# Creating a true Communist setting



## Gryphos (Jun 18, 2015)

As an ardent socialist, I find it strange that up until this point I've never attempted to write a true communist utopian setting. I've decided to see if I can rectify that.

(Note: this isn't a thread to debate the merits of Marxist theory [though I will gladly do that elsewhere], simply one to discuss how one would write a communist setting)

So the basic Marxist theory behind a communist society is that society is based on common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption. There is also no state and no class. It's also characterised by an abundance of material wealth allowing for distribution based on need, meaning people will be able to pursue their own individual goals in life without being forced into labour to survive.

So, creating such a world...

I'm deciding to work with a vaguely middle-eastern aesthetic.

One of the key necessities to create a truly communist society would be the total automation of production. To this end, I'm thinking that there would be magically animated golems who take care of the production for the humans.  As to the necessary abundance, perhaps the society uses alchemy to create very fertile land.

The society obviously wouldn't have any kind of authority or government. So in essence it wouldn't be a nation, rather a collection of small self-sufficient communities. In these communities nothing would be privately owned other than personal belongings like clothes or tools.

While the production of all basic necessities would be handled by the golems, obviously people would be able to partake in any activity they wished, including said production if they so desired. It's from these passionate individuals that you get new inventions, stylish clothes and jewellery. It would then be possible for any member of the community to then request the golems to craft a similar item. Basically, the people invent, and the golems produce.

That's what I have so far. What else should I consider?


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Jun 18, 2015)

Do you mean like co-ops? A good place to start might be to read real accounts from people who have lived in co-ops. 

I don't want to rain on your parade but if the point is to produce a society without division (but you separate the races b/n golem [producers] and humans [inventors]) you're flirting with creating a class system based on race. 

You'll have to be careful with how you portray the golems - perhaps by stressing that they _want_ to be involved in production. If I was reading a book/story like this, (in keeping w the spirit of Communism) I would want to see that the people genuinely respect (perhaps even revere) the golems for their skill and craftsmenship. If this point isn't stressed it might appear that the humans are taking advantage of the golems by making them toil under the sun while the humans get to sit around and invent. Obviously I'm exaggerating here. I have no doubt that you'd be more careful than that but since there are often cultural associations b/n "intellectual" jobs (engineering, inventing, managing) and production (farming, mining, factory work) - you'll have to combat the (presumably UK / US) readers' assumptions which might lead them to conclude that humans are "superior". 

Something I would also want to see is a religious system (even if it's only vague) which can influence the people's moral and ethical codes. IMO the "true communism" will never work (unless the communities were VERY small- close to 20 people would be optimal but absolutely no more than 100 people). But something along the lines of Distributism  might. There will always be "freeloaders" in society - those that look for opportunities to cheat the system (even more so in Capitalist cultures which basically condition you to look for these opportunities) but I think the motivation (and unity) that religion provides would be enough to overcome it. Alternately, social pressure might be enough to put someone back in line but IMO social pressure is weak w/o something to motivate the individual personally (beyond lofty ideals). Of course, plenty real world co-ops operate w/o religion but they're typically much smaller (often 5 or 10 people sharing a house) so unity and cohesion is not an issue. [To put this into perspective- my immediate family is has more than 10 people.] So ... finding a way to eliminate the people's sense of entitlement (the government owes me ... my work is harder so I should get to do less ... my work is more important ... etc.) would be crucial. 

If you choose to go w/o religion as your social glue, perhaps give the individual communities the right to (collectively) accept or reject new members- perhaps have it be included as a rite of passage from adolescence into adulthood. Here they can move from being marginal members to society to full & active contributors. Perhaps have children and young adults rotate as apprentices in every method of labor available in the community. When they reach 16 - 18 the community will be able to assess their work ethic and respond accordingly. You could have anyone unwilling to commit to the communal lifestyle is free to leave if they choose (perhaps another community might practice differently with more or less private ownership). Or perhaps the people that contribute disproportionately less are simply the last in line to take what they need?... IDK.        

I like that you're suggesting that the (villages?) function independently of a governing body. Socialist (and Communist) societies aren't able to function on large scales and the bigger the group, more it fails to achieve its goals. It irks me when authors try to get away with a perfectly functioning government that rules over an area the size of the USSR with the population density of China. It just isn't believable. Not just for the government style in question, for any government. 

If the society is not ENTIRELY isolated, something to consider would be how neighboring societies would react to the "sitting ducks" next door. The Viking invasions of monasteries are a prime example of this. I often tease my siblings that the biggest flaw in Beauty and the Beast is the fact that the prince of France was missing for like 20 years and neither England nor (Germany/Austria/Prussia) invaded. If your society is on an island or is far from the rest of humanity this might be believable but it'd be difficult to imagine this kind of society when international relations are a concern.  So ... this would be something I'd suggest you address. 

If you wanted to, you could take it a step further and have communal tools. The Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa's order) allows you to own a pair of sandals, a few undergarments, (I think they might get their own Bible) and 1 or 2 habits. Oh and a toothbrush. They share EVERYTHING else- even rosaries. And it works for them but (I believe) only because they are united by their religion and sense of duty to the poor that they are serving. If you wanted, you could do a less extreme version of this. Fields, tools, and work spaces could be commonly owned (community property) and perhaps they could get together and vote on any decisions that need to be made. One of the cloistered convents that I was discerning said they spent a month trying to decide what model of washer & dryer to buy for the house (shorter sisters couldn't reach the bottom of top loaders, front loaders take up more room, buttons vs knobs, etc.). Every choice was made as a community and only after extensive discussion and voting. Like pretty much all monastic orders, they rotated position as prioress which basically made you the moderator for discussions and official representative for diocesan, regional or other churchly matters (such as keeping basic communication with some of the other Carmelite homes on the West Coast). 

I'm probably just rambling now so I'll stop. Hope this helped.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Jun 18, 2015)

Based on your political beliefs you've probably already read it but I'll suggest it anyway ... perhaps St Thomas More's _Utopia_ would be of use?

