few questions about future hypothetical communist society...

[freya4]

i'm not quite sure i fully understand how a communist society would function. i know it's a bit pointless to speculate excessively over how a future system would work, but i just want to become clear on a few things.
1. Would trade still exist under communism?? If not, how would necessary foreign goods be obtained??
2. I know that nations are supposed to exist, but would these former countries still be able to keep their native language, culture, traditions etc??
3. Communism is supposed to be stateless, presumably meaning no police/law enforcement. But how would a communist society deal with crime, such murder, rape, theft etc?? Would these things just disappear on their own??
4. "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the basis for communism, but how does one obtain more than they need (ie what they want for personal enjoyment or leisure time)??
thanks in advance sorry if these questions have been repeated before

[Forward Union]

1. Would trade still exist under communism?? If not, how would necessary foreign goods be obtained??

Not exactly. As it stands, global industrial capacity can feed and house the entire population, when rounded up, and then x3 (At the moment we have an extremely imbalanced distribution of resources, as well as inefficient management of production. Take the EU paying farmers not to produce milk, while people elsewhere need it, or Grain companies dumping grain in the sea to make remaining stocks more valuable). This production would be used to do exactly that, feed and house people. Distribution would be according to need, so everyone would be given the basic conditions of living (probably a lot more than basic when considering the statistics). Only the means of production would be commonly owned, personal items would of course be yours, and if you want to trade some of your personal items with someone else =I'm sure that will happen.

2. I know that nations are supposed to exist, but would these former countries still be able to keep their native language, culture, traditions etc??

Yes, Communists seek to destroy national barriers, and nation states, but not 'nations'. Of course, Languages and Cultures constantly evolve and change - try and read old English for example, but there would be no attempt to eradicate any language. At least, as something of a linguist, I truly hope not!

Some aspects of culture like female genital mutilation or arranged marriages for example would be seen as child abuse and be forbidden by law - Better, and far wider reaching education in Science, History, Philosophy and Literature will eventually create a culture of reason which ought to put these brutal practices to rest anyway.

3. Communism is supposed to be stateless, presumably meaning no police/law enforcement. But how would a communist society deal with crime, such murder, rape, theft etc?? Would these things just disappear on their own??

No state doesn't mean no law enforcement in the same way it doesn't mean no healthcare. There would be a 'police', as in, a group of people trained in the methods of catching suspected criminals (Problem is too many leftists want to avoid using the term 'police' due to the negative connotations of the word). There would also be courts for determining if people really are guilty of the crimes. But the laws would be decided on by democratic forums, and the police would be completely subject to the democratic people/workers councils, which would replace the authority of the state.

4. "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the basis for communism, but how does one obtain more than they need (ie what they want for personal enjoyment or leisure time)??

I personally like the economic model proposed by Syndicalism, in which different regions communicate through the Bourse du Travail (labor exchange) - a body which would manage and transfer commodities. So, if one area produces MP3 Players, and some region require them, they can organise the distribution through this body. It should ensure a fairly even distribution of commodities on demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourse_du_Travail

Feel free to ask anything else

[Blake's Baby]

i'm not quite sure i fully understand how a communist society would function. i know it's a bit pointless to speculate excessively over how a future system would work, but i just want to become clear on a few things.
1. Would trade still exist under communism?? If not, how would necessary foreign goods be obtained??...

I don't think there would be trade, just distribution on the basis of need. 'Foreign' goods would be obtained the same way any thing else would be obtained. Why does the fact that they were made by people speaking a different language make them more difficult to obtain than if they were made by people speaking the same language? For instance, people in New York - how would they get oranges? Probably from Florida or California, or maybe Mexico, what's the problem? A shipload of oranges sails to NY, NY has oranges.

2. I know that nations are supposed to exist, but would these former countries still be able to keep their native language, culture, traditions etc??...

I'm not going to advocate forcing anyone to abandon their native languages, but as Forward Union says, practices like genital mutilation would have to stop. Arranged marriage? I don't give a fuck. It's the institution of marriage (which is still something of a form of legalised slavery) that's the problem, not whether it's organised between families.

...
3. Communism is supposed to be stateless, presumably meaning no police/law enforcement. But how would a communist society deal with crime, such murder, rape, theft etc?? Would these things just disappear on their own??

I think the vast majority of 'crimes' would disappear pretty rapidly. Though there would be some anti-social actions I think the way of dealing with these is rather more on an ad-hoc basis than the permanent setting up of police forces or law courts.

