A communist society's outlook?

[Ligeia]

So my question is how would a communist society look like?
It's quite evident that we can't tell anything exactly about the mechanisms.
But I just want to see some speculations of a rough outline of a communist society.
Like how big would a society be?
How would decision making take place?
Would different societies get together at times to see what the other needs?
How will the majority of people be able to hold decisions about the amount of produced goods and distribution of it?
Is it possible to produce any goods for yourself or would you automatically produce for everyone else?
(Like say, someone wants to make a blouse and then makes more blouses automatically, for people who ask for it or would this person just simply teach one another how to make a blouse?)
Were do you produce goods and who'll decide who will produce the materials for goods?
Will there be people for just everything needed?


I hope my questions to communism in theory don't imply my understanding being way too wrong. Otherwise correct me.

[Post-Something]

The following is just speculation, but it's a rough guesswork as to just one way it could work.


Land would be divided into communes, which really wouldn't be that big (maybe in the regions of 1000-10000, and then getting smaller and smaller as society progresses). Each commune would have it's own legislative and executive branches, based on a system of direct democracy. The people would decide the allocation of goods and services, depending on which areas need them most etc. Factories and machinery would be collectively owned, and regulations would be decided upon collectively. Labour Vouchers would be in use to get your resources, and maybe even a gift economy in the far future. The commune may decide upon some sort of set workload or something, which would grant you access to all of society's spoils, and the people would actively be working to reduce human labour.

Interaction between communes could take place via recallable delegates elected by each commune, at some sort of organisation of united communes. If there was some sort of natural disaster, of course, the other communes would be expectedto chip in.


Hope that sort of helps :)

[punisa]

There is a an answer that is both, simple and complex.
The simple version is that if you would somehow manage to get rid of power-materialistic-hungry individuals, the society would turn to socialist regime (I believe its almost natural occurrence).

In the complex version one must be aware of the times we live in. Usually socialists still discuss obsolete means of production such as old-style factories. Thing is that there is a huge technological advancement that we must be aware of, as it can play a huge role in making the socialist community more productive.

There must also be means and ways for the society to advance in all areas. Something that capitalists stress out that is only possible in their ideology. Currently the majority of advancement is achieved because of money involved - mechanics, technology, medicine - even science.
Socialist government must be able to provide the space for talented and innovative individuals and their work must result as a benefit for the whole.

Usually we talk about producing which is, obviously, essential. But a society where we focus just on these traits would not be a society of socialists, it would be a society of drones.

I'm focusing on this because many people that question socialist regime can not comprehend how can a farmer and a lab scientist be equal in the society?
Well they can! Both just need the same goal and you have the things worked out. The goal is to benefit its society by its work.
A farmer will provide food for the scientist, and the scientist will work on making a better agricultural things like fertilizers which will assist the farmer.

By now you probably see the problem, right?
There is a chance the science guy might start to think of him being worthier because he finished harder schools. On the other hand a farmer might start to think that scientist is better off and that he works less then him.
This is a common flaw, something that majority of people posses.

As a results of this quick example you have a problem and, unfortunately, only one solution.
Socialism must explain,teach and answer to all, as to why the mutual respect of every working man is commonly beneficial. Socialism must teach humanism, as it is the only way to be human. It must thus change the human mind frame that has been poisoned by centuries of capitalist ideology.

If socialism is solely triggered by some event - war, famine, financial crisis, violent overthrow of the few, it will never work. You have a dozen of examples where it proved not to work.
So the real socialism will be accomplished when it becomes the will of the people, and this is a long road, but ultimately the right one.
Hope we can see it in our lifetime.

I believe it matters how you get to socialism. Take this economic crisis for example. If majority of people want to overthrow capitalism just because they lost their jobs, there is no proof that they want to be socialists.
But, on the other hand as crisis develops you have a huge increase in interest in Marx and other socialist ideas - these people will understand socialism before it hits and these are the people that will create socialist regime in a way as it needs to be.

[Ligeia]

Thank you for the replies so far.
I hope more people comment on this, and speculation.

But another tiny question?
Why can't some communists or anarchists or even both try to build a communist society on an island?
(theoretically speaking)
I think the way it's supposed to be is that socialism builds on the means of production and on the infrastructure of capitalist society, and communism on the socialist society.
And if not every country in the world is socialist,communism can't be achieved.
Now why can't this practically be tried somewhere, without the conditions of capitalism but with the knowledge that society has brought about until know?
Wasn't the paris commune something like that?

[Cunning_plan]

Why an island? But under some guises they have.

Communism is more of an eventual aim than a direct state (IMHO). That aside, why would the whole world need to be socialist in order to move to communism? In this state of development it is not economic or infrastructure growth or development that is required. It's social change. We have the means to produce everything we need. Now we need to get into a society where people don't find it strange that they need a tummy tuck while others have malnutrition... Find enough people willing to work for the common good and with the basic skills required and a these societies are possible and indeed exist.

How does a communist/anarchist society ensure that all roles are filled? Especially on a micro scale.

[Ligeia]

Why an island? But under some guises they have.

Communism is more of an eventual aim than a direct state (IMHO). That aside, why would the whole world need to be socialist in order to move to communism?
Well, an island, whatever....a piece of land,just an example.
Because people just don't change their consciousness from one day to another.
It seems to me,there exist way to many people that couldn't imagine that such a society could exist today,...that's why.

"Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism.
We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. "
(german Ideology by Marx & Engels)
This sounds to me like it has to be an ideal for the whole world and build on situations that are in existence in the whole world.

