Communist community question.

[Connolly]

This is just a question relating to a discussion which I can no longer find which was called "anarchism" on another forum.

Some anarchist guy went on, and I must say, pretty well, describing what an anarchist society might look like.

Anyway, to the point.

He explained that governance would lie in the hands of communities, and the members of that community collectivly decide in a democratic way its internal functioning.

He said that members of a community make the rules.

Now my questions.

1. What defines the "borders" of a community, as in, one "democratic collective from another" which contains members who vote for their community - and not for another.

I find this interesting as urban areas would be much more dificult to define I imagine than, say, a small town.


2. Would population have any relevence to the size or land mass of a community and its borders - if not, we could call a city a community right? - or a very small village?

What happens in the event that a community becomes too populated, and the decisions made through ballots are less and less effective from an individuals point of view and their overall ability to make change is diminished.


3. If there are rules, someone must enforce them. Would this not lead to the creation of a "communal state", which governs and maintains the rules decided by its inhabitants.


Ill have a quick look for the thread where this was discussed.

I dont particularly agree with what he describes. Its not what I imagined a communist society to look like exactly.

[Connolly]

I found the thread.

Have a read, its quite good.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055009758

[La Comédie Noire]

1. What defines the "borders" of a community, as in, one "democratic collective from another" which contains members who vote for their community - and not for another.

First, I am going to assume these communities are based around means of production such as factories. The boarders will be determined by how much room is needed for the number of workers currently operating the means of production in that area.


2. Would population have any relevance to the size or land mass of a community and its borders - if not, we could call a city a community right? - or a very small village?

^


3. If there are rules, someone must enforce them. Would this not lead to the creation of a "communal state", which governs and maintains the rules decided by its inhabitants.

People would elect deputies that would be subject to public scrutiny and reelection every certain amount of years.


This is just what I think it would be like in the society you described. Feel free to criticize.

[Tower of Bebel]

First, I am going to assume these communities are based around means of production such as factories. The boarders will be determined by how much room is needed for the number of workers currently operating the means of production in that area.

Which would mean that you simply cannot leave your commune? Because if people did, then there would be a lack of manpower to keep the commune productive enough (since you said that a commune only excists of people who work in that commune).

[Connolly]

Thanks for a reply comrade.


First, I am going to assume these communities are based around means of production such as factories. The boarders will be determined by how much room is needed for the number of workers currently operating the means of production in that area.

I would be thinking more along the lines of "town planning", where somewhat large decisions are made about things like the construction of new houses, leasure facilities, industrial estates, schools etc - and their location.

The decisions as to where to undertake these large projects must be decided in a democratic way, by the inhabitants of the community - not by a series of individuals who may see, for example, a school as socially necessary and decide where to construct in a location of their choice without community consultation or decision making.

So if the community are to be involved in the planning of their area, there must be "set borders" which defines one community from another. So my question is how is a community and its borders defined, and in the event, how is it split.


People would elect deputies that would be subject to public scrutiny and reelection every certain amount of years.

It was my understanding that there wouldnt be a system of law, but having read that thread, the guy proposes that communities would make their own rules.

So who would enforce those rules.

It might develop a full time police force over time, where next? - an army?


Thanks again for the reply :D ;)

[BobKKKindle$]

I want to broaden the discussion and put forward my ideas on how the economy would be organised under Socialism. One aspect of economic decision making which I feel cannot simply be left to small and localised organs of administrative power, is the broader use of economic resources, and the problem of oppurtunity cost which derives from the scarcity of all resources. In contrast to other matters, which can be limited to a small community possibly based on a workplace or settlement, the decision of how best to use scarce economic resources is a matter of national importance which affects a large geographical area and a large number of people, and consequently I think there also needs to exist a body which is responsible for national economic organisation - possibly a 'people's assembly' of sorts which is elected both on the basis of locality (through constituencies) and different sections of industry (and even potentially the army, as way as the case in Sovnarkom) which can interact with bodies of power and responsibility on a local level to see what different groups and communities want, in order to formulate a national plan.

One issue which I think is rarely adressed is the nature between workers' and consumers councils (or the equivalent bodyor bodies which 'signals' consumers' preferences) which expresses consumers which would have precedence is deciding the level of output? And, as Racoon suggested how would changing occupation work under Socialism and how would shortages of labour be recitified without recourse to discriminatory access to goods and services (i.e. differing levels of pay)?

This is a fascinating topic and I look forward to seeing further replies from comrades.

[Janus]

I find this interesting as urban areas would be much more dificult to define I imagine than, say, a small town.
Not as much as the rural areas I would imagine. Except for political reasons and perhaps resource distribution and mangement, I don't see why it's necessary to create divides between various parts of a city or communities in general.