Something I think was unclear in my point above is that co-ops are successful because they are comprised of people who believe in it and are actively willing to adopt the lifestyle. When you take that and project it onto a larger society it becomes less believable (especially as your #s increase). Presumably people are born into the system and did not necessarily choose it for themselves which might influence their dedication to the community if they don't naturally feel a strong connection and sense of duty towards others (the sad truth is that not everyone does).


----------



## Gryphos (Jun 18, 2015)

TheCatholicCrow said:
			
		

> I don't want to rain on your parade but if the point is to produce a society without division (but you separate the races b/n golem [producers] and humans [inventors]) you're flirting with creating a class system based on race.
> 
> You'll have to be careful with how you portray the golems - perhaps by stressing that they want to be involved in production. If I was reading a book/story like this, (in keeping w the spirit of Communism) I would want to see that the people genuinely respect (perhaps even revere) the golems for their skill and craftsmenship. If this point isn't stressed it might appear that the humans are taking advantage of the golems by making them toil under the sun while the humans get to sit around and invent. Obviously I'm exaggerating here. I have no doubt that you'd be more careful than that but since there are often cultural associations b/n "intellectual" jobs (engineering, inventing, managing) and production (farming, mining, factory work) - you'll have to combat the (presumably UK / US) readers' assumptions which might lead them to conclude that humans are "superior".



The way I'm seeing it, they aren't living things in the sense that humans are. They don't feel any emotion or desire, they're just machines which can be 'programmed' to do specific things like harvest crops or build homes. They're essentially just like a primitive AI you'd find in any video game.



> Something I would also want to see is a religious system (even if it's only vague) which can influence the people's moral and ethical codes. IMO the "true communism" will never work (unless the communities were VERY small- close to 20 people would be optimal but absolutely no more than 100 people). But something along the lines of Distributism might. There will always be "freeloaders" in society - those that look for opportunities to cheat the system (even more so in Capitalist cultures which basically condition you to look for these opportunities) but I think the motivation (and unity) that religion provides would be enough to overcome it. Alternately, social pressure might be enough to put someone back in line but IMO it's social pressure is weak w/o something to motivate the individual personally (beyond lofty ideals). Of course, plenty real world co-ops operate w/o religion but they're typically much smaller (often 5 or 10 people sharing a house) so unity and cohesion is not an issue. [To put this into perspective- my immediate family is has more than 10 people.] So ... finding a way to eliminate the people's sense of entitlement (the government owes me ... my work is harder so I should get to do less ... my work is more important ... etc.)



I don't necessarily agree that religion would be necessary, but that's just my own subjective belief, and I am gonna run with it. As to people's sense of entitlement, remember that people in this society wouldn't 'work' at all, as the concept of a 'job' implies a necessity to earn a wage to survive. But here there wouldn't be any money, no wages. People, if they wanted, could do nothing all day, because they wouldn't have to do anything. People could do whatever they wanted for the funnies, be it writing poems or stargazing or knitting.



> I like that you're suggesting that the (villages?) function independently of a governing body. Socialist (and Communist) societies aren't able to function on large scales and the bigger the group, more it fails to achieve its goals. It irks me when authors try to get away with a perfectly functioning government that rules over an area the size of the USSR with the population density of China. It just isn't believable. Not just for the government style in question, for any government.



Very true. This would be entirely localised, communally democratic governance of village communities.



> If the society is not ENTIRELY isolated, something to consider would be how neighboring societies would react to the "sitting ducks" next door. The Viking invasions of monasteries are a prime example of this. I often tease my siblings that the biggest flaw in Beauty and the Beast is the fact that the prince of France was missing for like 20 years and neither England nor (Germany/Austria/Prussia) invaded. If your society is on an island or is far from the rest of humanity this might be believable but it'd be difficult to imagine this kind of society when international relations are a concern. So ... this would be something I'd suggest you address.



I would guess that the society (or societies, as it technically is) would be fairly isolated in the desert. That's not to say there wouldn't be aggressive neighbours. The military of this society would obviously be volunteer based, as it is today, and fairly small, using desert guerrilla tactics.



> If you wanted to, you could take it a step further and have communal tools. The Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa's order) allows you to own a pair of sandals, a few undergarments, (I think they might get their own Bible) and 1 or 2 habits. Oh and a toothbrush. They share EVERYTHING else- even rosaries. And it works for them but (I believe) only because they are united by their religion and sense of duty to the poor that they are serving. If you wanted, you could do a less extreme version of this. Fields, tools, and work spaces could be commonly owned (community property) and perhaps they could get together and vote on any decisions that need to be made. One of the cloistered convents that I was discerning said they spent a month trying to decide what model of washer & dryer to buy for the house (shorter sisters couldn't reach the bottom of top loaders, front loaders take up more room, buttons vs knobs, etc.). Every choice was made as a community and only after extensive discussion and voting. Like pretty much all monastic orders, they rotated position as prioress which basically made you the moderator for discussions and official representative for diocesan, regional or other churchly matters (such as keeping basic communication with some of the other Carmelite homes on the West Coast).



Yeah, this is pretty much what I was thinking. All land would be communally owned, and the only 'possessions' people would actually have would be personal things like tools or clothes. And all decisions that affected the community would be voted upon.


----------



## Russ (Jun 18, 2015)

Depends on your setting. 

Some people suggest that nano-technology will bring us the level of abundance I think you need for your scenario.

You  may want to look at various ideas published about the post labour society.

Sounds like a fascinating project.


----------



## Nagash (Jun 18, 2015)

As a radical-left leaning man (and the gods know my country has few of those in these troubled times), and an enthusiast of the marxist idealism, I do see the appeal in shaping a story based upon the idea of a marxist utopia which haunted the imagination of all these 19th century politicians and thinkers, notably in France, and spawned quite a few works which could be morphed very easily into fantasy and science-fiction. As you pointed it out, the means of production are at the heart of the marxist theory and its analysis of history. Ownership of capital is what shaped dual societies founded on exploitation of the many by the few, and structured the many institutions which compose our lives, and of course our psychism which is forged by a set of ideas and beliefs which stem from system elaborated by the distribution of property. Therefore, achieving a classless society necessarily requires an absolute neutrality of the means of production, which should produce enough for everyone according to each and everyone's needs. The idea of autonomous, thoughtless golems, who benevolently feed the masses and provide for their need seems to fit the idea of an uncontrollable source of good for the benefit of the society as a whole. There is, in the Marxist idealism, a desire to create a celestial manna which would allow Man to live without the anguish of survival forcing him to work. If these golems provide food, goods or what have you, like the rivers provide water and the trees offer shade when the heat is unbearable, I believe you can indeed create a marxist utopia.

