and isn't practical)

[Eireann Fae]

USPS can get a letter from Florida to Washington for what now, 49¢? There's no competition in that industry because FedEx/UPS just can't undercut the work the USPS does at that price. And before you talk about the USPS running a negative, they're designed to never profit. Sometimes they profit a bit (and the excess funds go to other government programs), and sometimes they take a loss. They're designed to get as close to $0 at the end of the year as possible.

FedEx and UPS can't undercut the USPS because...the USPS can afford to operate at a tremendous deficit AND have a monopoly over first-class mail. They have a guaranteed customer base of about 3,000,000 people (the population of the US). Plus, I wouldn't call a 8.5 billion dollar shortfall operating close to zero.
Additionally, the postal service just now came out with flat-rate boxes. UPS and FedEx have been doing flat-rate boxes practically since their inception.

(If you don't read any of the others, read the 1st one from the Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05939.html
http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2 ... sps-ahead/ (it's older)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010 ... ws-b-loss/
http://www.usps.com/communications/news ... 10_107.htm

From the WaPo article:

A drop in first-class mail deliveries contributed to an overall 6 billion-piece decline in mail volume last fiscal year, to 170.6 billion pieces^[1], officials said. Financial losses also came from about $5.4 billion in obligations to pre-fund retiree health benefits and about $2.5 billion paid to the federal government's workers' compensation insurance fund^[2].

¹ Like I was saying, they try to budget for $0 profit. They over-budgeted, obviously not expecting a sharp decline in first-class deliveries, and didn't make as much money that year as they thought they would.
² They really should have planned for these, though... Worker's Comp is flexible, but they shoulda known that $5.4B would be needed. Nobody's perfect :)

All that said, that is troubling. Hope they don't lay off my mom :x

[Risottia]

The prefect Communist society only exists in theory. Practically, it's impossible.

Exactly as the perfect democracy, the perfect republic, the perfect capitalism, the perfect anarchy etc...

Anyway, since the key point of communism is removing the Mehrwert relationships - it wouldn't look much too different from most societies nowadays. Just without the ueberluxury our societies reserve for the richest 1% of the population.

Btw,
In Soviet Russia, society looks at YOU!

[Arilando]

The prefect Communist society only exists in theory. Practically, it's impossible.

Exactly as the perfect democracy, the perfect republic, the perfect capitalism, the perfect anarchy etc...

Anyway, since the key point of communism is removing the Mehrwert relationships - it wouldn't look much too different from most societies nowadays. Just without the ueberluxury our societies reserve for the richest 1% of the population.

Btw,
In Soviet Russia, society looks at YOU!

What?

[Quailtopia]

Anyway, since the key point of communism is removing the Mehrwert relationships - it wouldn't look much too different from most societies nowadays. Just without the ueberluxury our societies reserve for the richest 1% of the population.

What?

Edit: Marxism isn't just the labor theory of value...

[The Merchant Republics]

Not quite, it would still be just as beneficial to be a capitalist/barter economy, it is just far less necessary. As you have incentive to help your entire community for your own survival and the overall low level of resources you could harvest would likely be low enough that equal distribution is the only method of mutual survival.

A communist society would look not unlike a typical Amish/Mennonite community, the communist methodology is not suitable for any thing above cottage industry and would tend towards tribalism, which means small populations would be a necessity. Lack of private property and incentive could have devastating effects on the supply of food but they would not necessarily starve with modern farming techniques.

Personally wouldn't mind living in a community described above in bold (with Arminian tendencies as opposed to Calvinist of course)

And I would respect that choice, but I do not want to live like that. However, I should be perfectly clear in saying that there are very real differences between an Amish/Mennonite community and an optimal yet realistic communist society which would look similar but have some very real differences, Mennonite Compounds do have (often informal) property rights, they own their own farms and farm houses, they do not shun trade, given historical precedent a communist society using the same model although superficial appear similar, would likely suffer from frequent food shortage and poor labour motivation.

