NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something I have been working on for fun, I am not looking to defend my position, but rather looking at how to better improve the constitution.

All items, physical, intellectual, or otherwise owned by the people shall be provided by the government which in turn has bought said items from corporations. People shall not be issued currency, only corporations.

With regards to international trade, a company may export their product with at least 30% tariffs as not to allow people in the nation to be subjected to slave labor. Items wished to be purchased out of the nation from a person within the nation must be approved by the government in less than 3 hrs. People visiting the nation, who must have a visitors visa, may buy products with out working and shall be issued person specific currency, as not to allow people living in the nation to have a currency, that has equal value to the currency the person entering the nation has with him/her.

At least 3% of the market must be taken up by "arts" jobs. People may request transfers from their current employer to another or from their line of work to another. The request must be accepted by the government at least 20% of the time that you ask. A person may only ask to change employer/profession once a year. A person can have their profession changed by the government every three years. The persons making the decisions with regards to job change cannot be those whom are employing you.

If you wish to start your own corporation, you must pass through a government process to deem you fit to manage a business, and if the business could benefit the economy. Those who wish to start a corporation shall have all necessary products to start said corporation. Those who cannot work because of mental defect or physical defect shall be given sleeping and living quarters and food equivalent to that of the average standard of living of the population. The average standard of living being defined as the average size of a house in feet squared, and the average disposable income. If they have worked in the past shall be able to retain all of their possessions. People who refuse to work shall be given food and food alone, and if they have worked in the past, all of their possessions shall be repossessed by the government. After an age to be defined by law, you are no longer required to work. The government shall review your health, mental or otherwise, in the form of a trial, to determine weather you can work or not. During the time that you are being reviewed by the government, none of your possessions may be repossessed.

The more productive you are at work the higher quality, and higher quantity of items you can request the government to issue you. Productivity defined by the government, not you employer. This does not necessarily mean that the quantity of work does or does not play a factor in the government supplied items. The government cannot reassign more than 1/500 of the population a month, however regional government may, regional government being defined as the governors, elected, in the time allotted by, the people to be determined by regional law and the regional senate of three to be elected, in the time allotted by, by the people to be determined by regional law.


The market must be taken up by 40% small businesses, a small business being defined as a company that holds less than or equal to 1/1000th of the market. The market being defined as all trade. A single market being defined as one specific area of trade. No one company can dominate a single market. A single market must consist of two or more large businesses. The government must buy, for the people, from every corporation. The government must tax all products bought by no less than 25%.

The previous six paragraphs, because they have to do with the economy which is constantly in flux, is to be opened to revision every five years, any revisions suggested must have the majority of hose votes, must be approved by the council and must be ratified by the people.

The governor, with the approval of the senate, will appoint advisors to assist in the running of the region. Free education shall be provided for people up through the age of 22, and shall be considered a job where productivity is measured by the quality of work done. Education after the age of 22 can be either given to you by the government after a review process, or may be bought. The government cannot censor any information provided through education.

The government will be made up of a ruling council of three and three houses of representatives. The three houses of representatives and the ruling council shall be elected by the people with members of the council being at least 32 and being a citizen from birth, and members of each of the houses being at least 25 and being a citizen for at least nine years. Three people from each region of the nation shall be elected by the people every year, one for each House of Representatives, and a national popular vote will decide the election of the ruling council every year. You can run for either the council or the houses as many times as you like. If, for any reason, a person is not able to fulfill his or her time in office, the empty slot is to be filled through elections, and the person filling in shall remain in office for the duration of the term served.

After voting on a subject, each house will have one vote, based on how the representatives voted, in weather the subject is passed, if the majority of the house votes are for passing a subject, the subject is passed to the council for approval. The ruling council of three may veto this majority vote. The councils veto may be overturned if the house votes are unanimous to overturn. Any proposal that is to be voted on by the three houses must be proposed by a member of one of the houses and seconded by two members of each house, before going to vote.

The council of three will appoint, with the consent of the houses, advisors to assist in running the nation. A proposal must be pertaining to that of law, and not the enforcement of. The enforcement and implementation of the laws, and nothing more, is vested in judges to be voted in by regions as to be defined by regional law.

