What would a Communist world look like?

[Soomie]

I didn't know whether it would be best to post my question here or in the "Theory" forum, so sorry if this isn't exactly the right place. Well, for starters I decided to become a communist at the beginning of this year after I befriended one and he described to me how it works and what it means. Previously, I knew nothing about it, and was pretty much mislead about what communism really is and what it stands for. I'm in the process of reading the famous Manifesto, and will move to Capital afterwards. I have a basic idea of how communism works, but I'm stuck when it comes to Communism working on a large scale. First, we know that two economic systems can't exist under one sky. Therefore, Capitalism would need to be abolished for Communism to work efficiently throughout the world. But how would the world be under Communism? Would there still be trade? How would things be produced? What about luxury goods? Would things like Apple and Samsung products still exist, or would we only have one brand of everything to choose from? Who would keep order throughout the people? Would there still be jails, prisons, etc? Surely crime would be lessened, but there would still be the ocassional serial killer, and what are we to do with them? What about people who don't want to work with the system? Do we just refuse them their resources and let nature take its course?

Just some things I've been wondering. How do you think the world would work under Communism?

[Soomie]

Did I ask a bad question, or something?

[Marxaveli]

The reason no one has answered is because describing the exact workings of within communist society is sort of idealist. In such a society, it would be entirely up to them on how it would be organized, what its laws would constitute, and what would be produced, since there is no longer a capitalist class that makes those decisions - the working class has complete self determination. There are many different opinions here on such things, but they are just that, opinions.

What we do know is that it would be a classless, stateless, international society with no borders. These are the defining elements of communism. Anything beyond this is really subjective, as it is dependent on the material circumstances of the given time. Unless you have a crystal ball of some sort, it is anyone's guess.

[jookyle]

The problem is that you can not say what it should look like. There is no way to tell what exactly is going to happen between then and now. Historical materialism, dialetical materialism, etc. show us that when the time comes to begin construction of a socialist society we can only plan then and there as the material conditions are going to be unique to that time. You only have to look at the failures of people like Fourier, who described to a T what a socialist society should like. Because of it, the societies they tried to form collapased on themselves. Marx for example talked very little about what a communist society would look like. He have goals, but how to reach those goals and what they're going to look like when they're achieved can not be described in objective terms. How they're reached and the final result of them will only be decided by the situation and conditions under which they are reached.

[Sea]

I'm more concerned about what it would smell like, to be honest.

[Soomie]

My boyfriend and I have attempted to have discussions about it. He is going into business/economics when he graduates, and overall supports the capitalist system. He discredits communism and socialism and says that they can't work and that it's foolish to try to compare something based in theory to something factual (communism to capitalism). When I try to argue why I feel that communism would fare better for everyone, he argues back that it won't work. He says that there will be no more brands (Apple, Sony, Samsung, etc) and so there would only be one option for everything (one brand of t.v.). He also argues that there would be no more stores because people wouldn't be producing things if they weren't getting anything for it, which is the reason he believes people invent and make things now. I attempted to argue that people would still make and sell things because they enjoy it and want to share their product with other people... but I'm really at a loss on certain points such as this... I guess communism really is subjective and everyone has a different opinion on how it would work. I'm just trying to get a better grasp of it so that I can explain it to people who don't really know how it works, which is hard without having something tangible to compare it to... :confused:

[Marxaveli]

Indeed, there probably would be no more brands, because branding is a part of advertising, which in turn is part of capitalism. In communist society, things are produced for human need, not for profits (which requires advertising). Brands are a part of commodity fetishism, which is designed to get people to buy junk they don't need.

Communism would work awesome, it is capitalism that isn't working. It is labor, not capital, that produces all the goods and wealth in society. Without labor, a good idea is just that: a good idea but meaningless because there is no one to build and manufacture it, so it can become a reality. We dont care about brands. We care about humanity and its needs.

I doubt your boyfriend even knows what communism is, or how the social relationships between classes develop and function (means of production).