Now, there is another thing one has to take into account, especially after the many failed experiences of the past centuries at creating havens of freedom and equality based upon marxist idealism. Would you consider your utopia always existed, or is it the teleological evolution of a human society once built upon the capitalist beliefs as a whole, ownership, hierarchy among men, etc ? I find this to be an interesting matter to reflect upon, since the utopian nature of the marxist dream is mainly due to the human mindset and social beliefs carved by centuries of inegalitarian systems, which often makes Men fiercely incompatible with the marxist system and its beliefs, for it is a foreign entity to everything he believes. Of course, you can postulate than man can be re-educated, recreated (which is a fairly slippery road if the 20th century is any indication) in order to correspond to this society, but either way, its something you should think about addressing if you're intending to imagine a world _before_ the utopia. What were Men like ? What did they believe in ? How did they abandon their old way of life, the beliefs that went with it ? Where did the golems came from ? Why didn't anyone try to own the golems if a capitalist mindset existed prior to their apparition ? Did faith had a role to play in this (i'm fascinated by religion, so that's probably a way I'd chose).

What I mean is that you should explain where did this general leap towards equality came from ? If these men in your story are anything like our men, I believe TheCatholicCrow has a point by saying they could only live in small communities of 20 - 100 people, thus corresponding to the primitivist idealism, and the general thoughts of anarchists such as Bakunin regarding what awaited men after the revolution. I mean, the entire idea behind the dictatorship of proletariat is to break the capitalist society and its idols in order to make way for the founding of a new nation based upon equality of rights and absolute impossibility to own that which make men survive. What do you think about incorporating such a stage into your story, as a prequel to your utopia ?

I tried, in my WIP, to build a society - which is very autocratic - where equality between the individuals is actually achieved. There is an army (since they aren't alone in the world), and everyone has to work half the year, and serve in the army during the other half, and there is an imperial administration, which means it isn't a communist utopia at all... But even the most elevated clan leaders, and generals, and even the emperor, live at the same level as any other member of their race. The emperor has a separate housing, which is very small and just enough for one person to live in, and all the other live in clan houses, with a very strong sense of camaraderie. The only separation between these beings is military ranking, which modulates the amount of respect you have to show to another, but even the highest ranking generals show some respect to their fellow, lower-ranking man, because it is incrusted in their psychism, that equality is the rule. 

Now what I did, is that I built a race that isn't human from a psychological point of view - and physical too, but that's a story for another day - and that has a strong inclination to believe in religious dogma and principles such as equality within the community, respect, service for the country, honor and the cult of self-sacrifice. Their initial state of mind makes it possible to build a society thriving on equality (depending on who you're asking, it's probably closer to a fascist utopia, minus the crushing authoritarian regime, which isn't need since everybody is naturally compelled to obey hierarchy and work hand in hand for the greater good of the race - even the emperor). Now, back to your story, what would you say allows your people to live in this utopia ? Do they have - same as my freaky uniformist race - a very special mindset which allows a marxist utopia to live on ? Or did they developed it along the way ?

That, I think, is what is most important to think about, when attempting to imagine an impossibly better society such as the one depicted by Marx's writing, where Men are work free and guide the cattle the morning and craft wooden chairs in the afternoon for the simple pleasure one can take out of stress-free labour - how, are these men in your tale, any different from those in our world, who can dream all they want about a better world, but who would struggle to adapt from one system to another (because such is the human condition) ?

On a side-note, I would gladly debate about the wonders of marxist idealism with you, should you wish it as well.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Jun 18, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> The way I'm seeing it, they aren't living things in the sense that humans are. They don't feel any emotion or desire, they're just machines which can be 'programmed' to do specific things like harvest crops or build homes. They're essentially just like a primitive AI you'd find in any video game.
> 
> I don't necessarily agree that religion would be necessary, but that's just my own subjective belief, and I am gonna run with it. As to people's sense of entitlement, remember that people in this society wouldn't 'work' at all...
> 
> Yeah, this is pretty much what I was thinking. All land would be communally owned, and the only 'possessions' people would actually have would be personal things like tools or clothes. And all decisions that affected the community would be voted upon.



[I mean no disrespect here - I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here]

Hmm ... this sounds like imperialism and exploitation of the golem (regardless of autonomy). To have your society free to sit around and do as they please while somebody (or something) else works to sustain their lifestyle ... doesn't sound like the concept of Communism as I understand it. Sentience aside, this actually sounds like aggressive Imperialism and slavery.

"Religion" is such a misunderstood word. It doesn't mean just deities, prayers, churches and temples. It can mean philosophical traditions or even political identity (Civil Religion). Sports are a religion. Science is a religion. Workout videos are religious. Marxism is a religion. etc. Technically, you can't have a society w/o religion. I think the way I worded that was probably misleading. If you have people in a similar area who feel/ support/ believe anything together - you have a religion. If you have a system that tells you how to view the world (time, life, death, etc) you have a religion. I didn't mean make them worship a deity. I meant give them a religion. Give them something they can believe together - something that encourages them to strive towards self-improvement and while you're at it, something that forbids murder and rape.   

Without a national, state, political, "religious", or village identity you're left with nothing but MAYBE ethnic identity which can not be realized without other societies with which to compare themselves. They wouldn't feel like the X people unless they are actively aware that there exist people who are not X (who do not uphold their values- which thus far are unclear beyond hedonism). If you're truly committed to building this society I'd say you need to find something that really makes them a community rather than just a bunch of people existing in close proximity to one another. 

