[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Ok, we're seeing people saying "Communism can solve any problem", or "Communism IS Utopia!", but nobody has ever explained the economic, social, and political issues in detail.



Several major points that need to be clarified about Communism:


HUMANITY: How will Communism erase human greed? For example, if I got the same food and water as everyone else, irregardless of working hours, I would work 1 hour per week, and do it in a casual manner. I know many people who would do the same.

GOVERNMENTS: How will Communism help countries like Pakistan, Libya, Burma, etc who are all under oppressive socialist governments, with enough bullets to shoot anyone who protests? Will those leaders suddenly give up all their power magically?

PRODUCTION: How will Communism ensure efficient production? Who will manage factories, ensure production levels are kept, if there is no leader? Will a worker from Bangledesh get to vote on a community issue for the town of Kansas, and how? Will all 6 billion of humanity have to vote on every issue that arises? Who will count those votes?

LAWS: Who will make the laws and enforce them? Will we leave it to mob rule (ie. lynch people), or complete democracy (ie. if 50.01% of a town decides to kill all Jews, then their wish will be granted)? Who will enforce those laws? Whoever has a gun?

LEADERSHIP: Basic animal and human instincts dictates there to be a leader. Even social groups have a leader. Who will lead Communism? If nobody leads Communism, then who will distribute the food? (don't tell me "The People", tell me WHO. The butcher? The baker?) And what will prevent them from corruption?

What if somebody forms their own city, and starts enslaving members of other cities? Don't tell me "it will never happen", because anything can happen.

SUPPLY NETWORKS: How will supply networks and distribution be formed? How do we determine the demand for certain products in certain regions? Who will coordinate and organise the distribution of bread/water to regions? What will ensure they do not take a bit more food for themselves?

And if we just say "the people will do this", then does this mean I have to walk 90 miles every morning to get my food? There isnt any farms nearby, so somebody has to deliver my food for me. But if they have to deliver my food, what stops them from taking more food for themselves? Again, don't say "Communism will cast a magic spell that removes greed from humanity". If it can be done, it WILL BE DONE. (just ask your local neo-Nazi)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Okay, one by one. I don't pretend to have the only communist answers to these questions, just possible ones that I believe best and are open to improvement.

HUMANITY - Well there's two bits in there to be answered, greed and laziness. IMO, human's are born as a blank slate, the only primal instinct being survival. In a capitalist system and ones previous to it, greed was a neccesary part of survival. However, under communism, greed is no longer neccesary for survival, due to the fair distribution of wealth, rather than the polarisation of wealth. If it is no longer neccesary, it would, again IMO, fade out over time.
As for laziness, workplaces would be democratised. That is, rather than a boss saying who works too little, it would be the workers themselves. As the laziness of ones damages the other workers, they could bring him up for not working hard enough. If he persists, they could vote for his removal. Therefore everyone would be encouraged by each other to work as hard as is needed.
As with many things, I cannot give evidence to support my opinions as the conditions in which to test them, socialism, have never been brought about.

Governments - In a Marxist view of history, capitalism follows feudalism, as communism will follow capitalism. However, unlike previous progressions of historical era, which have been elite led, this will be worker led. Thus, while individual countries previously could progress alone, as there was tight control by elites to maintain stability, this is not the case with the communist progression. Thus this revolution cannot occur on a country level, or tight controls must exist, leading to hell holes like NK. The communist progression MUST, if it is to be succesful, worldwide.
So, firstly all countries must be capitalist if there is to be a worldwide progression to communism. Thus countries like the ones you suggested, and many more, must become fully capitalist before the progression can occur.
And also, in my opinion, as well as being capitalist, these nations must for some time be liberal nations. If not, the citizens of these nations will not have experienced the rights and freedoms that should exist under real communism. And if they havn't, it is too easy for oppurtunists to become dictatorships in these countries, as the populace cannot tell the difference.