[the Left™]

My boyfriend and I have attempted to have discussions about it. He is going into business/economics when he graduates, and overall supports the capitalist system. He discredits communism and socialism and says that they can't work and that it's foolish to try to compare something based in theory to something factual (communism to capitalism). When I try to argue why I feel that communism would fare better for everyone, he argues back that it won't work. He says that there will be no more brands (Apple, Sony, Samsung, etc) and so there would only be one option for everything (one brand of t.v.). He also argues that there would be no more stores because people wouldn't be producing things if they weren't getting anything for it, which is the reason he believes people invent and make things now. I attempted to argue that people would still make and sell things because they enjoy it and want to share their product with other people... but I'm really at a loss on certain points such as this... I guess communism really is subjective and everyone has a different opinion on how it would work. I'm just trying to get a better grasp of it so that I can explain it to people who don't really know how it works, which is hard without having something tangible to compare it to... :confused:


You have to exercise his mind a bit and try to make it so he's not trying to compare his idealized version of capitalism where externalities like environmental degradation, alienation, proletarianization etc are not seen as negative aspects of "capitalism" per se but of non-economic factors like work ethic(economic mobility, meritocractic ideals), psycho-social well-being(alienation) to a single-party state vis-a-vis 60 years of Western propaganda telling you what Stalinism( and by extension any experiment outside of capitalist paradigms--Communism for example) is.

People fall into this trap of arguing against capitalism on capitalism's own terms. Capitalism is efficient, it has radically advanced and modernized much of the world( even Marx appreciated the historical significance of capitalism) etc.

You have to consider the non-material benefits of public ownership and socialist society. You talk about socialist ownership effectively eliminating poverty, creating non-exploitative economic relationships, allowance of authentic individual creativity in the workplace and during leisure, environmental sustainability etc ... There is no "model" of this happening because well the big elephant in the room that makes many of us come across as starry-eyed in the minds of the hegemonic "l"iberal ideology is that "communism" as an ideal has never existed. Despite numerous historical claims by madmen and inhumane regimes that they have tried and succeeded at creating a communist state.

As of now there is only theoretical comparative advantage-- capitalism has existed and continues too, and there are glaring weaknesses that are found using marxist archives and critical analysis. On communism's own terms, it has never existed, its merits are theoretical and easier to come across as ideal with.

Sorry if that doesnt make any sense I have some serious ADD or something. i actually delete half my substantive posts here before posting because i feel like my thought process is extremely flighty and non-connected

[Marxaveli]

Another argument you could use against him is history: Modern humans have been around for at least 100,000 years (if not longer), and capitalism is only about the last 300 years or so. Looks like humans were getting along just fine without profits, commodities, advertising, exploitation and wage labor for a long time :) So by default, his argument is invalid. 'Primitive communism' was the form of our social organization for at least 90% of our existence. Class societies only developed about 10,000 years ago, just after the Agricultural Revolution. We of course, want modern communism, which is a much higher level of technology and human development than 'primitive communism' was. We are not opposed to advancements in technology or the general improvement of society - what we are against is the exploitation of labor and all the social inequalities that result from it and necessitate it; be it racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like. Only by getting rid of capitalism, will these things go away. They cannot be reformed out of capitalism.

[Comrade Samuel]

It's been well established that predicting what a communist world will be exactly is impossible, however it's worth pointing out that there are various different tendencies within the overall movement all of which have varying ideas on how to achieve our mutual goals and how to carry on afterword- the point I'm making is examining each tendency may give you a better idea of what a communist world may look like but there is no way to have a completely clear picture.

I think it goes without saying that the connotative meaning of "communism" is generally bad due to a number of reasons (most of which hotly debated to this day) but if I had to give a single piece of advice for proving your point to your boyfriend or any non-Marxist for that matter it would be to educate them on the core tennants of Marxism first rather than delving into any of the people or events usually associated with it, at least not at first.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

http://t.qkme.me/3r5jq5.jpg

[Drosophila]

He discredits communism and socialism and says that they can't work and that it's foolish to try to compare something based in theory to something factual (communism to capitalism).

Communism isn't based in theory and capitalism isn't factual. Anyone who says "well communism works in theory but not in reality" has no idea what they're talking about. Firstly, that butchers the very meaning of the word "theory," as a theory is not just some rubbish that we come up with out of nowhere. For instance, evolution is a theory but intelligent design is not. Why is that? Because intelligent design is not supported by research, experimentation, or observation, unlike evolution. The same is true for communism.

Additionally, communism is not some sort of structure that society adjusts itself to. It is the driving force of the proletariat to replace the capitalist mode of production with a new one that fulfills our class interests. I would highly suggest you take a look at the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, then see where you want to go from there. Here's a good place to start: The Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). Then check out some of the other authors on there. Many of them will help to answer your questions.

[Let's Get Free]

Rainbows and unicorns.

[Marxaveli]

Rainbows and unicorns.