Your proposed society sounds like it is missing a sense of Community. IMO if the community is not (itself) working together to actively support one another, it isn't communism (true or otherwise). It's my understanding that one of the most appealing aspects of Communism is the altruistic aspects of it. It seems impossible to serve the community in this set up as the only ones serving are the golem. So ... aside from sharing the products of golem labor, there doesn't seem to be much to suggest this is even a communistic society. 

In order to remedy this, there HAS to be limitations to extent of golem labor. That is, there has to be some acts which only humans can perform. There has to be some work (not jobs - work) even if it's just laundry & dishes. 

If there's no private property (and presumably no need for trade) what fills the human's day? It can't be knitting since they wouldn't be allowed to keep whatever they make and if every woman in the village wants to sit around and knit blankets all day, what happens when every citizen has as many blankets as they need? No more knitting. Side note: I've crocheted blankets before - it's tedious and owning the end product is the best part. I'd feel cheated if I put a month into it only to have a neighbor end up with it while I got something ugly on my bed. Also- this sounds luxurious - who supplies the yarn? And what keeps them from taking more than they "need"- if only you could see the size of my yarn stash, it'd put this into perspective.  
Writing might be difficult in the desert - what kind of paper do they use? And are they allowed to personally own pens/pencils or would they have to go the community library to borrow one? Are they allowed to keep their own poetry or does it default to communal property?  

So then ... if they aren't working to support themselves or the community- and they can't produce anything without the complication of trying to figure out who "needs" the item they just created ... what do they do all day? Not stargazing- because you can only do that at night  I'd say it'd be much more believable if the humans shared in the work (at least like 2 days a week) ... even if it's just watching each other's kids, sweeping the town hall, or ensuring that everyone is getting what they need (maybe they have an elderly lady they have to check up on or something). I think this would make it infinitely more believable as a communistic society than what you've proposed (that is, if you're proposing what I think you are).


----------



## Russ (Jun 18, 2015)

Rather than simply freeing everyone from labour you might be better served by a:

"Produce to your capacity, receive to your need" approach.

Also, the problem with writing utopias in fiction, is that they often end up looking more like thought experiments than good fiction.  IF the world is working really, really well, it can be hard to generate tension and conflict.  I guess the obvious answer is nasty outsiders...


----------



## CupofJoe (Jun 19, 2015)

The vibe I'm getting from Gryphos, sort of reminds me of Gene Roddenberry's initial view of the The UFP in Star Trek. There was supposed to be no war, strife, crime etc, [within the UFP] because all people's needs were taken care of. If you can walk up to a Replicator and make X, then why steal X... If you have safety, warmth, housing and food, then you are free to be creative.
As for using/enslaving Golems... If they are sapient thinking entities, then you have a problem... If the are are just clever machines, then there is no problem [no one cries out that something has died when they turn off a computer game...]
Now... How someone comes to the [in]convenient conclusion of what Golems are would be a good story... 
History is full of one group of humans being declared as less-than human for the "good" of another group...


----------



## Miskatonic (Jun 19, 2015)

Are you talking about how it is described on paper or how it has been implemented in our world?


----------



## Gryphos (Jun 19, 2015)

TheCatholicCrow said:
			
		

> Hmm ... this sounds like imperialism and exploitation of the golem (regardless of autonomy). To have your society free to sit around and do as they please while somebody (or something) else works to sustain their lifestyle ... doesn't sound like the concept of Communism as I understand it. Sentience aside, this actually sounds like aggressive Imperialism and slavery.



No offence, but I think you may be misunderstanding Communism, then. Communism is all about the freedom from wage labour, and the long-term dream is the total (or near total) automation of production so as to allow people to do whatever they wanted without the need to work to survive, such as in our real world.

And again, these golems as I'm picturing them are not sapient creatures, or even creatures. Imagine if you took the AI from a video game NPC and put it in a body. I don't want to get too philosophical, but that thing isn't alive, it's literally just a machine.



> "Religion" is such a misunderstood word. It doesn't mean just deities, prayers, churches and temples. It can mean philosophical traditions or even political identity (Civil Religion). Sports are a religion. Science is a religion. Workout videos are religious. Marxism is a religion. etc. Technically, you can't have a society w/o religion. I think the way I worded that was probably misleading. If you have people in a similar area who feel/ support/ believe anything together - you have a religion. If you have a system that tells you how to view the world (time, life, death, etc) you have a religion. I didn't mean make them worship a deity. I meant give them a religion. Give them something they can believe together - something that encourages them to strive towards self-improvement and while you're at it, something that forbids murder and rape.
> 
> Without a national, state, political, "religious", or village identity you're left with nothing but MAYBE ethnic identity which can not be realized without other societies with which to compare themselves. They wouldn't feel like the X people unless they are actively aware that there exist people who are not X (who do not uphold their values- which thus far are unclear beyond hedonism). If you're truly committed to building this society I'd say you need to find something that really makes them a community rather than just a bunch of people existing in close proximity to one another.



I see what you mean. Well in this sense obviously there would be a religion in the form of their shared ideology, which would also form their cultural identity. There would also be cultural norms across the communities, folklore, stories, songs, that kind of thing.



> Your proposed society sounds like it is missing a sense of Community. IMO if the community is not (itself) working together to actively support one another, it isn't communism (true or otherwise). It's my understanding that one of the most appealing aspects of Communism is the altruistic aspects of it. It seems impossible to serve the community in this set up as the only ones serving are the golem. So ... aside from sharing the products of golem labor, there doesn't seem to be much to suggest this is even a communistic society.
> 
> In order to remedy this, there HAS to be limitations to extent of golem labor. That is, there has to be some acts which only humans can perform. There has to be some work (not jobs - work) even if it's just laundry & dishes.



Naturally the golems wouldn't do _everything_. They're not gonna wash your dishes or cook your meals or design things. As I said, golems are extremely primitive intelligence-wise, and they obviously lack the imagination and instinct of humans. In fact the extent of the Golemry (as I'm now calling it) would probably be simply to the tasks of resource production and manufacturing. All the inventive and creative and personal stuff would have to be done by humans.



