Socialism

[Swumpster]

first off, some of you may be thinking this is a troll thread.
well that's just a lie.
the right wing, seems to call the left "socialist" as if the word communism isn't completely correct, but socialism is. the left isn't socialist, but for years, they've been able to get away with it. partly because the layman's understanding of what socialism is, is off(apparently socialism means a big government), but mainly because there is no real socialist movement, for socialism has grown out of favor in the united states.
well, now this forum has their very own socialist.

over population: I've heard several people saying overpopulation is bad. and they seem to justify things that way. But honestly, do you really think that abortion, the death penalty, and homosexuality will put a stop to over population? you seem to be against overpopulation, but not for any discoverable policy. I admit, over population is bad, but I have a solution. SOCIALISM! currently, the government can drain a swamp, but it can't get businesses to set up there. there is plenty of uninhabited land across the world. all of northern Canada is a good example. and what after all that land has been built on? well, then we build houses ontop of houses, and create a giant city, with most houses being apartments. as in paris. this doesn't mean you will be living in a tiny box. the apartments will be to american standards, and not only that, there will be many parks scattered throughout the city, as is also seen in Paris, ranging from a nice garden and a play ground along the marina, to a a group of ping pong tables and a rented garden outside the monoprix. Paris is a city of 10 million people (a third of the population of canada) and the living standards are still extremely well, mainly thanks to the active socialist part.

the environment: there is no doubt that humans are being harmed by pollution. people getting sick from a yellowish haze caused by a factory, right here in America, to the smog flooded streets of china. the wood Beatles in rocky mountain national park.
socialism realizes how profitable renewable energies are. companies are interested in the now. their duty is to not lose money, and keep their stockholders happy, not a good structure for a long term investment. socialism looks into the long term investments, and perfectly well knows that wind turbines pay for themselves after ten years. more people doesn't mean more energy is needed. with more people living close together, car's aren't as much a necessity. Louisville Kentucky uses more energy than new york city.

common misconceptions:
socialism will be inefficient, because the government is to large to govern itself: not true. with a big government, you get more people, and more resources. a distant man off in Washington won't be telling you how to run your business. as George Orwell said, "the farmer will still be the farmer, but without the added disadvantage of permanently being in debt"
no work can be motivated without pay: true, nothing can be motivated, but you can force people to work (is it really forced, if they themselves voted for it? like we vote for how much we pay in taxes?) but no, that communist ideology will not create a long term, and happy society. instead socialism has a limitation of income, where the lowest wage, does not exceed the highest, by a ration of, at most, 10:1, with the exception of a jailed person.
socialism will destroy small businesses: of, don't say socialism will be the death of small businesses, for, they're already dead.
a powerful government is bound to be corrupt: not when they are restricted, by a constitution, three branches of government, all with checks and balances, and a bill of rights, much like the current system of government in America.
this is all part of some secret plot to take over the government, and make a new USSR: o rly? I've never been affiliated with the socialist intelligentsia, as I am sure that the party it self is flawed, the basic idea, which i stand for isn't influenced by any secret motives, I have come to this stance on my own, without the influence of the actual socialist party. I can find no dark corner to socialism, even when i try.

so come on over and become a socialist.

tl;dr: socialism is teh shitz0rs

also no copypasta

[HolyShadow]

Socialism and communism are the same thing.

Socialism and communism allow too much power of the government.

With too much power, oppression happens.

With oppression, the government would be destroying the natural laws.

In destroying the natural laws, they are not fit to be a government.

Therefore, rebellion WOULD occur... if the government didn't already have all of the weapons because of total gun control, as well as the ability to lower the number of people in a group that would fight against them by disallowing people to share information via the media.

Socialism and communisms, therefore, breed dictatorships. Dictatorships generally tend to end up as warmongerers. Countless lives are lost, whether it be in war, rebellion, or oppression.

In Cuba, the people are living in poverty. Granted, not as bad as Haiti, but nothing compared to the United States.