But I'm not sure,that's why I'm asking why it shouldn't be possible to build a communist society on a piece of land?
Or why it hasn't been done if it is possible?
And If it can't be because of some universal need/change to socialism or communism (depending if it's communism or anarchism).then why is it you need the whole world to be socialist first?

[Cunning_plan]

Just because it was said by a great thinker does not necisarily make it true. This is politics not religion. Communes of varying scales have been in operation for over a century.

In order for a communist society to flourish it does require self sufficiency on some level. Thus the size issues. I do not see why this requires a world revolution.... So long as you have the means of production of subsistence scale and the outside world arn't really relevent.

[union6]

interesting idea, but i think the main problem is getting the land and being able to develop it and sustain itself.
I have often wondered if anyone on the left has the capabilities to create a virtual online world, like say Second Life or a simpler version like Habbo Hotel lol but yea, create a virtual world were we can create a simulation of what a socialist/communist/anarchist society could be like. Just a thought lol so far i aint found anyone who is capable of doing this lol

[Cunning_plan]

I could do it on a text based scale... GUI's would take a lifetime though. There are text based society modellers out there....not much fun though!

More interesting a project would be to do a feasibility study across these boards... have groups for how each section of modern society could be run...see what is required. would be an interesting means to suggest the next step for the sociocommunist left....

[Ligeia]

( I know communism ain't a religion but well, quite a lot is based on the theories of a lot of thinkers, for sure , for every region and time in the world,it'll always be slightly different to tell and there are always controversies but again...just asking.)
Thanks all for those answers so far.
I hope some more people try to answer some of my questions.
I think it's intresting to think about these societies' outlines.

[Decolonize The Left]

( I know communism ain't a religion but well, quite a lot is based on the theories of a lot of thinkers, for sure , for every region and time in the world,it'll always be slightly different to tell and there are always controversies but again...just asking.)
Thanks all for those answers so far.
I hope some more people try to answer some of my questions.
I think it's intresting to think about these societies' outlines.

Your original question, despite the admiral attempts at answers, is rather pointless. I do not say this to discourage you - rather, to provide perspective.

Communism/anarchism, if implemented, will be the result of a massive popular movement of the working class.

They will decide how said society ought to be organized, divided, etc... They will decide how big the plots of land will be, etc...

Furthermore, communism/anarchism are global movements. They surpass liberal divisions of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc... In this global perspective lies their strength. They are not broken by conciliatory gestures from the state for they understand the oppressive nature of the state. They are not divided by national boundaries for they understand the unity of the working class as a productive whole.

They are not split by separate social movements, for the movement of the communist/anarchist is the movement of humanity.

- August

[Ligeia]

Your original question, despite the admiral attempts at answers, is rather pointless. I do not say this to discourage you - rather, to provide perspective.

Communism/anarchism, if implemented, will be the result of a massive popular movement of the working class.

They will decide how said society ought to be organized, divided, etc... They will decide how big the plots of land will be, etc...


It's true the working class decides,that's a sign of liberty.
No vanguard class or anything like that, I know.
But I thought there were maybe just some thoughts,some base...anything.
The base will be that there's no state, no class,....is it enough to know?
Though as I said earlier, it's evident we can't tell in the end how it really will be, as it won't be the same everywhere and we are not everybody...etc. etc.
But is it not allowed to ask for some theories, though it is a pointless question?
Now what about talking about a socialist society (labour time vouchers,money?),is there much more justification to discuss?

[ckaihatsu]

There is a an answer that is both, simple and complex.
The simple version is that if you would somehow manage to get rid of power-materialistic-hungry individuals, the society would turn to socialist regime (I believe its almost natural occurrence).



As a results of this quick example you have a problem and, unfortunately, only one solution.

Socialism must explain,teach and answer to all, as to why the mutual respect of every working man is commonly beneficial. Socialism must teach humanism, as it is the only way to be human. It must thus change the human mind frame that has been poisoned by centuries of capitalist ideology.


These two postulates are corollaries of each other -- in other words, they're complementary. The way to avoid the concentration of power into a power-mongering elite -- even in the scores of countries on the world map today -- is to enable the direct participation and efficacy of regular people, through their conscious, decision-making control over the means of industrial mass production.

Right now we're told to go home and sit on our hands while the "ownership" takes control of the factories and other large-scale technology -- no matter what kind of government you slap over this, the machinery itself tells the tale: It's run by power managers like capitalists and politicians, *not* by the labor that is exploited to run the lower-level functions of the machinery of society's productive forces.

The way to overcome capitalist ideology and encourage humanistic attitudes is to * empower * the regular person to co-manage that which is most important, and relevant. The further away we are from the levers of the means of mass production the *less* empowered we are, and so we may as well be living in the outskirts, or rural areas, in our relation to the engine and heart of modern civilization.

The more people are class conscious and fighting for the workers liberation of factories (and technology), the more humanistic our society will be, and the less room the elite will have to maneuver.

Btw, I just finished an illustration of a diagram that may be useful to the readers of this thread. I invite you to take a look, if you like:


culture and critique framework (rendered)

http://tinyurl.com/bdxge2


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Psy]

We have different views of how a communist society would look like mostly because we wouldn't be the architects of such a society as it would be up to the workers of the world to design the finer points of a communist society thus a communist world probably have different communist societies within it.

My view is a efficent industrial society where full employment (for those that want to work), worker rotation and automation minimizes the necessary work shifts and maintains a high level of average worker moral in workplaces.

As for why you can't have an island of communism in a sea of capitalism is that communism is only possible with the productive power of modern industries, as it only industrial power that we can produce for all.