For issues pertaining to the entire nation, the issue and argument shall be brought before a high court panel of judges to be elected by each region the judge represents. Each judge represents a region of the nation. The ruling council decides any foreign and internal affairs once permission is given to them to decide by the houses. Any issue pertaining to this document must be reviewed and judgment passed by a panel of 15 judges to be voted in by the people every 8 years. This document may be revised if first, the three house votes are unanimously in favor of suggested revision, revision must be proposed by a member of one of the houses and seconded by five members of each house, then, the council votes are unanimously in favor of suggested revision, and then the people vote 2/3 in favor of the suggested revision.

There is to be a separate entity from the state for the carrying out of the law. This entity shall respect the laws of the government, but will carry them out to their own satisfaction. The court system is to be part of the government. This separate entity, the law enforcement, cannot have any ties to the government whatsoever. There is to be a ruling council of three for law enforcement. The military may not act as any kind of law enforcement. Law enforcement can act without the permission of the government, and can ignore government requests. The prison system is part of the government, no the law enforcement.

A court system shall be constructed that is as follows. Each city and region shall have its own court system that is to deal only with issues and specific laws pertaining to that city or region. The nation shall have a court that is to only deal with issues and specific laws pertaining to the entire nation. The high court shall exist to try cases that require an interpretation of the law.

With regards to children's labor: any child wanting to start a small business that requires less than 10 hours of labor a week is allowed as long as local government is notified. Once a child is 16 he or she is able to work 25 hrs a week is their own business or for another business. A child who creates their own business may sell their products or their effort in return for objects, or may do so in order to get work experience. A child who is working for someone else will be given items from the government depending on how productive they are.

The ability of any person living in the nation to express his or her thoughts in any form shall not be denied.

No free person can be discriminated against by the government for any reason and the government cannot endorse any such discrimination, free being any person who has not been convicted of a high crime, a high crime being defined by law.

No law or governmental act shall respect nor prohibit any established religion.

Any person living in the nation has a right to privacy, privacy being open to interpretation of the high court.

Anyone facing criminal prosecution must be convicted by a jury to be randomly selected from the population.

Anyone can protect their possessions and their self.

A parent, no matter any orientation, religious or otherwise, must do what is in the best interest of their child's health, physical or otherwise.

The slavery of humans is illegal.

The government has an obligation to protect any people with in the borders of the nation.

The government is not to prohibit anything or any action that does not affect anybody but the adults that consent to be a member to whatever actions they might wish to participate in.

An adult is any person over the age of 25.

I know one thing that'll really help it out. Paragraphs. ;)

MY EYES!!!!!!!

*convulses*

I know, but I was going to break it up after it was basicly done, because that way I would not be hunting around from paragraph to paragraph lookiung for things, I don;t know about you, but one large mass is easyer for me to process.

Other than your lack of paragraphs, your little article is flawed from the start.


There is no form of a state in Communism; its a classless, moneyless, stateless and borderless society. Its more apprioate to call it, from what I read, emphasis on the state it being a State "Socialist" society; or better yet, just a crappy state-capitalist regime.

Jeez, read Marx.

know, but I was going to break it up after it was basicly done, because that way I would not be hunting around from paragraph to paragraph lookiung for things, I don;t know about you, but one large mass is easyer for me to process.

That makes one of us. :eek:

I know one thing that'll really help it out. Paragraphs. ;)
Seconded.

I do a lot of reading, but I'm going to admit something. I didn't read any of that constitution.

Firstly, the big massive block of text is not only discouraging (because it simply looks like way more text than it really is, the eye tricks the mind).

But also, many people, usually subconciously, to some extent, are "power readers" in that they have a tendency to skip over words, and sometimes entire lines and still do an excellent job of getting the gist of what is being said.

Personally, this is what I usually do. Skim through and get the gist, then go back and look at specifics that stood out to me. Skimming gives me the opportunity to see what glares out as a major strong point or weak point. If I can see this more quickly, I can more quickly focus my criticisms (positive and negative) so that you can get a more effecient, quick, and accurate assessment of the quality of your constitution.

So in summary, I'll reread it after you have tea with my friend, the paragraph.

Other than your lack of paragraphs, your little article is flawed from the start.


There is no form of a state in Communism; its a classless, moneyless, stateless and borderless society. Its more apprioate to call it, from what I read, emphasis on the state it being a State "Socialist" society; or better yet, just a crappy state-capitalist regime.