Some blame the embargo on that, but a socialist government, as corrupt as it is, is more likely to keep money for their higher classes and equally distribute the pittance that is left among the lower classes.

That too is destroying the natural laws. Basically, a person should only be allowed to earn as much as they put out for the government. Monetary equality is a mockery of that.

Very, very basic stuff.

[Swumpster]

Socialism and communism are the same thing.
no, I'm afraid they aren't.
marx first came up with socialism, as an intermediate stag between capitalism, and communism, though he never used the word
while others, like george orwell (and I) use it to describe a specific type of government, which isn't just some transition between two systems, but a permanent government.


Socialism and communisms, therefore, breed dictatorships. Dictatorships
and if it were a democracy? what then? i think that the current system in the US, is almost fool proof (assuming the public isn't completely stupid.)

In Cuba, the people are living in poverty. Granted, not as bad as Haiti, but nothing compared to the United States.
yeah, socialists really hate the USSR (specifically stalin, though not so much for Trotsky/Lenin), and all who were close to it, or at least, all the sane ones I've met do.

Some blame the embargo on that, but a socialist government, as corrupt as it is, is more likely to keep money for their higher classes and equally distribute the pittance that is left among the lower classes.
that's like, the exact opposite definition of socialism.

[Fat1Fared]

Socialism and communism are the same thing.

<facepalm>

Please will people learn what the hell communism is, before they talk about it, Russia was never communist, it was only full socialism for 1 Year under April theses plan, before Lenin was forced to being in a social dictatorship and taxation based socialism, it never went near communist ideals again,

If people bothered to ever study communism they would realise it doesn't even have a leadership, (so kind of hard for it to be dictatorship) as society works under everyone’s equality, removing need for one

Now moving onto socialism, well like all political ideals it has it pro's and con's, personally my main problem with socialism is that it has now thanks to bad examples in Russia and china, been unfairly discredited as ideal and turned into a joke of middleclass past time, of the Champaign Socialist, (basically some middle private schoolboy who joins newspaper like guardian to annoy his dad, but still takes his money and sends his kids to private school)

However moving away from a failing in humanitian side of it, and onto ideal itself, its main problem is like communism, it takes a human who has the ambitious nature to beat his foes and rule, but then this same person has to be willing to give power back to poeple once takes it, and well if you can find me the man who will do that, I will find you a god:- 0o

Another problem is, it leaves all power in hands of one source and this means that when leaderships overstep mark there is no one to keep them in line, however on the flip side, it also stops government policy being influenced by these powerful business class groups negatively

PS you bring up George Orwell alot, why'll brilliant man in his own right, he wrote Animal Farm and 1984, to show failings in toletiant governments, not promote them, he wanted what Britain had from 1945-1980's Democratic socialism, which is where the business remain independent, of government in democratic society and rather than power being main aim, good of poeple is, with both force one another to look after the people (sadly look how that ended for Britain, as the final failing in all socialist ideals is they have to come from a strong capitalist background, so country can actually support itself, as by its very nature socialism cannot allow economic growth (which is what beat lenin and caused his own failure) its what beat mao, and its what beat Britain, no country has ever been strong enough to ever support socialism for more than few years before fell in on itself (Britain lasted longest, but that was with very watered down version and hell of lot of money left over from early years of global power)

PSS also socialists don't hate Totsky or lenin, they feel both betrayed their own ideals, but that both did believe in cause, until like Starlin, who was strange one to say lest,

[darkarcher]

The use of more grammatical structure would help your arguments a lot, Swumpster.

Anyway, Socialism is one of those concepts that seems to work wonderfully on paper but in reality falls short of the expectations set for it. Most of this shortcoming occurs because even though people claim to want equality, almost everyone has enough learned elitism that they consider themselves to deserve more than somebody else. Selfishness destroys true socialism and it quickly descends into either anarchist democracy or communism.