Would population have any relevence to the size or land mass of a community and its borders - if not, we could call a city a community right? - or a very small village?
For demographic reasons only I would imagine.


If there are rules, someone must enforce them. Would this not lead to the creation of a "communal state", which governs and maintains the rules decided by its inhabitants.
They should be enforced through mass action and citizen involvement whether in a militia of some sort or a court.

[KC]

He explained that governance would lie in the hands of communities, and the members of that community collectivly decide in a democratic way its internal functioning.

Government is a product of class society, as is democracy.


3. If there are rules, someone must enforce them. Would this not lead to the creation of a "communal state", which governs and maintains the rules decided by its inhabitants.

Rules are not laws.

[RGacky3]

There were many Societies in the past that functioned without formal government or laws or property without any Anarchist or Communist Theory, it might be helpful to look at those.

There are rules in Society that are followed simply by collective will, take supermarket lines, who enforces them? The people in the line, its not formal, its not a written law, and for the vast vast majority of the time it never has to be enforced.

Really the question needs to be asked how much governance is truely neccessary, really it only relates to things that are 1. Not personal issues 2. Not issues that everyone can agree upon 3. Not issues that don't affect anyone negatively, and I'm sure there are more things that really don't really need governance, and the few things that do can be done with a loose informal and democratic government, and usually those issues are not huge.

[Connolly]

Not as much as the rural areas I would imagine. Except for political reasons and perhaps resource distribution and mangement, I don't see why it's necessary to create divides between various parts of a city or communities in general.

Well, take for example "area/town planning".

Say if we have an area of beautiful sea front, enjoyed by all residents in the area, and who would like to see it remain. Surely it would not be the case that a group of people, be it, from the local area, or the far beyond, can simply take it upon themselves to develop this area without community consultation or collective democracy?

This applies to all sorts of planning - where the community must have a say where and what goes on. Anything else would be like the situation at present here, where a private developer can simply purchase a piece of land, get planning permission through a shambles of a system, and construct away - without, or with very little, community involvement in the decision.

The Corrib Gas field for example. The community should decide its location democratically - not shell.

Probably a suitable way to democratically decide something like this is through community consultation and decision making ballot.

So to my initial question. How are the borders defined. There must be some sort of border - other wise those not affected, or from another location, can make a decision on behalf of the locals.


They should be enforced through mass action and citizen involvement whether in a militia of some sort or a court.

So would that not possibly develop into a full time militia. After all, under communism, we could choose our own occupation.

For those with personalities tending towards the power hungry, or control freak, what would stop them choosing to be a full time militia.

Or maybe the community would develop, for the sake of maintaining the status quo, the need for a full time militia.

[Connolly]

Hey BK.


One aspect of economic decision making which I feel cannot simply be left to small and localised organs of administrative power, is the broader use of economic resources, and the problem of oppurtunity cost which derives from the scarcity of all resources.

What sort of resources would you be talking about here, not that I disagree with what you are saying, but just to expand a little.


In contrast to other matters, which can be limited to a small community possibly based on a workplace or settlement, the decision of how best to use scarce economic resources is a matter of national importance which affects a large geographical area and a large number of people, and consequently I think there also needs to exist a body which is responsible for national economic organisation - possibly a 'people's assembly' of sorts which is elected both on the basis of locality (through constituencies) and different sections of industry (and even potentially the army, as way as the case in Sovnarkom) which can interact with bodies of power and responsibility on a local level to see what different groups and communities want, in order to formulate a national plan.

I agree mostly with what you say here, though I think, and as it was mentioned in that discussion I linked, there should be a number of rules which govern those who are in the position of representing others. Such as very limited durations which a person may hold a position of representation. A safe-guard whereby they take the position only to put forward the genuine interests of their constituents - not their own personal agenda or belief "which they believe is correct". There should be total accountability.


One issue which I think is rarely addressed is the nature between workers' and consumers councils (or the equivalent bodyor bodies which 'signals' consumers' preferences) which expresses consumers which would have precedence is deciding the level of output?

How would production be regulated? is the question if I read it proper. My opinion is based on what they use in a shop here called "Superquinn" (and more than likely others). They use a computerized system of stock management where stock is ordered automatically from the distributor.

So when a certain amount of, lets say, bread passes through a checkout and is scanned, when the existing stock reaches a certain low (but not totally depleted), orders to restock are sent by computer to the distributor/bakery. This way, there is not much wastage, over ordering or depletion of stock.

A system like this could be expanded to regulate and control an entire social production system. The shops would signal the distributor, the distributor the manufacturer and the manufacturer the primary resources. Things would be produced upon keeping up necessary supply.


If I read your point/question wrong im sorry. I notice you mentiond preferences. As in, change in social attitude toward certain foods - or the development of new products which would replace others? - and the necessity to control the production of obsolete or undesirable products.