> If there's no private property (and presumably no need for trade) what fills the human's day? It can't be knitting since they wouldn't be allowed to keep whatever they make and if every woman in the village wants to sit around and knit blankets all day, what happens when every citizen has as many blankets as they need? No more knitting. Side note: I've crocheted blankets before - it's tedious and owning the end product is the best part. I'd feel cheated if I put a month into it only to have a neighbor end up with it while I got something ugly on my bed. Also- this sounds luxurious - who supplies the yarn? And what keeps them from taking more than they "need"- if only you could see the size of my yarn stash, it'd put this into perspective.
> Writing might be difficult in the desert - what kind of paper do they use? And are they allowed to personally own pens/pencils or would they have to go the community library to borrow one? Are they allowed to keep their own poetry or does it default to communal property?



People can do anything. They can take relaxing horse rides in the desert, or play cards with their mates, or even just sit around and sing. They can do anything they _want_ to do.

As to the ownership of produced artworks, if someone crochets a nice blanket, no one's going to take it from them. Everyone would have access to a rudimentary blanket anyway thanks to the Golemry. That person could keep the blanket for themselves, and they could then make more blankets and give those to friends, because that would be the emotionally fulfilling thing to do. After all, they do need something to do all day, and there's only so many blankets one person can want, especially in this society which would have a heavy cultural focus on helping the community.

As for tiny things like pencils and paper, I think they would have access to them in their home, as well as being able to go to a communal storehouse of some kind and take one. Whether they own them is unimportant. And also, you can't exactly 'own' poetry — you can only be the credited writer.



			
				Russ said:
			
		

> Also, the problem with writing utopias in fiction, is that they often end up looking more like thought experiments than good fiction. IF the world is working really, really well, it can be hard to generate tension and conflict. I guess the obvious answer is nasty outsiders...



Trust me this is going to be a proper fantasy story with conflict and magic and action and all that good stuff. It' just the conflict will come from some kind of external force, like an invading army or something like that.



			
				Miskatonic said:
			
		

> Are you talking about how it is described on paper or how it has been implemented in our world?



Well, seeing as Communism has never managed to exist in our history, on paper.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jun 19, 2015)

Just remember that a government, regardless of type, is based on the initiation of force. Force will always be used to maintain a government if necessary, regardless of how free it seems on the surface. It will always be waiting in the background.


----------



## valiant12 (Jun 19, 2015)

> Trust me this is going to be a proper fantasy story with conflict and magic and action and all that good stuff. It' just the conflict will come from some kind of external force, like an invading army or something like that.


So your communists have a nice life, everything was ok and then the outsiders came and the shitstorm begins. There are some very nasty unfortunate implications in those kinds of stories. 


> I'm deciding to work with a vaguely middle-eastern aesthetic.


I think that your story may be racist toward middle eastern people. Why don't you make your communist culture diverse.


----------



## Nagash (Jun 19, 2015)

The point is, in a communist utopia there isn't a need for a government, because the idea of power struggle is absent from society. Since a higher authority within a community is necessarily the emanation of the dominion one casts over his fellow men, it doesn't have any reason to exist in a world where hierarchy has been dissolved - better yet, where the idea of hierarchy amongst peers has been dilapidated.

Regarding what TCC said (is that acronym working for you TheCatholicCrow?), the marxist utopia is about rediscovering the wonders of free work as a way for man to accomplish himself. The Greeks of old believed work ("tripalium" in ancient greek was a torture instrument) was a burden and a crass activity better left to slaves; but in the marxist idealism, man needs labour in order to achieve himself. The abomination of capitalism and its greatest insult to mankind, was to make labour an obligation to survive and divide the crafting process to make it more effective, to such a point where men couldn't see themselves in their work. A door-maker would take pride in his labour, but capitalism took that away from him... In the marxist utopia, Men can do whatever they want for the pleasure it, having reconnected with the values of work as a fulfillment, and benefiting the community through their activity. One could make wooden chairs for the pleasure of it, and give them away to those who'd want them, for there is no concept of money or trade, and anyone can have whatever they need, and of course, he would benefit from the benevolent labour of his fellow Men.


----------



## Nagash (Jun 19, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> I think that your story may be racist toward middle eastern people. Why don't you make your communist culture diverse.



Why is that ? I get the idea of making it middle-eastern, as a way to describe a humanity in simpler times, as were the men of the old we imagine lived in the middle-eastern area. And I have no idea how that would come of as racist... Because its... communist ?
(sorry for double posting)


----------



## valiant12 (Jun 19, 2015)

Nagash said:


> Why is that ? I get the idea of making it middle-eastern, as a way to describe a humanity in simpler times, as were the men of the old we imagine lived in the middle-eastern area. And I have no idea how that would come of as racist... Because its... communist ?
> (sorry for double posting)



No.
Op describe his middle eastern people as spending their life relaxing, singing, playing cards, riding horses, etc. while the golems toil in the mines and farms implying that these people are lazy. If his utopian society use science instead of magic it would imply that their ancestors work hard until somebody invented the technology and that society merits science and learning. My suggestion is that the post scarcity society in the story use some combination of hard work, genetic modification, nano technology, and some religion or philosophy that make people happy in a non materialistic way.


----------



## Nagash (Jun 19, 2015)

You do realize laziness is a capitalist concept which was created to guilt those who didn't care for working into bending the knee ? In a marxist vision of the world, it is anyway... The idea according which one has to work hard for his master and society oozes of manipulation - christianity even made it a sin (sloth) to get everyone in line. The thing is, these people can afford to spend their time relaxing, singing or whatever, because they have achieved a society where it is a possibility ! And why, why on earth, would one prefer to trudge through the mud the years of his life, rather than enjoy them to their fullest, if machines provide for his elementary needs, and if he can sustain to all his secondary (and lesser) needs for entertainment through his own efforts ?

There is a very strong concept in marxism, and socialism for that matter, that what we are doing today, the pain we endure, the deaths we die, and the tears we cry, are a small sacrifice for the happiness of our children - for the singing tomorrows, one can afford to bleed today. Therefore, yes, the ancestor did go through hell and hard work to achieve this society; but communism isn't about living in the past and venerating it (although you should definitely respect past sacrifices made by your fathers); its about welcoming tomorrow - leaping towards it... Therefore, none should feel guilty about having a sweet and carefree life, for it is the logical evolution of all struggles for a better world.