Now for individual points.

the left isn't socialist, but for years, they've been able to get away with it.
It may just be a misplaced pronoun, but as this sentence currently reads, you're saying that "the left" is not socialist but has behaved under socialist theory for a good while.
over population
the environment
I'm not going to quote the entire paragraphs that you typed out, but the points you made about overpopulation directly go against protecting the environment. Draining swamps and chopping down natural wilderness in order to create human residences and businesses directly effects the local ecosystem in a huge way.

Also, the search for alternative fuels does not immediately make a given party "environmentally-friendly." The only actual reference you made to a renewable energy is wind power, which is not necessarily a valid source in many places in the United States.

more people doesn't mean more energy is needed. with more people living close together, car's aren't as much a necessity.
Yes, it does. You're only taking vehicles into account, and while transportation is a large energy consumer, you also have to consider the amount of energy people use within their own residencies for lighting, entertainment, appliances, and other practical purposes.

The size of a socialist government cannot be addressed since you can't really argue for or against it with any solid evidence. The only other socialist government that was even close to the size of the United States was the USSR, which quickly fell into communism due to corruption in the government.

no work can be motivated without pay: true, nothing can be motivated, but you can force people to work (is it really forced, if they themselves voted for it? like we vote for how much we pay in taxes?) but no, that communist ideology will not create a long term, and happy society. instead socialism has a limitation of income, where the lowest wage, does not exceed the highest, by a ration of, at most, 10:1, with the exception of a jailed person.

Few points here:
1. Technically the citizens of the United States do not vote for how much taxes we pay. Taxation bills are drafted in the House of Representatives and passed by Congress. So, who would decide that people should be forced to work? Would it be the officials in government? Additionally, where would the jobs come from, and how would you train people without an education to perform jobs that require more than the most remedial skills? Here we see a common problem with socialism in that while it all sounds fine and good, implementation is not nearly as feasible as it sounds. In this case, it would cost the government obscene amounts of money just to get everyone on "equal footing", as it were.

2. However, disregarding my previous point, how about the salary ratio you posted there? Once again, where are those jobs going to come from for the people who are unemployed? If it's a government-run business that hires absolutely everyone, then eventually you will have a surplus of workers and a deficit of tasks that each worker can perform. At this point you are basically paying these people to do nothing, which is not very good socialism at all.

Also, such a salary ratio prevents entrepreneurship, which is a massive contribution to the progress of technology and economy. People aren't willing to be inventive because the amount of cost that goes into producing a new product could not be compensated by the returns being limited by government salary limits.

Now I'll admit that there are some people who are paid too much for their services, and at the same time it's unfortunate that others go unemployed. However, as hard as it may be to accept, some people with massive payrolls DO actually earn it.

socialism will destroy small businesses: of, don't say socialism will be the death of small businesses, for, they're already dead.

I'm sorry, but I'd like you to explain this a bit. You're just sort of giving this subject and hand-wave and assuming that everyone who reads it is going to take it as a fact.
I can find no dark corner to socialism, even when i try.
Then honestly you're not looking hard enough. Every single form of government has dark corners. There is no win-all solution to how to run a country.

That's all for now. I may reply again if something piques my interest.

[Fat1Fared]

communism due to corruption in the government.


IT WASN'T COMMUNISM, I know US Goverment make your schools lie (well maybe lie is too strong, bend truth) about commuism to you, so you never learn what is there, but there millions of other sources which will tell you what is actually is

however agree with what put, (I would have gone in more depth myself, but sleepy)

[darkarcher]

IT WASN'T COMMUNISM, I know USA make schools lie abot commuism to you, so you never learn what is there, but there millions of other sources which will tell you what is actually is

Fair enough. It was a totalitarian government built on a stripped-down construct of communism. I'm not so ignorant that I don't know the difference. I just said communism because that's what the USSR itself claimed to be, and the only other well-known "communist state" in recent history is Cuba.