Jeez, read Marx.

Maybe it should be less important to focus on the title, and more important to actually focus on the text.

Marx, just like America's founding fathers, wrote their ideas down a couple centuries ago. America has clearly evolved since then, and if some of the basic ideas of communism are retained in the presented constitution, I see no problem calling it a constitution for a hypothetical communist state.

I have read marx, and I know that it is not the only form of communism, it is just what people first think of when ever the word communism is used. As long as something follows the basic everybody works for the common good, then it is a communism. Look at root words commun, community... A community works together to better its self. I digress....

a) The definition of freedom of speech has not "moved on" although it may have been written down a long time ago. Same goes for "communism".
Rightwingers use "Communism" as their evil adversary because of totalitarian states that called themselves "Socialist" (they didn't say communist because they knew that wasn't it)

b) You're defining a socialist state ie a state in which the property has been abolished and so on. Over time, some socialist societies will be lucky enough to advance to communism and abolish pretty much all form of government.

c) Commune is the root of the word, yes. But it doesn't give you a replacement definition for the word "communist" as a description of a society.

Other than your lack of paragraphs, your little article is flawed from the start.


There is no form of a state in Communism; its a classless, moneyless, stateless and borderless society. Its more apprioate to call it, from what I read, emphasis on the state it being a State "Socialist" society; or better yet, just a crappy state-capitalist regime.

Jeez, read Marx.
Maybe you're the one who should brush up on their Marx. Immediately after the revolution, a "dictatorship of the proletariat" will be established in order to best facilitate a transition to the situation you describe in your post. Therefore, a description of state apparatus serves to describe the transition time between capitalism and the classless society, Communism's endgoal.

I'm not going to read the essay until it has paragraph breaks. It's too much on my eyes.

Still waiting for paragraphs here too.

I know you don't want people to comment on your "views" but instead on how you can make your manifesto better....so I'll meet you halfway. I'll tell you how to make your economic ideology better! :D

No, seriously, I want you to consider this single point concerning tariffs. In theory, it would seem like tariffs are a good deal. Especially when the word "protective" is put in front of it. I hate to break it to you, but tariffs are one of the most harmful factors in an economic structure. Why, you may ask? I'll be brief (if you want more info ask). It denies the populace access to cheaper goods, and it does not engender one's country to the profitable markets of other countries (a huge source of possible capital = prosperity for people). A perfect example of the destructive nature of tariffs would be Korea. In the post Vietnam War Era, North and South Korea took drastically different paths. North Korea went to a high tariff command economy (much as you ascribe to--this has nothing to do with politics, rather economic philosophy). South Korea, on the other hand, quickly became one of the most free market (low tariff) economy in the world. Most people thought that S Korea would fall way behind N Korea economically, but ironically it was the other way around. S Korea grew to be an economic power, and nowadays has an economy that rivals many European countries. N Korea, on the other hand, is shrinking economically. Now, of course, this is partially due to the ridiculous dictatorship government, but mostly due to economic constraint.

Take a lesson in the book of history. Abolish tariffs.

Looks like another post that wouldn't be hurt by maybe a couple more paragraph breaks...

Looks like another post that wouldn't be hurt by maybe a couple more paragraph breaks...

Hey, I was on a roll!

:p

...but on topic...

Here's why tarriffs are a good idea in a state attempting to achieve a state of communism (note that I used the word "state" in two different fashions above).

While capitalism is competitive in nature and is strengthened by the competition, better goods produced more effeciently and cheaper, therefore bringing stronger competitors to the top, allowing them to have more resources to spread their company larger and serve a large portion of the public with what has already won in a smaller, more concentrated area...the fact of the matter is, and this is the ugly, undeniable part of capitalism, which may or may not negate it's positive aspects, depending on your personal opinion, is that there's the little guy in the background getting squashed.

With communism, or socialism, or whatever you choose to call it, compitition is not necessary. In fact, competitions doesn't even have a place. The goal and the focus of communism/socialism is that everyone may be included, and that everyone has a share in everything.

Okay, imagine if every single person in the shoe industry had the exact same control, rights, responsibilities, and possibilities to earn income on every brand of shoe. In that instance, there wouldn't really be any competition, because no matter how many of any particular shoe from any individual company is sold, it doesn't really matter, because it's as if all the companies were one.

