how close to a communist society do you think its possable to get?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

JoJo:
-reboot snip-

Alright then. Circular argument. Using a "vicious cycle" argument is a bit silly, because the a cycle is vicious because it can't be broken without outside help so it's a tad unfair to blame someone who got stuck in it for being stuck in it, especially if they were stuck in it when they were born to begin with, no? Since capitalism in its current state tends to perpetuate said cycle, it can't wash its hands.

You also seem to use the term "hard-working" wrong, because I can tell you most poor people tend to be hard-working, often more so than people who are better off, but due to their position, they have limited opportunities. Then, you seem to have confused "smart" and "educated".

And I'll just overlook that "poor parenting" comment for now, because I'm not even sure what you meant by that, aside from merely using a derogatory term.

See, in the end I do wish that people would stop assuming that being better off than the next guy means you're better than the next guy. It doesn't. It means you're luckier.

Vegosiux:

JoJo:
Considering personality traits are a mixture of genetics and environment, is it really a surprise that on average smart hard-working people tend to have smart hard-working children. There are societal issues in many countries with poor underclasses who are stuck in a viscous cycle but that's due to poor parenting and education, not capitalism's fault.

Alright then. Circular argument. Using a "vicious cycle" argument is a bit silly, because the a cycle is vicious because it can't be broken without outside help so it's a tad unfair to blame someone who got stuck in it for being stuck in it, especially if they were stuck in it when they were born to begin with, no? Since capitalism in its current state tends to perpetuate said cycle, it can't wash its hands.

You also seem to use the term "hard-working" wrong, because I can tell you most poor people tend to be hard-working, often more so than people who are better off, but due to their position, they have limited opportunities. Then, you seem to have confused "smart" and "educated".

And I'll just overlook that "poor parenting" comment for now, because I'm not even sure what you meant by that.

See, in the end I do wish that people would stop assuming that being better off than the next guy means you're better than the next guy. It doesn't. It means you're luckier.

As a fore-note, I put the text you are referring to in the quote box for the benefit of anyone who's reading.

Anyway, I don't quite understand why you assume that just because I'm not blaming capitalism that I'm blaming the poor underclass for their dilemma. I do blame some poor people for their situation but it depends on the person and their life. Poor people who actually have a job and keep their noses clean? Sure, no problem there. My bone to pick is those who refuse to work and instead expect us taxpayers to foot the bill to their lifestyle and right now in my country there are far too many of them.

Secondly here in the UK (I understand it may well be different in Slovenia) there is no excuse for "limited opportunities": everyone can go to public funded schools and get low-interest loans from the government to support themselves if they go to university. The problem we have here is there is a "underclass" of families who have often been unemployed for two or more generations and have grown used to living off benefits, they are often referred to with the pejorative "chav". They typically have links with anti-social behaviour, crime and child negligence (hence my reference to low quality parenting). They are stuck in this cycle because they never learn how to make something of themselves and it's honestly really tragic. The key to breaking the cycle though isn't socialism, paying them more money won't magically turn them into respectable citizens, what's needed is better education and early intervention so they can learn to support themselves.

As a final note, I never said that certain people are better than others because of their position in society, only that people deserve to be paid what they earn. Having a higher social status is rarely down to luck alone though, it's usually a mixture between that and hard-work.

JoJo:

Anyway, I don't quite understand why you assume that just because I'm not blaming capitalism that I'm blaming the poor underclass for their dilemma. I do blame some poor people for their situation but it depends on the person and their life. Poor people who actually have a job and keep their noses clean? Sure, no problem there. My bone to pick is those who refuse to work and instead expect us taxpayers to foot the bill to their lifestyle and right now in my country there are far too many of them.

Of course there are people like that, no way around it. But I kind of notice that going after those would cost more, and not only in monetary terms, than just making sure to offer people who do want to work an opportunity to do so.

Secondly here in the UK (I understand it may well be different in Slovenia) there is no excuse for "limited opportunities": everyone can go to public funded schools and get low-interest loans from the government to support themselves if they go to university. The problem we have here is there is a "underclass" of families who have often been unemployed for two or more generations and have grown used to living off benefits, they are often referred to with the pejorative "chav". They typically have links with anti-social behaviour, crime and child negligence (hence my reference to low quality parenting). They are stuck in this cycle because they never learn how to make something of themselves and it's honestly really tragic. The key to breaking the cycle though isn't socialism, paying them more money won't magically turn them into respectable citizens, what's needed is better education and early intervention so they can learn to support themselves.