[Fat1Fared]

Fair enough. It was a totalitarian government built on a stripped-down construct of communism. I'm not so ignorant that I don't know the difference. I just said communism because that's what the government itself claimed to be, and the only other well-known "communist state" in recent history is Cuba.

yer, sorry it just annoys me when poeple call them commuism, when they weren't commuists in anyway, but a false name, I mean I could call myself commuist, wouldn't make it true and only reason countries like US accepted that call themselves commuist, was so use them to discredit it, I mean it wasn't even down-constucted verison (well maybe the very very early Lenin years were, but even he didn't stick to it) it was completely different model of socialism, which went move and move away from commuism with every passing day, by end it was barely even soicalism, (only some of economic structure stayed socialist (SOME))

I mean in real commuist state their couldn't be a terror state as no state, couldn't be corruption in goverment, as no goverment and everyone is equal, so wouldn't be any point,

I mean don't get me wrong I know commuism would never work, but still doesn't mean should mislabel it

[OverMind]

Socialism and communism are the same thing.

[...]

Some blame the embargo on that, but a socialist government, as corrupt as it is, is more likely to keep money for their higher classes and equally distribute the pittance that is left among the lower classes.

Select definitions for "Communism" from Google:

-a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
-a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

[HolyShadow]

Yes, but that doesn't HAPPEN, OverMind. There's still economic disparity in Cuba, and Cuba is the closest thing to real communism currently in effect.

Go to the Castros' homes, and their homes will be MUCH better than any average cuban there.

You're all forgetting the average human being. Greed is the root of all evil.

(Therefore, you should all give me your money so you don't spend it on anything foolish!)

...

(Geoffrey Chaucer FTW)

[Aninamar]

-a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society
I'm not exactly a fan of socialism especially because of this.

Back in old, socialistic Poland subordinate to Soviet Union, there was this saying (bad translation time): "Whether you are up or you're down, 2000 PLN you earn on your own." :P Supposedly, everyone was equal.

But in this kind of system, there were people that are "equal" and "equaler". So ordinary people had to put up with the fact that everything was expensive like hell (and there were LOOOONG lines to the shops), while the "equaler" guys lived like lords.

The effects of this "glorious" system is especially seen in Polish roads - they're crap.

So no, I'm not a fan of socialism, especially the corrupted crap that was governing People's Republic of Poland, but I don't think I can elaborate in this discussion, especially now, when I'm soon going to school. :P

[OverMind]

Go to the Castros' homes, and their homes will be MUCH better than any average cuban there.

While it is true that Fidel Castro has more than one residence, it is not necessarily a display of wealth. Quite the opposite really, it is to help conceal the location of Cuba's head of state. When you're Fidel Castro, you've made enough enemies (ahem, the big ol' neighbor to the north) that security is a major concern.

As this article here (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/castro-family.htm) points out, the Castro family does live a bit better than most Cubans - but its not much of a disparity. Consider this in comparison to the economic disparity between the rich and the poor under Batista. Heck, compare it to some non-communist, "democratic", capitalist countries in the third world. It's kind of a moot argument if you're criticizing the very few luxuries a head of state of a communist country has while failing to realize that every country gives luxuries to those in government.

In Canada, we settle our Prime Minister down at a mansion in 24 Sussex Drive. Castro's residential comforts are modest in comparison.

[HolyShadow]

Do you think it's right that he sends a messenger on every block in case anyone says anything bad about the revolution?

They'll bring up trumped up charges against anyone that disagrees with the state and arrest them.

This is clearly corrupt.

Besides, if they REALLY want a classless society, anarchy is the only real way to go. Otherwise, you have a government, and a government that gives its 'hero' several homes, yet doesn't give its average citizens the EXACT same thing... well, that's not communism, socialism, etc. It's not true equality at all. It's not a classless society.

[OverMind]

Do you think it's right that he sends a messenger on every block in case anyone says anything bad about the revolution?

They'll bring up trumped up charges against anyone that disagrees with the state and arrest them.

This is clearly corrupt.

Besides, if they REALLY want a classless society, anarchy is the only real way to go. Otherwise, you have a government, and a government that gives its 'hero' several homes, yet doesn't give its average citizens the EXACT same thing... well, that's not communism, socialism, etc. It's not true equality at all. It's not a classless society.

