kind of a dumb question

[Red Menace]

so the other day my friend asked me, if we lived in a communist nation, would we still have fast food industries, and just plain old stores like we have now, butthey would be owned by the government? i didn't know how to answer. what would it be like.

[Janus]

Communist as in a socialist state ruled by the Communist Party or an actual communist society?

In the former, yes but in the later there would be no industries or stores. If someone wanted to open a restaurant to feed others they couldn't make any profit or money from it.

[Delta]

Well, there would be restaurants and shops, but as Janus said, people would not be making a profit off of it. The restaurants would certainly not be fast food chains, because if people have good produce and food available to them they woudn't eat that McDonald's shit, especially without all the marketing.

I think it's easier to discuss transitional economic arrangments (socialism or participatory economies) with people rather than jumping straight to communism. Communist society is just too out there and unbelievable for most people to grasp, and rightfully so due to the lack of current class conciousness among the workers.

[Esplin]

Depends on what you mean. Would this be in a Communist-Socialist goverment or a true, pure Communist society? There would be places to purchase food and restaurants, but I am not absolutely sure about fast food. Private property would be abolished, making fast food restaurants a pratical way of distrubiton of food.

To Me!

[Rollo]

I mean you could still give all the money to mcdonalds but mcdonalds wouldnt be able to do anything with it.

[which doctor]

There is something called Slow Food. It's often called the culinary wing of the anti-globalization movement.

There would be fast food, but it would be more like good food quickly. People on the go need to eat as well!

[-=Viva La Revolution!=-]

this is not a dumb question dont worry

it depends Pure Communism or Socialist-type Communism

either way though we'd still have them but they would be owned by the government, because their is no private property
that's what communism is all about

[Janus]

either way though we'd still have them but they would be owned by the government, because their is no private property
that's what communism is all about
Property is owned by no single entity in a communist society. In state socialism, property would be owned by the state.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:48 PM

either way though we'd still have them but they would be owned by the government, because their is no private property
that's what communism is all about
Property is owned by no single entity in a communist society. In state socialism, property would be owned by the state.
What if you want your own home and want to be by yourself? How does private property work?

[Delirium]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+Sep 20 2006, 11:07 PM--> (C_Rasmussen @ Sep 20 2006, 11:07 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 07:48 PM

either way though we'd still have them but they would be owned by the government, because their is no private property
that's what communism is all about
Property is owned by no single entity in a communist society. In state socialism, property would be owned by the state.
What if you want your own home and want to be by yourself? How does private property work? [/b]
You would 'own' it in a sense that you lived there and your privacy and space would be respected.

[kurt]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+Sep 20 2006, 08:07 PM--> (C_Rasmussen @ Sep 20 2006, 08:07 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 07:48 PM

either way though we'd still have them but they would be owned by the government, because their is no private property
that's what communism is all about
Property is owned by no single entity in a communist society. In state socialism, property would be owned by the state.
What if you want your own home and want to be by yourself? How does private property work? [/b]
You can still live by yourself, it's not as if someone could just walk into your house and say, "I want to sleep on your bed". Objects, homes, etc would simply be used by a person or persons. When you are finished using it, someone else may then take up use of that object.

[apathy maybe]

In an anarchist society property ultimately belongs to the community, it does not matter if the system is an individualist anarchist system or a communist one.

'Property' in an individualist anarchist society is defined by use, in a communist society it really depends on how it is set up. But I think that as Delerium BFSK and kurt said, it is not like if you are using something in a communist society someone could just come and take it.

[Lings]

I like it when bourgeois internet warriors or other people you debate with who support capitalism automaticly assume that the day private property is abolished, millions of people would start running around, sleeping on other peoples beds, stealing childrens teddybears, using other peoples toothbrushes just becouse they can. It just proves that rightwingers are sick sick people.