>>2770491there's basically zero need to administer things on that basis. you haven't asked what the purpose of administration is. why should japan basically remain independent, while ireland is subsumed into england, wales, and… all of scotland south of inverness? why is new zealand bifurcated south of auckland? (i mean, i guess that gives you two countries of ~2 million people each, if you really want) why do arbitrary empty chunks of canada get as much of an administrative subdivision as the most populated areas of china? for what possible purpose would Australia be carved up that way, and not on the basis of its existing states and territories?
all relevant administrative subdivisions are either:
- building level, in certain cases.
- neighborhood level (e.g. your street)
- local local (e.g. your town, or your sub-area of the city)
- urban or inter-urban level (e.g. your city, or your own and its economically or geographically linked towns)
- landmass based (e.g. rationally, islands and a handful of isolated inland places will have certain specific needs. this is somewhat variable, however. within the british isles, orkney, shetland, and the western isles all have a great interest in ferry administration for example… but great britain itself has land links to europe via the channel tunnel. new zealand is also very geographically isolated, which may involve special logistical considerations.)
- continental (basically just landmass based scaled up - weather systems etc often operate at this level.)
- global
and of course vary based on what is being administered. your weather people don't need the same administrative jurisdictions as your transport people. your ambulance service will be distributed differently to your airlines, and so on. "just do it all on a grid" is like a parody of the worst mistakes of early modernism.
generally speaking, real countries are too centralized in their administration. why is trash collection in kilchoan controlled 4 hours drive away in inverness? (well, your map would resolve that at least… by moving such administration, one presumes, to edinburgh or glasgow… 4 or 5 hours away.)
"people will be transferred" is also inapt (yes: inapt, not inept) use of language.
people will move voluntarily, as they already do under capitalism when given the choice. you may say "ah, but under capitalism it's a coerced choice due to economic precarity" - well, perhaps, but then free movement under communism will remove that pressure. that doesn't mean people won't move, particularly when they're needed elsewhere!
as for culture, you're stuck with that. /leftypol/ is a borderless, stateless, raceless place and we've still got a (well past peak) board culture. the idea of national culture may wane (or become - as it already usually is - a weird historic interest)
>>2770751politics and identity are in large part determined by personality. those who find comfort in their racial, national, or cultural identity are generally those least inclined to communism. (they're also those least inclined to move, to new cultural experiences, to not being general bastards…)
>but what about third world communists!third world communists are almost always the least reactionary on this question, or find themselves loving their country because of its economic and social ideology rather than for lame reasons. these things are always a matter of degree. the committed communist in the third world may have more outdated tastes than a first-world liberal, but he will have far more progressive tastes than a third world reactionary. adjusting on a national basis, you get the full picture.
as for culture: that ship has already sailed. the people most proud of (say) "british culture" are almost always the most americanized freaks. it is, ironically, the liberals who demur slightly who maintain britain's traditionally reserved and refined culture, or who care to preserve something of its working class traditions.