It's as ideal as it can get.

[HolyShadow]

Idealism is disgusting. Realism is where it's at.

And in reality, people want to earn for what they do, not have their money given to other people. And people want to be able to work as much as they want and get as much as they want; they don't want to be told by their government that they're not allowed to grow too much of a crop because the government can't pay them for all of that.

People want, and communism interrupts that. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, bitch.

[AsteriskRocks]

Idealism is disgusting. Realism is where it's at.

And in reality, people want to earn for what they do, not have their money given to other people. And people want to be able to work as much as they want and get as much as they want; they don't want to be told by their government that they're not allowed to grow too much of a crop because the government can't pay them for all of that.

People want, and communism interrupts that. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, bitch.

Happiness...fixed*

[Fenrir502]

Happiness...fixed*

I could be wrong, but I think Shining did that as a bit of ironic humour/ sarcasm/ cynacism or something.

[HolyShadow]

I agree more with property than happiness. Happiness is too emotional to be treated as a rule... property works better. Happiness can change according to the person, causing a sea of conflicting tides, crashing against each other, solving nothing. Property, however, is easily defined and easily pursued.

Communism clearly prevents an individual from seeking property. No matter how much they work, they can't gain more than what their government tells them what they can gain.

As for equal distribution of wealth... that would theoretically mean that all people would be giving out the exact same amount of effort to the government. This seems justified in that it's theoretically a classless society. However.

The people themselves WANT to earn more than what their government wants them to earn. It draws back to that earlier idea of the pursuit of property.

This is why communism is a failed idea. It isn't fit as a government type because it doesn't protect the natural rights of the people.

Some would argue that the government should only keep their people alive and nothing else is required and the people should accept that. However, that too is a failed idea. Rule of thumb: When a government tells people what they can and can't do unfairly, war happens. When a leader of a government is given too much power over the people, corruption happens, and they impose harsh taxes and such on the people.

This is how things work. People who get in positions of power are usually greedy and hypocritical.

[AsteriskRocks]

I agree more with property than happiness. Happiness is too emotional to be treated as a rule... property works better. Happiness can change according to the person, causing a sea of conflicting tides, crashing against each other, solving nothing. Property, however, is easily defined and easily pursued.

Not to get off topic but it was changed to happiness to have it agree with all even the poor and slaves (I don't remember at the moment but it seems right...) since they couldn't own property.

But you're entitled to your own opinion.

EDIT: It was used to broaden the idea to much more than property....All of us can pursue happiness, since its broadly defined, but not all people can or will own property (Poor, Slaves). Wording it that way made it more inclusive to people.

EDIT 2: I'm just making this point regardless of the matter.

[HolyShadow]

It's a way in order to justify the lower class is all I'm getting from this. In which case, happiness is just a corrupt way of saying property.

Try harder.

[AsteriskRocks]

It's a way in order to justify the lower class is all I'm getting from this.

That is the point.

I never said I was going to convince you. I was just stating as to why it is happiness, but not property.

[OverMind]

Idealism is disgusting. Realism is where it's at.

And in reality, people want to earn for what they do, not have their money given to other people. And people want to be able to work as much as they want and get as much as they want; they don't want to be told by their government that they're not allowed to grow too much of a crop because the government can't pay them for all of that.

People want, and communism interrupts that. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, bitch.

My point was that Cuba is trying really, really hard to fit the ideal of communism, but it is hindered by realism. So is any other well-to-do country.

Unlike other leaders (let alone dictators), Fidel Castro's living conditions are very, very modest. Again, I've cited that his numerous residences (not mansions mind you, but residences) are for security purposes. Wouldn't you be paranoid if the CIA has attempted to take your life numerous times but, by sheer dumb luck, botched each and every chance it got? He does not keep numerous residences for luxury, he keeps them as a necessity.