Now, the same thing is basically the case for communism. Now, any one familiar with capitalism says "Whoa, what about monopolies." Well, in communism, monopolies don't make sense either because everyone has an equal share of ownership in absolutely everything. If a monopoly on shoes existed in communism, the entire populace would walk around shoeless because the entire populace decided to abuse their monopoly on the shoe industry and screw themselves.

However, tarriffs still don't really make sense once this ideal state has been achieved because the state should be essentially self-sufficient. Before the time that the state becomes self-sufficient however, the tarriffs give the state an opportunity to be weened off the global capitalism of the rest of the world, allowing them to be isolated and have an opportunity for the sense of community to build itself.

1....is that there's the little guy in the background getting squashed.

2.With communism, or socialism, or whatever you choose to call it, compitition is not necessary.

3. However, tarriffs still don't really make sense once this ideal state has been achieved because the state should be essentially self-sufficient. Before the time that the state becomes self-sufficient however, the tarriffs give the state an opportunity to be weened off the global capitalism of the rest of the world, allowing them to be isolated and have an opportunity for the sense of community to build itself.
1. I agree with that.
2. There is a very important difference, that you shouldn't forget.
3. Why would the state suddenly become self-sufficient? There are geographical reasons for why it can't be for example. In the GDR, they didn't have Bananas.
"Weened off" global capitalism is not a good way of saying it, nor is it possible really. These days (as it was in 1917), the only way a communist society can exist is when all other nations are communist as well.

This thing needs some old fashioned communist fiery rhetoric and heady idealism.
The employment portion reads a lot like a personnel handbook.
Constitutions need to be about broad, big picture structuring based in ideals that should be upheld and valued (i.e NOT the EU doorstop that French elitist eurocrat wrote).

And I'm not trying to run you down. You clearly put a lot of thought and work into it.

...NOT the EU doorstop that French elitist eurocrat wrote...
Suck it up, will you.

1. I agree with that.
2. There is a very important difference, that you shouldn't forget.
3. Why would the state suddenly become self-sufficient? There are geographical reasons for why it can't be for example. In the GDR, they didn't have Bananas.
"Weened off" global capitalism is not a good way of saying it, nor is it possible really. These days (as it was in 1917), the only way a communist society can exist is when all other nations are communist as well.
Well, I hope we can keep this a diplomatic discussion...and if we can, I'll be more than happy to discuss this with you...

1. Good.
2. I know there is a difference, but I'm talking about leftist forms of government that are trying to move toward ideal communism...just couldn't really think of a superb way of appropriately communicating that...

3. The state would not "suddenly" become self-sufficient, but I believe that is necessary (and possible) for a true communist "state" to exist. And I use the term "state" loosely, because in my opinion, once ideal communism has been reached, it's really a state-less society, right? Like an extremely organized form of anarchy almost. I don't know whether the appropriateness of the phrase "weened off" is worth discussing, but it got the point across. Also, it is possible, hence the tarriffs. If the companies within the country do not have to compete with global companies and do not have global competition, it is much easier to incorporate the global feeling.

4. Lastly, and I'm splitting this to point 4, to say that the only way a communist society can exist is if all nations are communist is a mis-statement. The only way a communist nation can exist is if it removes itself from global capitalism. There are plenty of small communist societies within the United States (called by most as "communes"), some of which are even exempt from any/all taxes and are mostly self-sufficient. If communism is to exist, it must be on a small scale and the members of that community must take the necessary effort to not allow global communism to compete with what the community can provide itself with.

And this point is just an add on that goes with both points 3 and 4. Concerning your statement about geographic restrictions...I'm not sure that bananas are absolutely vital to the success of a community, however, if there are any important resources that a community determines it can not produce yet needs to have in order to sustain itself, it could make the effort to produce one of their products (that another community can not produce) and trade for the product that it does need, but this would be done on an extremely small scale and only for necessities.

The point of communism is not to make everyone be able to live rich luxurious lives like the AVERAGE American lives...but to make sure that everyone is fed and everyone has tolerable living conditions. The wealth is more spread out. Imagine dividing Bill Gates' fortune between every person on the African continent. None of them would be very wealthy, but they would all be able to afford living conditions that allowed them to at least attempt living a more healthy life.