Well, I may be a bit cynical, but I don't buy into that too much, not even in the UK. Who you know will always be more important than what you know in all but the most specialized professions. However, I'd have you know that a better public education system and early intervention from social services to whip people into shape (or rather, motivate them to do so themselves) is quite a socialist thing; that's not a bad word and all.

Glad you fixed that (am willing to believe unintentional) generalization from that post that made my brain explode all over the walls, tho, that much I will say.

As a final note, I never said that certain people are better than others because of their position in society, only that people deserve to be paid what they earn. Having a higher social status is rarely down to luck alone though, it's usually a mixture between that and hard-work.

Well, cynical again, but I don't think plenty of the most outrageous "earners" wouldn't know hard work if it came and bit them in the ass. Maybe our definitions of "hard work" differ, but when a guy kicking a ball or a skank jumping on a stage with unoriginal lyrics make several zeroes more than the guy working on the technical stuff and making sure people around the world actually have a chance to see the first guy botch his penalty or that wench show off her boobs (and trust me, that technical part is quite a stressful position that takes quite some effort and buckets of sweat), I'm going to say WTF. You may argue that the player has to work harder, but, ten to hundred thousand times harder? Give me a break.

That's a little strange a question from the OP, considering there's been several communist countries over the years. Is it possible? It's happened, so obviously yes.

That those collapse because communism is a naive idea that can never work is an entirely different matter.

hardlymotivated:
Perhaps if humanity reaches a post-scarcity age, but I don't see it being particularly effective until then.

I never really bought that idea very much. Some things are going to be scarce, even when you can replicate matter from nearly free energy.

The Mona Lisa, pieces of land, baseballs signed by famous players, etc. The originals can never be made common, and throwing away all currency and making everything state owned won't suddenly make those things suddenly able to be gained by everybody. Other things that can't be so easily replicated and take lots of time and resources to build won't be their for everyone. Why can't we all have Starships on the level of the Enterprise?

Also, I have to ask, if we can get all medicine, food, transportation, and any resources we need to survive for basically nothing, why would we need a government?

Magichead:
When we reach a stage of technological automation that allows for the basic needs of all humanity(food, clothing, shelter, free movement etc) to be met at no cost other than energy, I suspect we'll end up with something very much like "communism" anyway.

Well... when the patents expire. :)

Though I think what it would actually start to look like initially is the institution of slavery, except without the whole brutalizing degradation of the human condition part. (Hopefully the machines won't think it's a brutalizing degradation of the machine condition.)

Not G. Ivingname:

Also, I have to ask, if we can get all medicine, food, transportation, and any resources we need to survive for basically nothing, why would we need a government?

That's kind of the point of communism, yes. There's no "government" as such in it, and no classes, the people effectively govern themselves by being a bunch of nice chaps. Communism isn't in favor of a "big government" as much as it is in favor of "Every person alive is a member of the government". Which effectively nullifies the institution, doesn't it.

JoJo:
Come off it, if there was really "masses of research" backing up your opinion, why did you fail to mention a single one when you quoted me twice?

I assumed it was so self evident that it wouldn't need proof beyond it's own obviousness, the word of a Cambridge Professor of Economics and the easily obtainable evidence by simple research. As it does, let me hold your hand as I guide you through the magical garden of knowledge:

http://play.google.com/books/reader?id=KYhB-B6kfSMC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP1
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2008-09971-000
http://web.mac.com/astajkovic/Alex_Stajkovic/Publications_files/Stajkovic%20%26%20Luthans%20(2003).pdf
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105?journalCode=psych
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1464-0597.00020/abstract
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2000-05867-009

If that's not enough let me know, I can seriously do an entire post full of 50 links to peer reviewed research if you REALLY need it.

Also, you have failed to address my point. Technology isn't just motivated by individuals, it's motivated by competition.

That's exactly what I addressed. You saying "No, but that doesn't count!" doesn't invalidate that.