...
4. "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the basis for communism, but how does one obtain more than they need (ie what they want for personal enjoyment or leisure time)??
thanks in advance sorry if these questions have been repeated before

Not sure what this even means to be honest with you. Why do you need more than you need? Leisure is a need as well. OK, after the revolution, you won't necessarily be able to have 'your own' copies of all the Star Trek DVDs or the Complete Speeches of Chairman Sarandon, but I'm sure that the community library will be able to get them for you.

Hope those answers are some help.

[Decommissioner]

Not sure what this even means to be honest with you. Why do you need more than you need? Leisure is a need as well. OK, after the revolution, you won't necessarily be able to have 'your own' copies of all the Star Trek DVDs or the Complete Speeches of Chairman Sarandon, but I'm sure that the community library will be able to get them for you.

Hope those answers are some help.

I don't quite understand this sentiment myself. What is to prevent workers councils from producing products that do not serve any "needs". While obviously, not everyone in the entire world can own their own star trek DVDs, surely those who want them bad enough should be allowed to produce them themselves on a mass scale?

I always liked the idea of workers who put in time for "necessary" labor to have first dibs on being able to participate in labor of passions through leisure councils ie being able to own a space to distribute musical instruments or to produce a certain commodity such as star trek dvds or a boutique beer, or to manage a space where people can go dance or partake in whatever sort of cultural activities that floats their boat. Those who currently are not participating in necessary labor (to me, this should be a freedom allotted in communism) will still have a stab at this as well, but may not have first dibs on participating in any form of production relating to leisure that they may want to partake in, just as a way to provide more incentive for partaking in enough necessary labor throughout ones life.

[ZeroNowhere]

Consider your origin;
you were not born to live like brutes,
but to follow virtue and knowledge.

All production of objects for use resides within the realm of necessity, insofar as what is produced is the prerequisite of further action. People don't only need things in order to survive, but also in order to do most other things.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't quite understand this sentiment myself. What is to prevent workers councils from producing products that do not serve any "needs". While obviously, not everyone in the entire world can own their own star trek DVDs, surely those who want them bad enough should be allowed to produce them themselves on a mass scale?...

It's only a hypothetical. I'm assuming not every place on earth will have the capacity to produce DVDs, but that some places will. My commune doesn't have a DVD pressing plant, but yours does. So I get my DVDs of the Speeches of Chairman Sarandon (I don't care about Star Trek) sent from your commune. To the communal library at my commune. I don't need them all the time, no reason why other people shouldn't bask in the wisdom of Comrade Sarandon when I'm done.

[W1N5T0N]

It's the institution of marriage (which is still something of a form of legalised slavery) that's the problem, not whether it's organised between families.

I dont think marriage is a form of legalised slavery...at least, my mom is not my dad's slave, neither is anyone in my country forced to marry a certain person. In some countries this might be true, but the real problem lies in the disrespect and mistreatment of women in that society, and marriage is not a form of slavery, just a form of how the society there exercises control over women. Doesn't mean all marriages are slavery.

[Psy]

It's only a hypothetical. I'm assuming not every place on earth will have the capacity to produce DVDs, but that some places will. My commune doesn't have a DVD pressing plant, but yours does. So I get my DVDs of the Speeches of Chairman Sarandon (I don't care about Star Trek) sent from your commune. To the communal library at my commune. I don't need them all the time, no reason why other people shouldn't bask in the wisdom of Comrade Sarandon when I'm done.

DVDs will probably become obsolete pretty fast in a communist world as we build more broadband networks and it shouldn't take long for a communist world to have all access to all media via the Internet.

[Blake's Baby]

DVDs will probably become obsolete pretty fast in a communist world as we build more broadband networks and it shouldn't take long for a communist world to have all access to all media via the Internet.

It's only a hypothetical...

DVDs aren't really the issue here. The idea of production for leisure is the issue. DVDs are merely an example of how production for leisure is constituted, under the system we have, and in no way intended to refer to any situation that I think will actually arise where we are producing DVDs of the political speeches of Susan Sarandon, except by way of being of a general exemplary nature. Instead of DVDs, please feel free to substitute the phrase 'articles produced to aid enjoyment or leisure, or otherwise aid social and intellectual pursuits, rather than direct phyisical necessities'.

[freya4]

So, then would the entertainment industry still exist in communism? Would being an actor/actress, a singer or even an athlete be considered as a real profession??