PRODUCTION - Within the workplace the workers will have the power to elect, and recall, managers. These people will work to ensure such things. If they abuse their power, the workers can recall at any time the manager. This is not creating a hiearchy in society, as the managers are under the control of the workers. Nor is the manager beneath the worker, as they have put themselves forward for the position. This also has the benefit of people putting themselves forward for such jobs because they enjoy the work or the challenge, rather than simply doing it for the money. This COULD be of benefit in many areas, as if you do it for the enjoyment, you are more likely to put more effort in, rather than doing as little as you can for the money you get.
A Bangladeshi worker may vote on decisions that affect a Kansas worker in the same industry if for example they were deciding on the CEO of their industry. If, and some communists are against this, there is a world council, forum not government style, that argues the best courses of action for humanity (any decisions to be ratified by referendum, and delegates permanently subject to recall) there may also voting in one region of the world that affects another.

LAWS - This is also another sticking point between communists. I believe that we would need a period where laws are still around, at least until this utopian dream starts becoming reality. These laws would be formed by an elected local council (the public would be free to engage in the arguments of its formation), ratified by referendum, enforced by council appointed and locally ratified, militias, led by an elected sheriff/mayor. Laws will be interpreted by elected judges. Rulings could be overturned by a qualified majority of the public.

Thats one way of doing it, and I made that up in five minutes from previous ideas I've encountered.

As for guns, I personally believe that anyone that isn't a criminal or insane, should be allowed a gun, following a six month course at a gun club to train them in the weapons use. This prevents any oppurtunists deciding that they are going to re-establish a heiarchy against the will of the people, as they can revolt.

LEADERSHIP - IMO there is no need for there to be a 'leader', after about 1820 and prior to Churchill, Britain had no single leader and was lead by a cabinet government of about 20 people. Prominent figures did emerge, such as Disraeli, but this was not for their leadership, rather their charisma, intelligence and the policies of the government of the time. It was only after WWII that the PM really became the focus of government. The same can be said for the US, it was only from Roosevelts expansion of the White House and the Presidents duties that the Presidential office truely overtook Congress.
However, I still havn't said there is no leadership, and I agree to an extent, there should be some leadership of sorts. This would be the most intelligent people of society being elected to councils, in order for them to publicly debate with each other the best ways in which things should be done. However, before they can enact there plans the plans would require the mandate of the public through a referendum. Therefore there is some leadership, in that the most intelligent people, after being elected, can put forward their views to society, and its scrutiny.

If someone decided to establish their own city outside of the communist sphere, thats fine, as long as they aren't planting themselves ontop of something essential like an oil supply. But I doubt any workers would go with them voluntarily, because why would they work for someone else in a different system, where you get less for your work, when they can work for themself under the communist sphere. If however they decided to kidnap people to put into slavery, once this was recognised the councils from each area could co-ordinate their militias against the new city.

DISTRIBUTION - I've seperated this because it is such a big part of the new system. Again, this is only one way of doing things, the one I agree with at the moment. One way is the voucher system. Replacing money, the vouchers allow people choice over what they want for the work they have done, while preventing the accumulation of wealth into the hands of individuals or minorities. This is because the vouchers will be dated, and if not used in time become invalid. The vouchers could be divided into essentials, such as food and clothes vouchers, plus luxuries vouchers for less important things to living but still important to life, such as computer games or extra food for when you have parties. These vouchers would be handed in at main supermarket type areas for the goods you wanted.

That system has been suggested for ages now, and has flaws, but these can be remedied by technology. So instead of using vouchers, dated credits could be put onto a credit card. This prevents people stealing vouchers. To get the credits you could swipe the card through a machine that will only provide one set of fresh credits per day or per week to each card.

Supply Network - As with the workplace, people could be elected from each workplace and each district ward to ensure each industry provided for its workers and each town could co-ordinate with each other on the maintenance of the infrastructure neccesary for distribution.
As for people taking something on the side for themself, this would be prevented in the same way it is now, policing, but by the electorally accountable militias, rather than government controlled police that work for the government rather than the people. As well as measures internal to the industries, as there is now, such as checking the stock before it leaves the depot and ensuring it all ends up at the destination.

The last possible flaw you wanted to know about is something that can and does happen under capitalism, so I don't see why it is brought up as a flaw of communism.