To Eireann Fae: There was a mail delivering company which managed to locally outcompete the US Mail Service for a very long time, it did so in violation of US law and was promptly put out of business by force, Legally you cannot compete with the USPS, it has nothing to do with their ability. Fedex/UPS are constantly skirting the government's laws holding the monopoly for USPS, one of the ways they do so is by charging more for better service, more then likely they could but the USPS out of business, but that would mean going to the courts.

[Sibirsky]

I'm not implying. I'm saying that is the case. First of all, it's not the government's job to run businesses. 2nd of all, there is no competition, no profit motive. By definition that makes them not productive and efficient.

I would argue that if the objective is to bring a critical service to as many people as possible, then the public sector is the way to go. It's either that or make companies start competing with each other for real instead of this oligopoly bullshit that's been going on. Hell, I would argue for both. Make private companies compete both against each other and government.

Corporations do not have the power of taxation. Meaning, that competition would be illegitimate.

[Sibirsky]

USPS can get a letter from Florida to Washington for what now, 49¢? There's no competition in that industry because FedEx/UPS just can't undercut the work the USPS does at that price. And before you talk about the USPS running a negative, they're designed to never profit. Sometimes they profit a bit (and the excess funds go to other government programs), and sometimes they take a loss. They're designed to get as close to $0 at the end of the year as possible.

It's nearly redundant now.

Also, I like free education being publicly available. It's not the best system, by far, but I think it's an essential one.

Public schools are more expensive than private schools. If it isn't the best, why do you want it? I want the best of everything.

Also also, if the government ran Internet infrastructure and leased the lines to competing ISPs instead of encouraging monopolies in that sector, prices could be ridiculously low.

And they would be likely to censor websites.

There's no reason the government can't run businesses. "Not its job" is not an excuse. NASA does great things when they have the money for it, and private industries have only recently began skimming the surface (literally) in spaceflight, and that only when NASA started being geared down. I really hope Virgin et al keep up the fine work they're doing, but NASA was a hell of an organization before they got gutted. NOAA and the USGS do fine work as well.

Not it's job is an excellent excuse. The more power the government has, the less free we are. Virgin Galactic and crew will continue their operations because eventually it will be profitable.

[Sibirsky]

USPS can get a letter from Florida to Washington for what now, 49¢? There's no competition in that industry because FedEx/UPS just can't undercut the work the USPS does at that price. And before you talk about the USPS running a negative, they're designed to never profit. Sometimes they profit a bit (and the excess funds go to other government programs), and sometimes they take a loss. They're designed to get as close to $0 at the end of the year as possible.

FedEx and UPS can't undercut the USPS because...the USPS can afford to operate at a tremendous deficit AND have a monopoly over first-class mail. They have a guaranteed customer base of about 3,000,000 people (the population of the US). Plus, I wouldn't call a 8.5 billion dollar shortfall operating close to zero.
Additionally, the postal service just now came out with flat-rate boxes. UPS and FedEx have been doing flat-rate boxes practically since their inception.

(If you don't read any of the others, read the 1st one from the Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05939.html
http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2 ... sps-ahead/ (it's older)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010 ... ws-b-loss/
http://www.usps.com/communications/news ... 10_107.htm

Thank you for allowing me to be lazy. I love you.

[The Merchant Republics]

I would argue that if the objective is to bring a critical service to as many people as possible, then the public sector is the way to go. It's either that or make companies start competing with each other for real instead of this oligopoly bullshit that's been going on. Hell, I would argue for both. Make private companies compete both against each other and government.

Corporations do not have the power of taxation. Meaning, that competition would be illegitimate.

The problem of course with that is that when public competes with private you will find near without fail out competes and betters the government service, which of course leads to cries that the competition is "unfair" and granting privilege only to the rich, as it did when government went up against private healthcare (this would be in Canada) and most famously the mail service.
Resulting in the government either banning competition and becoming a de jure monopoly or dumping tax money into the business in order to artificially compete until such a point that it runs most of the competition from the market. For the government unlike a corporation, can run at a loss into near infinity.