This reminded me of the term "rainbow land" from the movie Campaign, :laugh:

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

This reminded me of the term "rainbow land" from the movie Campaign, :laugh:

"This Communist Manifesto!"

[Marxaveli]

I want to go to rainbow land, dammit.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I want to go to rainbow land, dammit.

With his pugs.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

What would a Communist world look like?

This:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg/270px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

Because Revleft is a place for serious and meaningful discussion...

[Jimmie Higgins]

My boyfriend and I have attempted to have discussions about it. He is going into business/economics when he graduates, and overall supports the capitalist system. He discredits communism and socialism and says that they can't work and that it's foolish to try to compare something based in theory to something factual (communism to capitalism).Well I think one answer to this question is just that communism isn't just some dictates or set of economic policies or mearly differnet ways of doing things. More fundamenally, it's a difference not in how society is run, but a difference in who runs society.

So the real question is should workers run society together on the basis of what people decide should be produced and what's worth working on? If not, why shouldn't those who make production happen in the most basic sense be disenfrancized from having a say in that process? And if worker's can't shouldn't organize and run society why should it remain to be organized by those who have the most money and therefore influence; why should economics be decided based on what's most profitable and not by what people want and need to use?


When I try to argue why I feel that communism would fare better for everyone, he argues back that it won't work. He says that there will be no more brands (Apple, Sony, Samsung, etc) and so there would only be one option for everything (one brand of t.v.). Well I have comcat cable because my other cable options are.... um, comcast. Really capitalism gets rid of most variety and consumer options to begin with. That anyone can make this claim in the US of 2012 with WalMarts and Starbucks and Apple and 4(?) major entertaiment companies is kinda missing the level of homogeny that exists BECAUSE of capitalism. This is inborn in capitalism - the tendency towards homogenous products and monopoply. Choice, artisan production, uniqueness are all "luxuries" and only sold to niche - and generally elite - groups in society.

In the USSR and places like that there were few choices in what kinds of things that were produced for differnet but fundamenatally similar reasons: the division of producer/customer and then those who actually manage and made decsions related to production.

I think freeing production from the profit motive and privite proprert would actually allow for more diversity of products and lifestyles and aestetic preferences. Given that basic necissities have been taken care of, I think if people controlled production, then if they wanted a variety of choices then there would be an incentive and desire to create these options.

But as it is, what is the "variety" we have under capitalism? How much choice do we have if we get X smart-phone and are locked into their products and their cell-phone contract? What if we want to play a Nintendo game but have a Playstation? What if we want choices in health coverage but we are stuck with what our insurance has already determined - or stuck uninsured with no choices? What good is the variety of dozens of analogues to Prozac or Viagra but not enough more common medication is made available because it would depress medical prices - or why that research and development wealth is spent on things we already have a decent drug for?


He also argues that there would be no more stores because people wouldn't be producing things if they weren't getting anything for it, which is the reason he believes people invent and make things now. I attempted to argue that people would still make and sell things because they enjoy it and want to share their product with other people... but I'm really at a loss on certain points such as this... I guess communism really is subjective and everyone has a different opinion on how it would work. I'm just trying to get a better grasp of it so that I can explain it to people who don't really know how it works, which is hard without having something tangible to compare it to... :confused:Yeah this one I'd use the historical-view to counter. People didn't have profits or stores for the vast majority of known human history - yet they worked and produced and so on. But you can also turn this on it's head: in capitalism there is no incentive to produce useful things if the profit margin isn't high enough - so there are no affordable homes being built even though they flooded the market past the breaking point in building large McMansions that few could afford. Here in Oakland - I'm sure more true for places like Detroit, there are now more empty homes than there are homeless people - but in the logic of capitalism it's better to let those homes rot from non-use than to allow people who need a place to stay to occupy them - even if not for free but at drastically deflated prices. The health industry has repeatedly blocked attempts by countries in Africa to produce cheaper generic versions of AIDS drugs - the companies won't make any money by not allowing these to be produced, but they want to protect privite property right more than allow thousands of people to get needed drugs that they won't get.

So capitalism "rations" things and restricts variety as much as any so-called communist country in the 20th century. It just looks different here.

[LordAcheron]

What we do know is that it would be a classless, stateless, international society with no borders. These are the defining elements of communism. Anything beyond this is really subjective, as it is dependent on the material circumstances of the given time. Unless you have a crystal ball of some sort, it is anyone's guess.

You left out some important non-subjective things, such as the collectivization of land and means of production, the fact that communism is a moneyless society, etc.