I suppose, thinking of it straight off, it would require some experimentation and "market research" similar to what it would be today.

One factory might develop a new product, untested in the consumer arena, and will, I imagine, as above, need to carry out research and tests to see if the consumers would like it - if they dont - it fails. Maybe some group of people will develop the product for a niche amount of consumers somewhere down the line.

If the product is successful, and replaces an existing product - possibly made by another factory, a system of computerized ordering would ensure their product would not be ordered and production of the obsolete product would finish. Wastage would occur, but very little.

Sorry if I didnt pick up on what exactly your point was there BK.


And, as Racoon suggested how would changing occupation work under Socialism and how would shortages of labour be recitified without recourse to discriminatory access to goods and services (i.e. differing levels of pay)?

To be honest, I cant really give much of an answer to that. Could you expand that further so we could understand it a little more.

TRB

[Connolly]

There are rules in Society that are followed simply by collective will, take supermarket lines, who enforces them? The people in the line, its not formal, its not a written law, and for the vast vast majority of the time it never has to be enforced.

Really the question needs to be asked how much governance is truely neccessary, really it only relates to things that are 1. Not personal issues 2. Not issues that everyone can agree upon 3. Not issues that don't affect anyone negatively, and I'm sure there are more things that really don't really need governance, and the few things that do can be done with a loose informal and democratic government, and usually those issues are not huge.

I see what your saying here. Much of what goes on would be diminshed - antisocial behaviour etc.

But it wouldnt be "utopia". We must accept that social problems would exist. That rules are broken.

Take, for example - speeding (as in driving).

How could something, as lethal as this be enforced without some sort of "written rule".

Its not comparible to supermarket lines.

I speed very regularly, despite not being in a rush somewhere, because I can. Its true when they say young drivers feel invincible - im one.

Speed cameras are a deterrent (to me at least). The sight of a Garda car makes me "slam on".

Other than this, nothing would make me reduce my speed. I could potentially kill an innocent by speeding. That could cause further conflict between families, and especially if there were not any authority.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 06, 2007 11:49 am
But it wouldnt be "utopia". We must accept that social problems would exist. That rules are broken.

Take, for example - speeding (as in driving).
That's an excellent example, and I've been wondering this myself. Without minimal written laws, a lot of suffering could happen. Think of drunk driving. Without any laws, tons of drunks, formerly with no licenses, will take to the streets and get back to putting people's lives in danger. When they kill somebody, how do we deal with it?

One guy might be beaten to death by the community or the victim's family, while another guy across town will get a lecture from his neighbor and a stern staring-at from his friends.

I think that an incredibly minimal government should be set up to enforce laws that everyone agrees on. Everyone agrees that drunk driving is wrong, so we should make it illegal, and establish ways to deal with it. Everyone agrees that rape, murder, etc are wrong, too. Things like this should have laws against them, because it keeps everyone somewhat safer (I say somewhat because they'll likely just go ahead and ignore the law, but then we'll have just ways of dealing with them).

[Janus]

Say if we have an area of beautiful sea front, enjoyed by all residents in the area, and who would like to see it remain. Surely it would not be the case that a group of people, be it, from the local area, or the far beyond, can simply take it upon themselves to develop this area without community consultation or collective democracy?
Of course not, any decision on such property should be made by the community and since it's a local issue then there's really no reason why someone outside of said community needs to vote on it.


The Corrib Gas field for example. The community should decide its location democratically - not shell.

Probably a suitable way to democratically decide something like this is through community consultation and decision making ballot.
I agree and I would assume that much of this decision making process would be electronic and digital as well.


So to my initial question. How are the borders defined. There must be some sort of border - other wise those not affected, or from another location, can make a decision on behalf of the locals.
Someone from another location can't make another decision for the locals simply because that would not only cause conflict but also because the decentralized nature and ultrademocratic and participatory nature of each commune would prevent it.

As far as how borders would be defined, I don't think that we should have some sort of definite border as we do now but that boundaries for the sake of demographics and statistics should be necessary. In that case, cities or municipalities could be split into zones for better resource distribution and management.


So would that not possibly develop into a full time militia. After all, under communism, we could choose our own occupation.
By full time militia, I assume you're talking about a professional militia in that its members only have one job? Under communism, there should be no division of labor so there's no reason why someone who is in the militia cannot have another job as well.


For those with personalities tending towards the power hungry, or control freak, what would stop them choosing to be a full time militia.
Nothing but there's not really much they can do and if they do "go postal" then they need to be stopped.


Or maybe the community would develop, for the sake of maintaining the status quo, the need for a full time militia.
There will always be a militia present but I don't think it must be composed of people who are full-time soldiers/members.