Now, back to Cuba in general, the problem is that the needs of the people >>> the means of production of the country. It cannot sustain itself (unlike, say, the Soviet Union which never really faced a resource problem). But, the Cubans are a very resourceful people and they've used whatever little resources they have to their fullest. One of the most creative I've read about is lending Cuban doctors to other neighbouring countries for their resources (i.e. Venezuelan oil).

So, while everything is shared, there's not much to share in the first place, which makes everyone a loser. Apparently, Fidel Castro and his followers believe that a system where everyone loses is better than one where a few win and a lot lose.

Do I agree with this? Not necessarily. Do Cubans agree with it? Well, they've agreed enough not to overthrow their government for over half a century.

As an aside, attacking Communism is like kicking a dead horse. We all know that, as a whole, it doesn't work. However, not everything about Communism is doomed to fail. And that's where socialism comes in (i.e. Communism-Lite). Socialism is not Communism. Every government, whether you want to believe it or not, implements some form of socialism. If it didn't it'd be Anarchic/Libertarian, by definition.

I tend to have mostly Libertarian leanings but I shake my head at some of the extreme stuff. Some Libertarians actually advocate privatizing police forces. Think about that for a second. Would you feel comfortable if, in an instant of emergency, your only sources of help failed to heed your calls because you couldn't pay them? From this logic, don't most Western countries implement a form of socialism by making police/fire departments a public service? Heck, I don't agree with every service being made public and, coincidently, that's not what socialism is about. It aims to make the means of production that are deemed essential or beneficial available to everyone. Contrast this with Communism which takes everything, no exceptions.

[Fat1Fared]

I agree more with property than happiness. Happiness is too emotional to be treated as a rule... property works better. Happiness can change according to the person, causing a sea of conflicting tides, crashing against each other, solving nothing. Property, however, is easily defined and easily pursued.

Communism clearly prevents an individual from seeking property. No matter how much they work, they can't gain more than what their government tells them what they can gain.

As for equal distribution of wealth... that would theoretically mean that all people would be giving out the exact same amount of effort to the government. This seems justified in that it's theoretically a classless society. However.

The people themselves WANT to earn more than what their government wants them to earn. It draws back to that earlier idea of the pursuit of property.

This is why communism is a failed idea. It isn't fit as a government type because it doesn't protect the natural rights of the people.

Some would argue that the government should only keep their people alive and nothing else is required and the people should accept that. However, that too is a failed idea. Rule of thumb: When a government tells people what they can and can't do unfairly, war happens. When a leader of a government is given too much power over the people, corruption happens, and they impose harsh taxes and such on the people.

This is how things work. People who get in positions of power are usually greedy and hypocritical.

Ok, Holy learn what Commusim is, PLEASE I beg you, critising something like this, when misunderstand its very idea, means not actually critising it and not making helpful points:-(i'm not saying I know everything about commuism, but lest know basic's)

Ok, Basically a very brief example of TURE Commuism is a society where their isn't a goverment, or rulers because they are no longer needed, everyone will have everything need and they are all part of leadership, so doesn't need a defined set of leaders:-

And everyone will get an equal share of what is made by land, the farmer will get same food as lawyer, the factory worker will get same car as lawyer (though tech lawyers would be different as well, because of removal of set goverment, but that is moot point intruth)

Ok, also everyone will be given same living areas of same standard (making your point their moot) and poeple will do job most suited for them (don't ask me how that is found)

Also everyone will be given an equal chance at what do and There wouldn't be a class as every job and act would have same value in society

Basically it Anarchic society of perfect balance (know that sounds impossble and self-conflicting, in fact probably is impossible and self-conflicting, but that is what it is)

-Also this actually isn't a revolution like many believe, it is actually FINAL evolution of society (with several natural revolutions removing the old guard, but these are acts will help the evolution, not make it)

What you are critising is actually Societies which where not commuist, now I'm not saying that you were right or wrong or that commuism is without failings, however I merely feel you should learn more about it

My point was that Cuba is trying really, really hard to fit the ideal of communism, but it is hindered by realism. So is any other well-to-do country.