[Strannik]

But how would the world be under Communism? Would there still be trade?
How would things be produced?
What about luxury goods?
Would things like Apple and Samsung products still exist, or would we only have one brand of everything to choose from?
Who would keep order throughout the people? Would there still be jails, prisons, etc? Surely crime would be lessened, but there would still be the ocassional serial killer, and what are we to do with them?
What about people who don't want to work with the system? Do we just refuse them their resources and let nature take its course?
Just some things I've been wondering. How do you think the world would work under Communism?

Well, people who live in communism - "communards" - decide these things for themselves. All we can do is guess according to what we would do, but the problem is we are all influenced to some extent by bourgeois worldview. Our descendants are under no obligation to fulfill our dreams.

That being said, here are my guesses:

Would there still be trade? - Not in the social sense we are having now, where we all exchange right to commodities for abstract value -money and money for right to commodities. Commune would offer usership rights for things for as long as you want, but once you no longer want something the items go back to common pool of wealth. However, in interpersonal relationships there might still exist trade in the sense "you do this for me and I do that for you".

How would things be produced? Basically, I tell you that I have this really good idea for production of transparent cell phones, you decide you want it more than other things that could be made from same resources and you order from me that transparent cell phone. Society grants me means of production and resources I require and it's a go.

What about luxury goods? Same thing - it's just people have to desire these luxury goods more than other things that could be made from same resources.

Would things like Apple and Samsung products still exist, or would we only have one brand of everything to choose from? - We would have many more designs than now, because all I or anyone needs to get access to factory where both Apple and Samsung are making their stuff now is people's demand for the design.

Who would keep order throughout the people? Would there still be jails, prisons, etc? Surely crime would be lessened, but there would still be the ocassional serial killer, and what are we to do with them? - These are really hard questions, because they are about cultural preferences. "Communards" of the future will probably laugh at my answers. I think for the most part, since social crime rates go down, people can appoint temporary "bouncers" or "sheriffs" to keep order at parties or communities. Perhaps everyone will be more capable of stopping crime as well thank's to healthier lifestyles and more time for sports. Prisons probably won't exist, but an occassional jail to spend a night when drunk might still be in order. Serial killers are rare enough now, if you really manage to find one in the future, they will probably be studied by the entire global community of psychologists.

What about people who don't want to work with the system? Do we just refuse them their resources and let nature take its course? - People who don't just want to work with the system are welcome to work alone. Alone they can never get as much done as we with socially distributed labour, but hey, it's a personal preference. People who are actively fighting against the system, destroying common resources, committing acts of terrorism - well, whatever it takes, we will stop them. We are not liberals, committed until death to abstract ideals. Even if this ideal is nonviolence.

And this concludes my session of sunday afternoon pipedreaming.

[Philosophos]

My boyfriend and I have attempted to have discussions about it. He is going into business/economics when he graduates, and overall supports the capitalist system. He discredits communism and socialism and says that they can't work and that it's foolish to try to compare something based in theory to something factual (communism to capitalism). When I try to argue why I feel that communism would fare better for everyone, he argues back that it won't work. He says that there will be no more brands (Apple, Sony, Samsung, etc) and so there would only be one option for everything (one brand of t.v.). He also argues that there would be no more stores because people wouldn't be producing things if they weren't getting anything for it, which is the reason he believes people invent and make things now. I attempted to argue that people would still make and sell things because they enjoy it and want to share their product with other people... but I'm really at a loss on certain points such as this... I guess communism really is subjective and everyone has a different opinion on how it would work. I'm just trying to get a better grasp of it so that I can explain it to people who don't really know how it works, which is hard without having something tangible to compare it to... :confused:

I'm sorry to tell you that but your boyfriend is kinda stupid... What's the problem if there is one brand? Or why should there be brands? The thing is to have things working? Why do I care if my TV is samsung? I want my tv to work...

At the same time he says that people invent things for profit and only for profit. Tell him that when the first humans invented the wheel they didn't want to take something in exchange... Or something with the fire.... Or medicines.... Or weapons for hunting... Or clothes.... They had some basic needs and they invented them and shared their inventions with other people because human is from his nature a social "animal"...

People WILL produce things because there is the need of these things... If we have the need for a new kind of computer (as the ancient people had the need for the wheel) the guy that can make this computer will make it so he will share it with the rest of humanity not because he wants profit... The rest of the people will freely give him what he needs to survive, make this computer, live a better life etc...