Well, communism and socialism are really good ideals. After all the idea is that everyone is taken care of and once that has been accomplished, excess can be used in the most societally effective manner. State-controlled industry only has the problems associated with government(which can be extreme or minor based on the ability of the governing forces). The idea that an economy can be self-sufficient is very simple because all that is needed is enough material to maintain the lives of the people. However, I do think that any pure system of socialism can not exist due to the natural differences in human ability and the natural greed. Ultimately a working socialist government will have to be like a working capitalist government in the fact they are both mixed economies.

But there ARE working communist societies. They're very small scale. And there is no government.

Think of communism not as a government, but what the word implies: a community. Everyone in the community that you work with and share the products with are all people you become very close with. Do you have elections and political parties within your family, or neighborhood, or amongst a group of friends? No...everything works out because everyone is concerned with everyone else's well-being. There's no room for greed. If a greedy person can not learn to treat himself as being equalt to everyone else, then the small society he lives in will put more and more pressure on him to either understand what his share is and is not, or to leave.

And he would have enough understanding to know that working and recieving an equal share is significantly less work than having to fend for himself entirely on his own...

Communism is an economic system. It does stress the group over the individual to a certain extent(they do have to get along as a society). It is sort of stupid that it is seen as a government when it is not a government at all.

1. I agree with that.
2. There is a very important difference, that you shouldn't forget.
3. Why would the state suddenly become self-sufficient? There are geographical reasons for why it can't be for example. In the GDR, they didn't have Bananas.
"Weened off" global capitalism is not a good way of saying it, nor is it possible really. These days (as it was in 1917), the only way a communist society can exist is when all other nations are communist as well.

China was self-sufficient for a while. It's why Britian absolutely had to kill it, they were losing their economic stability to the fact that money went into China and never came out.

Money doesn't need to go into a society attempting to achieve communism...it'd start turning itself into capitalism (like China is doing, sort of)

Ok, there have only been communist societys to a very small extent, the largest being the mid west of america during the depression. However, for an entire country to be communist there has to be a government, because you are not going to be close friends with that many people and it would be really easy to abuse the system. Therefore, a government that is a republic that enforces a communist economy, because as Holyawesomeness said communism is an economy, you would be able to have a communism. The purpose of communism is to take the rich ruling class and allow everyone to acheve that. Not make everyone equal, otherwise nobody would want to work. Private property is still needed for privacy and to make sure someone just does not go out and claim everything in the nation for himself. therefore, to enforce a communism you need a strong governernment that controls the economy greatly. Either that or anarchy, which does not work. Anyway, where was I... Tariffs, they are needed, because otherwise all that happens is a company sets up in the nation and exports everything and uses the population for slave labor, so tariffs are nessicary. However products comming in, tariffs are to be set by law. I know this reads alot like a manual, but it has to to make sure the government creats a communism, and not a capitalism.

I'd really like to read what you have to say...so please, please, please make paragraphs?

Still waiting for paragraphs here too.
Seconded. It's unreadable right now.

a)Well, I hope we can keep this a diplomatic discussion...and if we can, I'll be more than happy to discuss this with you...

b) The state would not "suddenly" become self-sufficient, but I believe that is necessary (and possible) for a true communist "state" to exist. And I use the term "state" loosely, because in my opinion, once ideal communism has been reached, it's really a state-less society, right?

c) If communism is to exist, it must be on a small scale and the members of that community must take the necessary effort to not allow global capitalism to compete with what the community can provide itself with.

