Society without property?

Wouldn't something have to take place in order to make citizens care for other citizens equally?
Let me explain.
I don't think there has been a society in history where someone would (with all other factors other than relationship being equal) care equally for a stranger who they had nothing in common with, then for a stranger who shared their culture, than for a stranger who shared their culture and nation, then for a stranger who shared those 2 things and lived in their community, than for someone who shared those 3 things and they had met, than for someone they had met and had liked, than for a distant family member or close friend, than a close family member.Say you live in a world commune and for some reason enough of some resource wasn't produced for the entire population, how would the choice be made as to who gets what?Wouldn't man put more emphasis on providing for themselves and their local community than for some far away community. And that’s not even including the problems of transportation.
I would contend that in order for communism to work the homogenization of not only culture and boarders, but also families, communities, and religions would have to take place. Its human nature to provide more for those with whom we share emotional bonds, even if the need is equal. This would lead to resource inequality, which would start the slippery slope into wealth, trade, capitalism, and the end of communism.
The reason, as people talked about earlier, communism can work in small groups, I believe is because that in these groups:
1. Approximately equal Emotional bonds could be maintained between one citizen and the rest of the community because the group is small enough for these bonds to arise. Where in larger groups, the same level of interaction and familiarity cannot be achieved.
2. Non-vital resources acquired by a small group can be shared by that small group because the group is small enough (geographically) for transportation not to be a problem. In large groups there is no logical way for me to share, say, a spear that can allow for easier hunting with someone that lives 100 miles away from me, much less Nigeria.
3. Vital resources generally don’t exist in amounts that could only support a portion of a small group, there would either be enough food and water, or the group would have to move/find alternative sources. Large groups, however, can and will hurt local ecosystems (over hunting, over harvesting, etc) that otherwise would have been able to support a portion of the group for a very long time.The problem with large scale communism, as I see it, isn't that it couldn't work under ideal conditions, but that doesn't take into account the fact that the our planet contains a limited amount of scarce yet desirable resources, nor can it do a good enough job of dealing with unforeseen circumstances. First, as I showed above, its not purely a communication problem, second even though the internet may reduce communication problems, it does not solve them. The internet does not make it possible for a person to have a relationship with every single person on earth, within a country, or within a large community, at the same level that a small community would.
The only way large scale communism could work is if decisions were not left to humans. Machines would be required in order to make decisions based not on emotions but on numbers.This is bringing out the inner nerd in me but it would require a system like in the movie The Matrix in which machines controlled all real world aspects of human life, and the only way such lives could be fulfilling is if our minds were put into a world like the Matrix, where capitalism would be practiced thus destroying the entire point of communism in the first place.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-14-2005 03:18 AMThis message has been edited by StormWolfx2x, 04-14-2005 01:29 PM

quote:

---

No of course not. The citizens work for their own interests, according to the demand for their services, and rewarded according to their prpoprtional efficiency. Where in this is there any requirement for any one caring for any one else particularly?

---

if they are rewarded for their proportional efficiency who decides what jobs are worth proportionately more? If a human does it, and that human is working for their own interests as you said, what keeps them from making decisions that unequally benefits themselves or their community more than others?
Either greed and selfishness would have to be eliminated, as in a system where computers make the decisions, or, as in a small society, caring and kinsman ship would have to artificially eliminate them in order to keep the effects of greed and selfishness to a minimum.I agree that citizens being awarded according to the demand for their services, and rewarded according to their proportional efficiency. Would be an ideal policy, I just don't see how such a system could work without being corrupted by human interests

quote:

---

Yes of course. So what? I mean, one suitable solution to the alleged problem is simply to provide the good to whoever was willing to pay the most for it, i.e., whoever was willing to carry out the most socially necessary labour(so your from England eh?, ahaha I found out your secret : P) for the rest of us. Thats suitably fair and equitable.

---

That’s acceptable to me. Id say to a large degree that’s how it works today, but what we can both agree on is that that the system that pays "socially necessary labor" isn't entirely fair today.I just can't imagine a communist system that could reward labor effectively unless selfishness and greed were eliminated.The best solution, as I see it, is to reinforce labor unions, and keep them as separate political entities who only purpose is to better the lives of those that they represent, its not perfect, but even labor unions that were notoriously corrupt(like the early teamsters)did a lot to advance the plight of their workers.

quote:

---

Now, a common resposne to that sort of suggestion is "thats capitalism". But its not, becuase there are no owners of capital involved. The idea that communism depends on some special degree of care, or a special mindset, is completely false. Marx specifically denounces any and all such propositions as Utopian.

---

but there are owners of capital, as long as greed, selfishness, and transportation problems exist, a fair, large scale, system that rewards "socially necessary labor" cannot be maintained, what your suggesting is that communities own capital instead of individuals and families, and that does sound plausible to me.

quote:

---

Communism rewards all producers for their production directly and honestly.

---

Ideally yes, and I agree that that would be the best system, but it’s simply not possible on a large scale with human emotional and technological limitations.

quote:

---

But they do not need to. I have pointed out already: Communism does not depend on altruism, or caring, or mutual respect, or anything at all of that nature.

---

Ideally communism would not have to rely on these things, but it must exist in order to keep people that were in positions of power from making selfish decisions. Unless, as I said before, the decisions were not left to man.

quote:

---

And in point of fact, this altruism stuff is not even relevant to primitive communism, as anyone who ahas experienced the bickbiting, gossip and parochialism of small village communities can attest.

---

that because people who live in small communities today do not rely on each other in the same way that primitive communist societies did. Say someone from a small community you live in today goes hunting and kills a moose, in a primitive society there would be no reason not to share the meat with all members if you kept it for yourself it would spoil before you were able to eat it, not only that but your favor would be returned the next time another person obtained food that they would then share with you.
Your analogy is a poor one as your trying to compare a self contained primitive communist society with a modern non contained capitalist one.

correct me if im wrong bu twouldn't this be an arguement against America feeding the world?"the locals can no longer afford to produce their own milk or chickens because the US has such a large oversupply of milk and the dark meat of chickens that we sell it to them at below what it would cost them to produce. The net effect is that the locals are poorer than ever and their country gets into ever deeper debt with foreign banks."could we sell them food for any cheaper than giving them food for free?

"We need to be providing 'self-sufficiency' for people through sustainable agriculture and sensible family planning programs, not simply a meal for today.Religious charities don't help matters because they NEVER counsel for reproductive restraint, which is a critical factor when societies need to stabilize population growth in collapsing ecosystems."So your more for a "teach a man to fish" kinda dealThat has the added benifit of if they spend more time fishing they will spend less time doing another 4 letter F word thats leading to their problems : P/plz don't take that last paragraph seriously it was just a joke : )