That doesn't mean that the scientists themselves are necessarily reaping the rewards, but that the organisation they work for does. For example, a group of companies all trying to make the best smartphone possible will make far more innovation and leaps just to keep their market-share than one chugging government industry would under socialism, which would have little incentive to innovate.

And what incentive does that give to the workers of one particular mass of Smartphone researchers, developers and technicians that wouldn't be available under a communist government?

Fair as in a :
b (1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due [a fair share]

So basically you are saying 50/50?

Take an analogy, let's say a group of friends are playing poker. If all of them are playing "fairly", does that mean every player is going to end up with the same number of chips at the end of the game? No, it means they'll have the same opportunity to get more chips, some will end up with more and some with less due to a mixture of skill and luck, just like real life.

Develop your analogy further. One of the players happens to be the son of the owner of the casino. Every time the others place a bet, they have to pay money to him. Every time they have something to drink or eat, they pay money to him. If they do too well, he can eject them from the casino. Does it mean he has to come out ahead of everyone else? He doesn't have to, but he has every damn reason to and a mass of advantages over the average person.

That is fair according to the law of the land, but not according to everyday sensibility.

Case-in-point, every socialist or communist country in the 20th century, they were sure sucessful weren't they? *elbow, wink*

Just like every capitalist country is doing great and did great forever? Economy not imploding? No atrocities committed? No human rights breached?

Considering personality traits are a mixture of genetics and environment, is it really a surprise that on average smart hard-working people tend to have smart hard-working children. There are societal issues in many countries with poor underclasses who are stuck in a viscous cycle but that's due to poor parenting and education, not capitalism's fault.

Wow. You have just with no evidence assumed that rich people are smart and hard working and thus the advantages their children have are due to their children also being smart and hard working. I am struggling to find words for such arrogance and blindness

Care to offer any evidence your magical dreamworld works like that while I try to piece together the words to breach such a carapace of ignorance?

Vegosiux:

Of course there are people like that, no way around it. But I kind of notice that going after those would cost more, and not only in monetary terms, than just making sure to offer people who do want to work an opportunity to do so.

I don't know, I've always liked the idea of making those on benefits for lack of a job (rather than too young/old/disabled) do a bit of work for the government to earn their keep, even if it's only cleaning the streets or painting over graffiti for a few hours a week. I've got a few people in my extended family who deliberately don't work and frankly it sickens me.

Well, I may be a bit cynical, but I don't buy into that too much, not even in the UK. Who you know will always be more important than what you know in all but the most specialized professions. However, I'd have you know that a better public education system and early intervention from social services to whip people into shape (or rather, motivate them to do so themselves) is quite a socialist thing; that's not a bad word and all.

Glad you fixed that (am willing to believe unintentional) generalization from that post that made my brain explode all over the walls, tho, that much I will say.

You'll be pleased to know I'm not against social aspects to society, such as government-provided healthcare and education, but I think they work best on a background of capitalism: going back to my first post on this thread, I believe that when the element of competition is removed from society is when socialism or communism goes too far.

Well, cynical again, but I don't think plenty of the most outrageous "earners" wouldn't know hard work if it came and bit them in the ass. Maybe our definitions of "hard work" differ, but when a guy kicking a ball or a skank jumping on a stage with unoriginal lyrics make several zeroes more than the guy working on the technical stuff and making sure people around the world actually have a chance to see the first guy botch his penalty or that wench show off her boobs (and trust me, that's quite a stressful position that takes quite some effort and buckets of sweat), I'm going to say WTF.

Come on though, we both know that celebrities with ridiculous pay-checks make a negligible amount of the population and even the amount of rich people, for better or worse most rich are bankers or investors or inherited their wealth. Honestly if people want their money to go to celebs then that's their choice, it's going to be heavily taxed anyway and guess where that tax money's going right back to ;-)

Overhead:
Care to offer any evidence your magical dreamworld works like that while I try to piece together the words to breach such a carapace of ignorance?

That's a rather ironic statement coming from a communist but no, I don't care to debate with people who can't conduct an argument without resorting to base insults. For reference on how to act like a decent person while arguing your side, check out Vegosiux's posts.