d)...I'm not sure that bananas are absolutely vital to the success of a community, however, if there are any important resources that a community determines it can not produce yet needs to have in order to sustain itself, it could make the effort to produce one of their products (that another community can not produce) and trade for the product that it does need, but this would be done on an extremely small scale and only for necessities.
a) I am a social democrat (SPD - Germany) and an Economics student. I can very much understand where you're coming from, for there was once a time when I was a "communist" myself. So yes, I'll be up for civilised discussions, I always am.
You might also like this thread of mine:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429643
=======================
b) Indeed, communism is a stateless society. But wouldn't a small society (called "state" or not) living among capitalist nations be a state and have group interests that must be defended against outside interests? Wouldn't that contradict statelessness?
=======================
c) I assume you meant to write capitalism there. A community can never provide itself with everything, unless it includes the entire planet.
The problem is the inherent inefficiencies that occur when private property is redistributed (that will always exist, no matter how well you plan it), and the fact that you have to distribute/plan everything that happens in the economy (which is inefficient as well, as proven mathematically by Hayek) will lead to a lower standard of living - collectively.
And that is where people do compete (in their minds at least) with capitalist outsiders, and probably come to the conclusion that they'd rather live somewhere else. And you end up building a wall.
=======================
d) Social Justice is difficult to define and argue about. For me it is a major factor of why I think the way I do, but nonetheless, I will not bring it up.
A good factor is Utility. It is obvious that $100 in the hands of Bill Gates is less good to society (as he derives less happiness from it) than $100 in the hands of a starving African child (ignoring exchange rates and pruchasing power). So redistirbution from the rich to the poor increases the total Utility in society.
So do Bananas. If your goal is to increase total utility, then you cannot afford not to have bananas, because those will also increase total utility. The very fact that you will go without certain goods in favour of others (as all socialist states had to do so far) is contrary then to the goal they set out to achieve.
=======================
And your last point sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm". If you haven't read it, please do - it is one of the most moving, most biting and yet deep pieces of writing I have ever laid my eyes on.
=======================
And you have reached there the core of it. Trade increases utility for both sides. It is proven, it is simple (just check "comparative advantage" in google). And it is why it isn't beneficial for anyone to segregate themselves/be weened off from global trade.

China was self-sufficient for a while. It's why Britian absolutely had to kill it, they were losing their economic stability to the fact that money went into China and never came out.
Yes, but that was another time, another world. Today it's not that simple anymore.

Hmm...as much as I'd like to discuss this...can we split the argument up? Everytime any long argument is made, it is split up into section by the person responding, and those sections get bigger and bigger, and then those sections get broken up and get bigger and bigger...and then it's all one big mess...

So, please tell me which point you'd like to focus on first, and we'll look at that one, then come back to another point.

EDIT: And actually, I've read Animal Farm twice.

-snip-
c) and d) are probably the most pressing points.
So the first question is:
There are inherent inefficiencies in a planned economy. Yet planning is necessary because everyone needs to get stuff "according to his needs". Planning those needs for an entire economy is a huge task, while a market solves this problem by itself. That makes it impossible to move towards communism, for these negative effects are greater than the positives achieved through redistribution. Yes or No?

Secondly:
If a non-global communist society would exist, why would people prefer to live in it, when there are better-performing (see above) capitalist economies around, and when certain goods can only be attained outside of this communist society?

Hmmm, but it would probably be best if we just go through each others' posts one point after the other. Sure they might become a bit long, but that's not a problem, is it?

Look, new improved and with paragraphs!

also, I was thinking of deviding up the economics section from the government section and explicitly stateing that it had to be updated every five years and ratifyed by the people, think that is a good idea?

Look, new improved and with paragraphs!

also, I was thinking of deviding up the economics section from the government section and explicitly stateing that it had to be updated every five years and ratifyed by the people, think that is a good idea?
Cool. Paragraphs. If my eyes didn't already hurt from being at work for so long and being at computer playing a game for so long, I'd look at it tonight, but never fear, I'll look at it tomorrow.

Now, back to my other discussion...and I'll reitirate that I'm pretty worn out...and right now I don't feel like I comprehend what you're saying...but it's the kind of lack of understand like getting to the end of the sentence and forgetting what I was reading...but basically, let me explain my idea of how small communist societies can/do work and the appeal of them.

Can we try keeping in mind that in reality, I'm not an advocate of communism...

By the way, small communist societies can exist today, because the Amish basically have a communist lifestyle. When I think of a functional communist society, I think of a couple things. First, small scale. Second, agriculture.

Once you've got the start up (at least one horse, but two is a better idea, so you can breed them, probably chickens are a good idea for getting meat/eggs, a couple [so you can breed them] goats for milk, cows are tough to deal with, then enough seeds to start up a plentiful garden, and a plow, as weell as some tools for constructing dwellings and such) and the agricultural/carpenter/medical know-how within your group, all you really need is land.