I would actually agree with this


Unlike other leaders (let alone dictators), Fidel Castro's living conditions are very, very modest. Again, I've cited that his numerous residences (not mansions mind you, but residences) are for security purposes. Wouldn't you be paranoid if the CIA has attempted to take your life numerous times but, by sheer dumb luck, botched each and every chance it got? He does not keep numerous residences for luxury, he keeps them as a necessity.


Indeed, he even used his countries own medical care rather than private one from other country like several so called commuist leaders (of course this is helped by amazingly effective heathcare have there)


Now, back to Cuba in general, the problem is that the needs of the people >>> the means of production of the country. It cannot sustain itself (unlike, say, the Soviet Union which never really faced a resource problem). But, the Cubans are a very resourceful people and they've used whatever little resources they have to their fullest. One of the most creative I've read about is lending Cuban doctors to other neighbouring countries for their resources (i.e. Venezuelan oil).


Actually Russia had massive resource problems and that is the main reason it failed to make a true commuist society. Lenin and Totsky were true believers, and tried to make it commuist for 3 years, but failed in end because country wasn't strong enough. However they DID actually try to make Russia commuist, but it was before it had any chance of being it this, (remember the country had just lost WW1, had over 100 years of really bad rule and germany charged when to leave the war)

In Fact Many Marxists of the time told them not to make russia commuist as knew wouldn't work, Marx himself wanted BRITIAN to become the first commuist country in world

And this followed through to its every end, when the USSR's finally fell, which came because it ran out of money and resources to keep going (all be it, with little help from USA)

But points on Cuda are fair


So, while everything is shared, there's not much to share in the first place, which makes everyone a loser. Apparently, Fidel Castro and his followers believe that a system where everyone loses is better than one where a few win and a lot lose.


Not Much to say really lol


Do I agree with this? Not necessarily. Do Cubans agree with it? Well, they've agreed enough not to overthrow their government for over half a century.


Again, nothing to add to personal opinion


As an aside, attacking Communism is like kicking a dead horse. We all know that, as a whole, it doesn't work. However, not everything about Communism is doomed to fail. And that's where socialism comes in (i.e. Communism-Lite). Socialism is not Communism. Every government, whether you want to believe it or not, implements some form of socialism. If it didn't it'd be Anarchic/Libertarian, by definition.


Well true on whole and I could give million reasons why true commuism would fail,

however must say that there are goverments in past which had very little control over their poeple (the rule was too complex to explain here, so PM me if want me to explain it) and didn't have socialistic ideals at all, infact Britian spent 200 years following the political ideals of Lessiue Faire politic's and at first it was very succussful on national level, however it failed in end as world grew to complex for it, and its poeple where left undefended from themselves/harsher sides of life, so needed to remove it, but point is, they did have it and depending on what want from goverment, it worked.


I tend to have mostly Libertarian leanings but I shake my head at some of the extreme stuff. Some Libertarians actually advocate privatizing police forces. Think about that for a second. Would you feel comfortable if, in an instant of emergency, your only sources of help failed to heed your calls because you couldn't pay them? From this logic, don't most Western countries implement a form of socialism by making police/fire departments a public service? Heck, I don't agree with every service being made public and, coincidently, that's not what socialism is about. It aims to make the means of production that are deemed essential or beneficial available to everyone. Contrast this with Communism which takes everything, no exceptions.

This again is generally true, however on personal level, I think there are somethings other than major ones that need to public funded even like buses and benefits (yes I agree with benefits,) but somethings like food and luxary items should never goverment funded. (though I don't think should be used to fund goverements ether, I understand tax's, but hate hidden tax's, however this is going to far away from topic)

[HolyShadow]

Fared, you told me things I already knew, and it's really not an evolution...

As I've said before, people want to earn their take. If one person does a job that requires more overall effort, they want more results for their actions.

It's built into human nature. It just is.

But let's remove that. If we remove that basic thing, then what are we? Bees.

Yes, communism may be perfect for bees, but it's not perfect for human beings because of human nature. Therefore, calling it an evolution is completely irrelevant because humans aren't perfect.