Also tell him (if he believes that communism can't work because of USSR) that in the USSR there were many variables for its fail. First of all they were UNEDUCATED PEOPLE HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THESE PEOPLE WITH THE PEOPLE NOWADAYS THAT KNOW A LOT MORE THINGS....

In addition how is capitalism functioning? Every few years we have wars going in the world so capitalism can have wood, petrol, gas etc... When the Great Powers (Britain,France,Russia<Germany,USA) had no resources left in their own countries or they had a few they started WWI and WWII for the resources of the other countries. Again capitalism is not functioning because we have these dept/economic crisis around the world every few years... Why? Because it's the same thing as war... You start from the zero and you re-capitalise the country... How is it working? All the people in the working class want it overthrowed because they work a lot, they don't get a lot of maney and they bearly survive with this money they get.... How is it working? With over consumerism that gives us fake needs because the big heads want more money? How is it working? Capitalism needs propaganda to survive. It needs fascists around the world so people will be afraid of them and vote for the right winged parties that otherwise they would never vote for... Capitalism needs fear so it can survive... Communism needs a clear mind and people that know their place in the society and how it works...

There are thousands of arguments on the subject that can totally ruin the arguments of your boyfriend and the arguments of all capitalists... The problem is that these people DON'T want to understand... Or communists can't understand them/think them... I'm one of them and I can't think properly in the most cases but I think it's because of my age and my lack of knowledge/experience... But there are other people more experienced that can help you out a lot better than I can do... The thing is that you should never stop searching for answers....

[Soomie]

Thank you everyone for your informative posts. I agree that most of the time people "don't want to understand." I guess it's easier to just stay in the dark and not know what's going on around you than to realize that horrible things are taking place. My boyfriend listens to all of his econ professors (who in my opinion are rather biased) talk down about any other economic system other than capitalism. The professors try to call all of the professors in the political science department libertarians, which can't be the case for all of them, and of course the professors think it's hilarious that people even believe any other economic system could exist. My boyfriend then just regurgitates what he hears them say, instead of actually picking up the Manifesto or Kapital to see how it's meant to work. Oh, and I would like to point out that his economy professors haven't read either pieces of literature either, yet they just KNOW how communism works and why it wouldn't work. Right....

But thank you again everyone for clearing some things up. I'm going to try to explain these to him now so that he can better understand it.

[Ostrinski]

A dignified existence for every human being.

[Q]

Speculation obviously, but I imagine it would be somewhere along the lines of what the Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) sketches: A world without poverty, war or disease, a world in social harmony and where every human being is free to develop itself in the way it feels best and a world that is community based, where collectivity is an important aspect of social life (as opposed to current day individualism and social atomisation).

[Marxaveli]

Thank you everyone for your informative posts. I agree that most of the time people "don't want to understand." I guess it's easier to just stay in the dark and not know what's going on around you than to realize that horrible things are taking place. My boyfriend listens to all of his econ professors (who in my opinion are rather biased) talk down about any other economic system other than capitalism. The professors try to call all of the professors in the political science department libertarians, which can't be the case for all of them, and of course the professors think it's hilarious that people even believe any other economic system could exist. My boyfriend then just regurgitates what he hears them say, instead of actually picking up the Manifesto or Kapital to see how it's meant to work. Oh, and I would like to point out that his economy professors haven't read either pieces of literature either, yet they just KNOW how communism works and why it wouldn't work. Right....

But thank you again everyone for clearing some things up. I'm going to try to explain these to him now so that he can better understand it.

Hey Soomie,

Well unfortunately, this is the poverty of the current education system at work. As well as the capitalist propaganda machine. But it is good that you see this already, and that you are thinking for yourself and not just taking everything that is spoon fed to you. But as it also works the other way - from our perspective, don't just take our word for it, check out the material and literature :)

When you start reading Marx more in depth, you will begin to understand one of the core aspects in what he analyzed was that the economic organization in society is also a social relationship. Classes develop based on the relationship to the means of productive forces, and from there onward, everything else in society develops and functions in accordance with that. The schools, legal system, media, politics, and even the very culture that encompasses our values, beliefs, nature, and how we live our lives are all determined by this fundamental economic and social relationship.

[Catma]

I hope these people bashing "brands" are not thinking there will be only one of each product - one tv, one microwave, etc. That's just plain bad design from a point of view of satisfying disparate needs.

There will have to be a system of input from the public as to what exactly to produce, which designs they want, whether current designs are any good or better ones are needed, etc. They won't be brands exactly, but there should be a satisfactory range of options for even very similar products.