[Sibirsky]

Corporations do not have the power of taxation. Meaning, that competition would be illegitimate.

The problem of course with that is that when public competes with private you will find near without fail out competes and betters the government service, which of course leads to cries that the competition is "unfair" and granting privilege only to the rich, as it did when government went up against private healthcare (this would be in Canada) and most famously the mail service.
Resulting in the government either banning competition and becoming a de jure monopoly or dumping tax money into the business in order to artificially compete until such a point that it runs most of the competition from the market. For the government unlike a corporation, can run at a loss into near infinity.

Precisely. This is more or less what I was trying to say, not in so many words. Thank you for allowing to be lazy. An outright ban would probably cause a public outrage, but subsidies may not even be reported.

I love the Adrien Empire for allowing me to be lazy too.

[Concordeia]

Corporations do not have the power of taxation. Meaning, that competition would be illegitimate.

The problem of course with that is that when public competes with private you will find near without fail out competes and betters the government service, which of course leads to cries that the competition is "unfair" and granting privilege only to the rich, as it did when government went up against private healthcare (this would be in Canada) and most famously the mail service.
Resulting in the government either banning competition and becoming a de jure monopoly or dumping tax money into the business in order to artificially compete until such a point that it runs most of the competition from the market. For the government unlike a corporation, can run at a loss into near infinity.

So you're saying that a critical industry should either be completely public sector or completely private sector (with few barriers to entry/exit), but not a mix of both?

[Sibirsky]

The problem of course with that is that when public competes with private you will find near without fail out competes and betters the government service, which of course leads to cries that the competition is "unfair" and granting privilege only to the rich, as it did when government went up against private healthcare (this would be in Canada) and most famously the mail service.
Resulting in the government either banning competition and becoming a de jure monopoly or dumping tax money into the business in order to artificially compete until such a point that it runs most of the competition from the market. For the government unlike a corporation, can run at a loss into near infinity.

So you're saying that a critical industry should either be completely public sector or completely private sector (with few barriers to entry/exit), but not a mix of both?

It should be private. Government does not belong in any industry. Government belongs in enforcing contracts, providing protection from invasion, protection from fraud, and protecting rights.

[Quailtopia]

The problem of course with that is that when public competes with private you will find near without fail out competes and betters the government service, which of course leads to cries that the competition is "unfair" and granting privilege only to the rich, as it did when government went up against private healthcare (this would be in Canada) and most famously the mail service.

I'm not entirely sure what this says, but I'd like to point out that the communal farms implemented by Stalin to replace the capitalist ones outperformed their counterparts.

[Norstal]

So you're saying that a critical industry should either be completely public sector or completely private sector (with few barriers to entry/exit), but not a mix of both?

It should be private. Government does not belong in any industry. Government belongs in enforcing contracts, providing protection from invasion, protection from fraud, and protecting rights.

The day the private sector produces driver licenses in the U.S is the day I will orgasm endlessly.

However, there are just some industries that the private sector can't have. Remember TVA? Private hands raised the electricity bill waaay too high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_ ... rity#1930s

So, I'm not too sure of having all critical industries in private hands.

[Eireann Fae]

Public schools are more expensive than private schools. If it isn't the best, why do you want it? I want the best of everything.

Source? :o Anyway, I think poor kids have a right to a basic education as much as everyone else. Not every family can afford private tuition.

And they would be likely to censor websites.

Touché -.- I'd still like the system in place, but indeed, there's no guarantee censorship wouldn't happen...

Virgin Galactic and crew will continue their operations because eventually it will be profitable.

How much profit is there in technology like Hubble? How is looking at distant galaxies, nebuli, and stars going to bring corporations any profit? All Virgin are doing is space tourism - I don't see them doing anything other than space flights for rich folks in the years to come. Eventually we may get a mining operation on Luna, Mars, and maybe even the asteroid belt beyond the Red Planet. But I happen to like seeing outer space, and knowing more about the entire Solar system, galaxy, local group, and beyond. Virgin's not likely to teach me much.

Also, no comment on NOAA/USGS/similar organisations?