Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is real communism at work. The Soviet Uion was real communism at work. Communisn includes class seperation and state sponsered killing. There is no way around it.
Really ... ???
Real communism has never existed and most likely never will. We have called some societies communist but strictly speaking they are falsely titled. Actual Communism according to Marx was a society we cannot imagine because of where we are right now. Instead of worrying about all the details and drawing out a perfect society he said we should worry about taking down whats wrong with the current government. He said the people should rise up, lay claim to all the industries and overthrow the government, and then divide the power equally amongst all the people. And then decide how to build the better society.
The problem is once those leading the revolution get all the power the leaders never give it back. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Russia traded tsars for dictators and called it communism. The fatal flaw in communism is it expects people to be utopian enough to literally give up everything they have and join into an equal society.
Capitalism is not based on greed. Government is. And the capitalist cannot go unchecked without government support. It regulates itself. Actually, you regulate it. Only when a third party (government) involves itself does it fail. But then it is no longer capitalism if governemnt is involved.
Anarcho-Capitalism is clearly the best way. This has proved itself over and over for thousands of years. It's really not even debatable anymore.
I have never before seen a post that zigzagged so many times between contradicting itself.
Capitalism is not based on greed, government is. But it is the government's responsibility (not the capitalists) to check the greed of the capitalists. But only then does "it" (whatever that is) fail. And capitalism cannot exist without government, which checks capitalism. You (the third party) regulate it. No, wait, the third party is the government, who also regulates (checks) it. You and the government both check the greed of capitalism, which is not based on greed. Did I get it right?
I have never before seen a post that zigzagged so many times between contradicting itself.
Capitalism is not based on greed, government is. But it is the government's responsibility (not the capitalists) to check the greed of the capitalists. But only then does "it" (whatever that is) fail. And capitalism cannot exist without government, which checks capitalism. You (the third party) regulate it. No, wait, the third party is the government, who also regulates (checks) it. You and the government both check the greed of capitalism, which is not based on greed. Did I get it right?
awesome logic. how did you manage? i mean, without damage to your health...
If all things were ideal, then I still support a pure democratic system in combination with a pure capitalist system
Democratic because the utopia would say people would not be racist and/or would not vote to suppress minorities of any kind.
Pure capitalistic because people would be able to work for what they want and earn what they work for with no greedy systems and/or people and without government interference.
These two systems promote liberty, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
Other systems tend to have someone in full control even if that one in control is very humane.
Anarcho-Capitalism is clearly the best way. This has proved itself over and over for thousands of years. It's really not even debatable anymore.
In your eyes Anarcho-Capitalism may be the best way. For you. One size fits all never works because different people thrive in different environments. There are perfectly normal hard-working people that would be more motivated and successful in a socialistic-based system. There are perfectly normal hard-working people who would be more motivated and successful in an Anarcho-Capitalist system. There are perfectly normal hard-working people who would be more motivated and successful alone out on the North Dakota prairie in isolation. You are not taking into account that everyone thinks differently.
The problem is once those leading the revolution get all the power the leaders never give it back. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Russia traded tsars for dictators and called it communism. The fatal flaw in communism is it expects people to be utopian enough to literally give up everything they have and join into an equal society.
Exactly. Greed and the fetishistic need to have a 'leader' has always been the fatal flaw. I think the biggest downfall is to assume the need of a 'state' to make it work. It's always the state that gums up the works.
I recall reading of a few communities in the world today that attempt to live in this sort of communal fashion. It would be interesting to see how it works if the people have the right attitude.
The fatal flaw in communism is it expects people to be utopian enough to literally give up everything they have and join into an equal society.
That is neither a fatal flaw nor an unrealistic expectation in a couintry where the great majority of the people have nothing to literally give up. Which was the case in Czarist Russia.
What the knee-jerk communist haters never take into account is that nobody ie expecting the US or Norway or Australia to switch to communism. But that does not mean that it would be worst possible solution to quickly restore order, productivity and wealth distribution in a place like Somalia.
You know, If I remember right, communism is the end result of capitalism after it fails. In other words, I think capitalism inevitably leads to communism.
You know, If I remember right, communism is the end result of capitalism after it fails. In other words, I think capitalism inevitably leads to communism.
Oversimplified. When capitalism fails, it usually evolves to an oligarchy. Then, if the people have the resolve to revolt, it is easy to persuade them to kick out the oligarchs and move to leaders who are similarly autocratic, but of a a more egalitarian mindset..
Taking into account that capitalism and communism are the only two options, your statement is tantamount to saying night is the end result of day after the sun sets.
We have an oligarchy already in this country. But there is so much wealth, that the oligarchs are in the majority.
There is no guarantee that the leaders of a capitalist country will not be dictators. Governance tends to flow in the direction of autocracy, with an occasional jerk back when a revolution overthrows the tyrant.
I have never before seen a post that zigzagged so many times between contradicting itself.
Capitalism is not based on greed, government is. But it is the government's responsibility (not the capitalists) to check the greed of the capitalists. But only then does "it" (whatever that is) fail. And capitalism cannot exist without government, which checks capitalism. You (the third party) regulate it. No, wait, the third party is the government, who also regulates (checks) it. You and the government both check the greed of capitalism, which is not based on greed. Did I get it right?
Nope. You got it completley wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... ??? 