And so what if they're middle-eastern ? The reader will probably just see a reverse image of the biblical times that describes the plight of the folks of palestine; an image, where men have gone back to a primitive world, enjoying life with just what is needed to achieve welfare.

Besides, I do not have the feeling that picturing care-free middle-easterners enforces any clichÃ© - does it ?


----------



## Miskatonic (Jun 19, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> No.
> Op describe his middle eastern people as spending their life relaxing, singing, playing cards, riding horses, etc. while the golems toil in the mines and farms implying that these people are lazy. If his utopian society use science instead of magic it would imply that their ancestors work hard until somebody invented the technology and that society merits science and learning. My suggestion is that the post scarcity society in the story use some combination of hard work, genetic modification, nano technology, and some religion or philosophy that make people happy in a non materialistic way.



We could apply that laziness to a lot of people today in our world. Not really racist if you are ingenious enough to create something to use as manual labor. It's like saying all the people who use machinery on farms to harvest are lazy people, and somehow that depicts racism against them.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jun 19, 2015)

Nagash said:


> You do realize laziness is a capitalist concept which was created to guilt those who didn't care for working into bending the knee ? In a marxist vision of the world, it is anyway... The idea according which one has to work hard for his master and society oozes of manipulation - christianity even made it a sin (sloth) to get everyone in line. The thing is, these people can afford to spend their time relaxing, singing or whatever, because they have achieved a society where it is a possibility ! And why, why on earth, would one prefer to trudge through the mud the years of his life, rather than enjoy them to their fullest, if machines provide for his elementary needs, and if he can sustain to all his secondary (and lesser) needs for entertainment through his own efforts ?
> 
> There is a very strong concept in marxism, and socialism for that matter, that what we are doing today, the pain we endure, the deaths we die, and the tears we cry, are a small sacrifice for the happiness of our children - for the singing tomorrows, one can afford to bleed today. Therefore, yes, the ancestor did go through hell and hard work to achieve this society; but communism isn't about living in the past and venerating it (although you should definitely respect past sacrifices made by your fathers); its about welcoming tomorrow - leaping towards it... Therefore, none should feel guilty about having a sweet and carefree life, for it is the logical evolution of all struggles for a better world.
> 
> ...



This is why the concept of Utopia will only exist in works of fiction. So he's picked a good medium for it.


----------



## Devor (Jun 19, 2015)

Please be respectful of the stated intentions of this thread. Gryphos is attempting to develop a piece of fantasy.  If you can't help develop the world without letting your own political judgments cloud your comments, it might be better if you bow out of the thread.

@Gryphos, Communist Russia did a much better job of implementing communism than many currently give them credit.  But one of the reasons that they failed to win the hearts and minds of their people was their push for what, for the moment, I'll call "standardized" equality.  Every corner diner had the exact same menu, and that kind of thing sucked away any sense of "freedom" that they wanted to feel.

Also, the real world problem with automated factories isn't the cost but the lack of flexibility.  Expensive equipment just isn't easy to change every time you tinker with the product design. So you'll have to be careful in how you design the golems. For instance, do the golems use tools or are the tools built into them?  Are they all humanoid or is golem a general word for any ol' automated concept?  Those ideas are going to affect how your readers view the sophistication of your society.

Speaking of which, you may also want to think about having some gradation in how equal your society is. Maybe some level of prioritizing access to the golems. Freeloaders and prodigies exist in every society.  I think it's possible to have a relatively egalitarian society that still finds some way to recognize the value and flaws of human behavior.

Finally, people usually talk about communism and are only talking about the economic ideas. I, personally, am not a fan, but the non-economic ideas, I feel, are even more contentious. How far did you want to take your communism?


----------



## Gryphos (Jun 19, 2015)

To be honest, the only real reason I'm planning now working with a middle-eastern-esque aesthetic is that I kinda like that aesthetic, clothing wise and linguistically. And I certainly don't see anything wrong with using that aesthetic for my fantasy world's culture.



			
				Devor said:
			
		

> @Gryphos, Communist Russia did a much better job of implementing communism than many currently give them credit. But one of the reasons that they failed to win the hearts and minds of their people was their push for what, for the moment, I'll call "standardized" equality. Every corner diner had the exact same menu, and that kind of thing sucked away any sense of "freedom" that they wanted to feel.



And this was one of the things the Soviets got wrong, IMO. One of the main things I don't like about the way they tried to implement communism (or socialism, as it was technically for them), was, to put it simply, the blandness of everything. Soviet architecture is all boring and cubic, and as you say, they put inlace policies that went against ideals of choice and freedom. That's not even communism done badly, that's socialism done badly.



> Also, the real world problem with automated factories isn't the cost but the lack of flexibility. Expensive equipment just isn't easy to change every time you tinker with the product design. So you'll have to be careful in how you design the golems. For instance, do the golems use tools or are the tools built into them? Are they all humanoid or is golem a general word for any ol' automated concept? Those ideas are going to affect how your readers view the sophistication of your society.



I like the idea of their being golems of all kinds of shapes and sizes, some the size of elephants and some birds, most of them specialised for a particular task. Picture a horse-like golem dragging its own tail through the earth like a plough, while little arms stick out from its back sprinkling seeds behind it. Some golems, the ones which are more varied in their roles and tasks, will most likely be roughly humanoid in their structure. As for tinkering with their design and constructing them, I think a hefty amount of magic will be involved.



> Speaking of which, you may also want to think about having some gradation in how equal your society is. Maybe some level of prioritizing access to the golems. Freeloaders and prodigies exist in every society. I think it's possible to have a relatively egalitarian society that still finds some way to recognize the value and flaws of human behavior.



As discussed, the concept of a 'freeloader' wouldn't exist. If  person doesn't want to work, they don't have to. Meanwhile the prodigies do what they love, inventing or discovering new things, because they _do_ want to.



> Finally, people usually talk about communism and are only talking about the economic ideas. I, personally, am not a fan, but the non-economic ideas, I feel, are even more contentious. How far did you want to take your communism?