Get a plot of land with trees on it to use for constructing dwellings as well as storehouses, and to build fences with...plant you garden, fence your animals, etc. Easily, within 5 years, you can be completely self-sufficient. And the thing of it is, as more humans are bred into the group, you have more hands to help with the work. You just have to make sure you're keeping enough seeds off plants and breeding the animals enough to keep up...and make sure you don't run out of land.

Basically, you build the type of society like in "The Village."

It will be most difficult for the very first generation, the colonists if you will. But after that, once they've had children, they'll bring their children up in that society and those children will understand how to live and function in that sort of society, because they won't know any other way to live.

...By the way, small communist societies can exist today, because the Amish basically have a communist lifestyle. When I think of a functional communist society, I think of a couple things. First, small scale. Second, agriculture...
So you are proposing an agriculture as society?
Wouldn't that hamper opportunities for future growth and technological advancement as a whole?

So you are proposing an agriculture as society?
Wouldn't that hamper opportunities for future growth and technological advancement as a whole?
Yes. Yes.

It's the trade off. In my opinion, if communism can really work, it has to be an agricultural society. However, future growth and technological advancement isn't really that important.

It's why I'm not a communist...because despite the fact that I'm pretty convinced communism can work...I also understand how it would work...

Ummm.. agriculture, though good, and the only place communism has existed, is not really what a large nation can be based on. The largest communism was the mid west during the depression, but, we need to look bigger and at survival on the gloabal level, not the city level... now I may be getting this all wrong, please, correct me if I am.

In my mind...cities don't even exist in communism. They can't exist...really...

What do people in cities produce that could possibly benefit the producers in the farms? In capitalism, there is currency, and the urban folks can trade that currency to the farmers in exchance for food...but for communism to really, really work...you need to eliminate currency...and if you're having farmers still trying to trade to city dwellers, that's where the corruption comes and that's how communism falls apart.

Thats why currency is not in the hands of the people, only corporations, which are closely watched by the government.

Thats why currency is not in the hands of the people, only corporations, which are closely watched by the government.
First off, corporations are run by people. Governments are corruptable. And you still don't explain what the hard-working farmers get in exchange for feeding the city.

First off, corporations are run by people. Governments are corruptable. And you still don't explain what the hard-working farmers get in exchange for feeding the city.
a) Corporations are even more corruptable though.
b) Money. They get money. Apart from the fact that today's farmers in the Western world are essentially capitalists - they own more capital than poor labour from Mexico or Poland.

I know the farmers get money...but in a communist society, that's simply not going to work. The only reason currency has any value is because there is a government to say it has value, and if you're going to phase out government (and that's part of moving to communism), you have to phase out currency.

-snip-
You and me seem to have a very different opinion of what communism is.
Marx didn't want to give up the means of production, he just wanted to redistribute them.
You're proposing to move back into a farming community like it was about 6000 years ago.
It's equality, but it isn't a viable form of society...especially if high-tech nations surround you. People would wanna leave.

Ok, the government will still exist, unblogged, I am not quite sure where you are turning this, but it is not in the direction where I am thinking. Governments are corruptable and so is everything, you can't have some system that is not corruptable. It will not be a farming community, it will be a world power. That interacts with the world.

It will not be a farming community, it will be a world power. That interacts with the world.
Then you can either be a Social Democracy, and let markets do most of the distribution - intervening in the market to establish equality,
or fail. A Planned economy cannot compete with a free market economy on any level other than equality - and even that only on a generally lower level. I've seen the cold, hard numbers. They cannot be argued against.

Unblogged, i understand what you are saying. i think you (not Unblogged) are ignoring the basic "qualifications" that make up communism.

you simpily can not be a communist world power. the only way communism can exist is in an agricultural society, because that is the only way in which currency can be abolished, the society can be self sufficient, and how the "wealth" can be distributed evenly without a soild government.

I think Communism can only exist in a very advanced society( far more advanced then ours) only then can the technology exist to support an wealthy equal society. Socialism can work in a moderatly advanced society and capitialism works in our primative society.

Ok, this is an appempt to make a communism outside of a farming community, so telling me that it can only work in a farming community is counter productive. It attempts to abolish currency, but only does so to the corporation, rather than the individual level. It basicly says that the government controls all money to a certain degree and fewer entitys have money.

Bump, and I reedited the constitution.