[Psy]

DVDs aren't really the issue here. The idea of production for leisure is the issue. DVDs are merely an example of how production for leisure is constituted, under the system we have, and in no way intended to refer to any situation that I think will actually arise where we are producing DVDs of the political speeches of Susan Sarandon, except by way of being of a general exemplary nature. Instead of DVDs, please feel free to substitute the phrase 'articles produced to aid enjoyment or leisure, or otherwise aid social and intellectual pursuits, rather than direct phyisical necessities'.

A communist society would use industrialization to produce cheap leisure products. For example lets take portable MP3 players, they would be mass produced with the aim of eventually making it so everyone that wants one has one, also to engineer them to the point you don't have to replace them for decades. No iPod crap that easily breaks yet electronic sturdy it can most abuse industrial workers can throw at them (basically even coal miners can use them in a coal mine without significantly shorting its life).

So, then would the entertainment industry still exist in communism? Would being an actor/actress, a singer or even an athlete be considered as a real profession??

Yes, I brought this up in a old (and now locked) thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/art-commun...x.html?t=78626

[Forward Union]

So, then would the entertainment industry still exist in communism? Would being an actor/actress, a singer or even an athlete be considered as a real profession??

I think so yes. In some cases. It's to do with time really. If someone is required to perform a part in a film, and it takes several months to produce, then they can't possibly do any other type of work in the meantime.

[Tim Cornelis]

I disagree communes need to pass democratic laws as this opens a doorway for tyranny of the majority. Customary law suffices, council courts to mediate disputes in which a voluntary, independent, randomly selected, rotating jury seats, plus "lawyers", psychologists and other experts who'll determine how to solve the dispute.

I think a voluntary neighbourhood watch could replace the police (i.e. they do this in their past time). In Israel there are police 70,000 police volunteers (in the netherlands there only are 60,000 professional police). Then the neighbourhood watch would also be meeting regularly with the neighbourhood council, if the majority of the civilians want to fire an individual neighbourhood watch because he tries to assert authority over others then this can be done.

[Forward Union]

I disagree communes need to pass democratic laws as this opens a doorway for tyranny of the majority. Customary law suffices, council courts to mediate disputes in which a voluntary, independent, randomly selected, rotating jury seats, plus "lawyers", psychologists and other experts who'll determine how to solve the dispute.

Customary law absolutely does not suffice. It means that all laws are just randomly fluctuating "gentlemen's agreements" if someone insults someone else, and the person kills him in response, the murderer could claim he was enforcing a law he just made up about not insulting people. And if he happens to be popular, well liked, influential, and the person who was killed was a social reject who had offended everyone, then he might just get away with it.

It amounts to nothing more than the creation of competing centres of power in which various value systems try to over ride eachother to settle disputes. It doesn't work, and is undesirable.

Having a written set of laws, to which all people are held, so people know what laws are; is one of the most basic, and one of the most important social developments to come out of the enlightenment. To reverse it back to a kind of medieval 'will to power' arrangement, is at best regressive and at worst the end of all human progress.

Damn right there's a tyranny of the majority. That's how democracy works, anything other than a tyranny of the majority is a tyranny of the minority.

What you are suggesting by the way, is a tyranny of the majority as well. Those with individual or personal customs won't be able to have their personal conceptions of law realised. Females in cultures that practice genital mutilation won't be able to influence 'customary law'. But unlike the structure I have outlines, your minorities won't even have legitimate bodies in which to debate their case.

I think a voluntary neighbourhood watch could replace the police

No. Because "The Police" aren't just "Cops" they are also forensic experts, psychologists, investigators, detectives etc. People with highly sophisticated research fields that are needed to determine if someone is actually guilty of something. All you are saying is that the "cops" within the police force would be local, and be volunteers, but that is probably going to be true of every job in a communist society.

(i.e. they do this in their past time). In Israel there are police 70,000 police volunteers (in the netherlands there only are 60,000 professional police). Then the neighbourhood watch would also be meeting regularly with the neighbourhood council, if the majority of the civilians want to fire an individual neighbourhood watch because he tries to assert authority over others then this can be done.

Assuming you agree with the need for full time professional DNA analysis, blood splatter analysts, forensics teams, etc, then all you are doing is describing the structure of one part of the police force in a communist society. So I go back to my point, lefties don't like to use the word police, so use poorly defined and ill-fitting terms like "workers militia" and then go on to describe a police force, as you have just done.