All the way, I think. I want this world to be the 'endgame' of socialism, the absolute Marxist utopia in every way.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jun 19, 2015)

Just take the tenants that Marxism is based upon and take them to their logical conclusion. Should be the answer you are looking for.


----------



## X Equestris (Jun 19, 2015)

So if there's no state, how does your society handle criminal behavior?


----------



## Gryphos (Jun 19, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> So if there's no state, how does your society handle criminal behavior?



Good question.
There wouldn't be any law, so the fate of the individual would be decided democratically by the community, I think.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 19, 2015)

From each according to his ability
is not a rejection of work, an invitation to lie about on tropical beaches waiting for coconuts to fall, it is the removal of social barriers that limit an individual's advance. If one guy is a gifted architect, and another a great mason, and each is interested in building an impressive structure, it doesn't matter which is the son of a lord or merchant - they can still build cathedrals.

To each according to his need.
Aye, but who defines that need? Some cases are obvious, but not all, or even most. If there is a genuine scarcity, who decides to whom resources shall flow? Do you attempt to slice them so fine nobody gets enough, or is, democratically, the answer to choose a minority group to persecute? Final question in this sequence (promise) are spouses considered as property - the 'thou shall not covet' commandment has taken a severe beating from the lack of personal property.


A few communist societies have functioned for limited periods of time, many of them within religious frameworks ( early Christian communities and monastries, Kibbutzim) but they are not long-term stable without stress.

Post scarcity society without rewards (the Midas Plague)
There are humans who need their work, their ability, to define them within their own minds - I happen to be one of them. When I go to a con I volunteer to do what I am good at - technical matters, especially sound. I am much more comfortable when I have a function, am making other people's life easier.

	In fact, let's choose a con as a representative community - nobody's getting paid, there is work to be done and - strange, it always seems to be the same people who are doing it, are happy doing it, and require no labelling as lord high panjundram. As decisions must be made, committees are set up, but are frequently dominated by a single personality - but often as not, this is one of the 'doing everything' people, and has been putting effort into making the experience as pleasurable for everybody as possible, and thus merits the position, but true communism, not the practical forms that have actually functioned, is essentially anti authority, certainly hierarchical authority (governments claiming to be communist love charismatic leaders, but tend to a bit short of the 'to everyone…' philosophy). Distributed authority with no direct chain of command is fine for a stable, unchanging environment, but like true democracy shows difficulty in reacting to a sudden change, like an earthquake or a war. 

	But you still have at least three 'classes' of humans in a con - organisers, special guests and the hoi polloi (this ignores the hotel staff and other non-affiliated but essential organisms. And other hotel guests who have no connection to the convention, all of whom are outside the community we are analysing.) I could easily differentiate gofers, traders and technicians… humanity isn't an ant nest, and seeks to create order in organisation - it's almost as is, socially speaking, we needed someone to look down on.Servitude should be extinct by now, but it flourishes - we can't even eliminate slavery.

	It is a great pity that communism doesn't work except in periods of war or discrimination - in relative comfort they break down. But it's a beautiful theory, just not for humans.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jun 20, 2015)

Devor said:


> Please be respectful of the stated intentions of this thread. Gryphos is attempting to develop a piece of fantasy.  If you can't help develop the world without letting your own political judgments cloud your comments, it might be better if you bow out of the thread.
> 
> @Gryphos, Communist Russia did a much better job of implementing communism than many currently give them credit.  But one of the reasons that they failed to win the hearts and minds of their people was their push for what, for the moment, I'll call "standardized" equality.  Every corner diner had the exact same menu, and that kind of thing sucked away any sense of "freedom" that they wanted to feel.
> 
> ...



So things can be praised but not criticized. Got it.


----------



## Gryphos (Jun 20, 2015)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> To each according to his need.
> Aye, but who defines that need? Some cases are obvious, but not all, or even most. If there is a genuine scarcity, who decides to whom resources shall flow? Do you attempt to slice them so fine nobody gets enough, or is, democratically, the answer to choose a minority group to persecute?



No one 'defines' the need. There would be free access to all the food and resources for anyone to take what they wanted. You planning on making a sick meal for dinner that night? Just pop to the storehouse and grab the ingredients. As for scarcity, there probably wouldn't ever be any due to the abundance provided by the alchemical crops and the Golemry, but if for some strange reason there was a genuine scarcity, then the community would get together to decide how they're going to deal with it.



> Final question in this sequence (promise) are spouses considered as property - the 'thou shall not covet' commandment has taken a severe beating from the lack of personal property.



Of f*cking course they're not property. This society would by definition also be completely egalitarian across sex and ethnic lines.



> It is a great pity that communism doesn't work except in periods of war or discrimination - in relative comfort they break down. But it's a beautiful theory, just not for humans.



I very much disagree. But that's beside the point.


----------



## X Equestris (Jun 20, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Good question.
> There wouldn't be any law, so the fate of the individual would be decided democratically by the community, I think.



While punishment was part of my question, I was thinking more along the lines of how those criminals are apprehended.  A police force seems like it would need a state to control and coordinate it.


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 20, 2015)

Many of the posts here have more to do with whether or not "true" communism would work in a practical sense, and less to do with how one might write about it in a piece of fiction. I find the latter question much more interesting, as the former has been beaten to death by better minds than mine.

Here are a few considerations. One, you might think about the distinction between work (_operare_) and labor (_laborare_). I think you have so far considered only the one. What if a golem wanted to work instead of labor? What about a human who wanted to labor? Or one who wanted to "free" the golems by inventing machines? Or magic, I suppose. As someone on the thread said, sailing along smoothly rarely makes for good story. You either need a storm or a mutiny.

Which flavor of communism did you have in mind? So far the discussion has spoken as if there was only one kind. The variations, especially the pre-WWI kinds, might spark some ideas.

One problem with starting with communism explicitly (rather than, say, a society in which others do all the labor, and there's no formal government) is that it is a political form that existed specifically as a critique of capitalism. But you could make that into a story, if you have a capitalist society to play off against.

You wondered why no one has used communism in fantasy. I'd say it's because communism is antithetical to fantasy. There's no need for magic or fantastic creatures. When you described the golems I immediately thought of RUR, by Karel Capek. But that's SF, at least by modern definitions. 

But maybe there's room. I can envision a specific non-human race being communist in form. They wouldn't be the center, but they could provide some interesting backdrop.

OK, now I'm just sort of randomly typing. Time to stop. The real feedback is the same as always: write it!


----------



## Gryphos (Jun 20, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> While punishment was part of my question, I was thinking more along the lines of how those criminals are apprehended.  A police force seems like it would need a state to control and coordinate it.



Ah, well you're right, there wouldn't be any official police force. Also, there wouldn't be any concept of a 'criminal', as that word implies a set of laws which one can disobey. If a community discovers that an individual has committed a morally wrong act (murder, rape, etc.) they decide how to handle the situation, at every level. Same with the investigation of a 'crime'.

Of course, how often these kinds of decisions would have to take place is interesting to consider. Some argue that an abundant society such as this would transcend (internal) human conflict. While that might not be 100% true, it does sound like a logical assumption to me that in a world without money, jobs and social inequality, there would be less stuff to fight about.


----------



## Gryphos (Jun 20, 2015)

skip.knox said:
			
		

> Here are a few considerations. One, you might think about the distinction between work (operare) and labor (laborare). I think you have so far considered only the one. What if a golem wanted to work instead of labor? What about a human who wanted to labor? Or one who wanted to "free" the golems by inventing machines? Or magic, I suppose. As someone on the thread said, sailing along smoothly rarely makes for good story. You either need a storm or a mutiny.



Golems don't 'want' anything. In this world they're basically just machines programmed to do certain things, not sentient creatures. If a human wanted to labor alongside the golems, they absolutely could. Nothing would stop them. As for conflict, as I said I'm thinking of an external source of conflict, a grand adventure kind of thing. See, the story won't be focused on this communist society, it'll just form the backdrop of the story.



> Which flavor of communism did you have in mind? So far the discussion has spoken as if there was only one kind. The variations, especially the pre-WWI kinds, might spark some ideas.



I'm going with the version Marx originally envisioned as the ultimate goal of humanity.



> One problem with starting with communism explicitly (rather than, say, a society in which others do all the labor, and there's no formal government) is that it is a political form that existed specifically as a critique of capitalism. But you could make that into a story, if you have a capitalist society to play off against.



Obviously in the story I won't call it communism, as you're right, that word has very real-world connotations. It'll just be the way things are.



> You wondered why no one has used communism in fantasy. I'd say it's because communism is antithetical to fantasy. There's no need for magic or fantastic creatures. When you described the golems I immediately thought of RUR, by Karel Capek. But that's SF, at least by modern definitions.



I'm interested in what you mean by communism being antithetical to fantasy. If you get the opportunity to elaborate I'd be very interested.


----------



## Ophiucha (Jun 21, 2015)

I am also a communist, so I'll jump in with a few questions that come to mind.

First, I agree with a few other posters that 'golem rights' _would_ become a concern to readers no matter how mindless they are in the story. For one, 'golems' as a Stock Fantasy Creature (tm) are - in some stories - capable of free thought and of making choices, so readers may have a presupposition as to the nature of the creatures despite how you present them. There are also people in the real world who are _already_ debating the morality and rights of AI and robots despite how basic they are at this point. Also, golems aren't Middle Eastern, are they? I thought they were from Jewish mythology.

The people of these villages are united by a shared history and culture, so who is preserving that? If there is no need for trade, how freely do people travel and exchange ideas, songs, writings? If there are no cities, then are there no libraries or museums (perhaps with the notes and prototypes and blueprints of old inventors, so new ones have access to those building blocks)? If there is one in a certain town, would everyone in the other towns know if it existed and be able to go there if they wanted? If the head librarian died and nobody in their town wanted to take over the job, would they let the information die and the books rot or would they send missives to the other towns looking for bookworm who might be interested in the job?

Does everyone have equal access to magic, or alchemy? If it is something that requires a lot of learning, or something you're born with the ability to do, that creates a power dynamic separate from prejudice that must be addressed in an egalitarian society. I don't know if I worded that right, so another example: women and men are not so different that - if you remove patriarchy from the equation - there would be any natural imbalance; but mages and non-mages have different power levels that would exist even if your society doesn't say "wizards are superior to muggles".

If most people do have fairly easy access to it, are there small minorities that don't? Maybe people with certain disabilities? That is another easy prejudice to form even in a society that doesn't draw arbitrary lines, since it's easy to not consider the one blind woman in town, or the only man in town whose bad leg keeps him from climbing the steps to the alchemy lab.


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 21, 2015)

If golems are machines, I think I would lean toward making them machines rather than living entities. They're only there as a way to explain why nobody has to work, so move them well out of the storytelling equation. Golem, like communism, is a word that has all sorts of cultural connotations. They are middle European rather than Middle Eastern, and yes they come from Jewish folklore. Except in that folklore, there's only one.

If communism is just the backdrop, then we still don't have a fantasy tale that is *about* communism, right? It seems only relevant (to me!) if the Chosen One (to pick a trope) somehow makes different decisions because s/he come from a communistic society rather than from a capitalist one. Otherwise, introducing communism in the story but not really talking about it is rather like introducing giant purple elephants but they only forage in the background.

But you asked me a question. I did answer, albeit briefly. I said there's no need for the fantastic in a communist tale. I think I still stand by that, communist SF writers notwithstanding. Communism is very much a product of the industrial age. As I said, it really only makes sense as a critique of capitalism. Remove that whole dialectic and what remains is a static society in which all problems have been solved. I hope the religious here will understand when I say that communism more or less rejects fantasy when it rejects God. That is, it rejects all things supra-natural not only as things that do not exist, but which are in fact the product of the ideology of the ruling class. 

That said, I'll admit that this argument merely avers that *communists* aren't likely to write fantasy. It still leaves open the possibility of someone with non-communist politics writing a fantasy story in which one or more societies are communistic. So, there's that.

But this is all just talk. Write the story. If it's good enough, the above will swirl away like dry leaves.


----------