Also:

I assumed it was so self evident that it wouldn't need proof beyond it's own obviousness

Wow. You have just with no evidence assumed...

image

Overhead:
Just like every capitalist country is doing great and did great forever? Economy not imploding? No atrocities committed? No human rights breached?

I'd say worrying about one's income is a better situation than worrying if the secret police is going to put you in a concentration camp or execute your family for being a filthy class enemy, but hey, that's just my opinion.

Although it strikes me as odd that no proponent of communism I've ever heard about (discounting the Castro Jugend like indoctrinated types) has ever lived in a communist country. You'd expect them to flock to places like North Korea, Cuba, or perhaps Venezuela and Bolivia if it's so awesome.

Actually it would seem the refugees are going strictly from communist or socialist states to capitalist states.

Vegosiux:

Not G. Ivingname:

Also, I have to ask, if we can get all medicine, food, transportation, and any resources we need to survive for basically nothing, why would we need a government?

That's kind of the point of communism, yes. There's no "government" as such in it, and no classes, the people effectively govern themselves by being a bunch of nice chaps. Communism isn't in favor of a "big government" as much as it is in favor of "Every person alive is a member of the government". Which effectively nullifies the institution, doesn't it.

I read the communist manifesto and didn't see the part about, "the large centralized government will give way to no government at all," can you please point to the part when Carl Marx explains this part of his ideology?

JoJo:

Develop your analogy further. One of the players happens to be the son of the owner of the casino. Every time the others place a bet, they have to pay money to him. Every time they have something to drink or eat, they pay money to him. If they do too well, he can eject them from the casino. Does it mean he has to come out ahead of everyone else? He doesn't have to, but he has every damn reason to and a mass of advantages over the average person.

Well, like a lot of things, going to a casino has more reward or worth than just the chance to win a lot of money. Gambling, particularly in the Vegas setting can be more about fun and stress relief, which have economic worth to one person than the money spent. A fun night is worth more to people than the money lost. While the casino has the advantage in raw percentages of winnings (expect in crabs, but that is only 50/50 if the player plays perfectly, and poker which the house gains it's money through fees to stay at the board) than the casino wouldn't make any money, and running a casino isn't cheap (all the staff, keeping things clean, all the electrical bills, etc.) thus if forced to make all the chances half and half, many casinos would go out of business.

Not G. Ivingname:

I read the communist manifesto and didn't see the part about, "the large centralized government will give way to no government at all," can you please point to the part when Carl Marx explains this part of his ideology?

The large centralized government cannot exist in a classless society. If the society truly wishes to move on into a classless one, the government has to go.

JoJo:

Overhead:
Care to offer any evidence your magical dreamworld works like that while I try to piece together the words to breach such a carapace of ignorance?

That's a rather ironic statement coming from a communist but no, I don't care to debate with people who can't conduct an argument without resorting to base insults. For reference on how to act like a decent person while arguing your side, check out Vegosiux's posts.

Considering I'm lowering myself to debate with someone who makes vast reaching statements that not only lack evidence but actually fly in the face of all available evidence, you should count yourself lucky.

Also:

I assumed it was so self evident that it wouldn't need proof beyond it's own obviousness

Wow. You have just with no evidence assumed...

image

Selective quoting.

Actual quote:

"I assumed it was so self evident that it wouldn't need proof beyond it's own obviousness, the word of a Cambridge Professor of Economics and the easily obtainable evidence by simple research"

Which is then followed up by links to 6 pieces of peer reviewed scientific research.

But I guess if you selectively quote what I say and avoid the point I'm making, that means you don't have to actually engage on any intellectual level.

I'd say worrying about one's income is a better situation than worrying if the secret police is going to put you in a concentration camp or execute your family for being a filthy class enemy, but hey, that's just my opinion.

You mean like across the entire Southern Cone of Brazil where the US backed dictatorships and juntas of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil killed a minimum of 60,000 people, including taking people into football stadiums and executing them by firing squad for the crime of supporting democracy and opposing tyranny?

Or when the US helped Indonesia massacre half a million of it's own citizens for being dissenters or 'communists'?

How about funding, aid and support given to the civilian murdering, nun-raping contras by the US?

Is that the kind of action you're talking about?

Although it strikes me as odd that no proponent of communism I've ever heard about (discounting the Castro Jugend like indoctrinated types) has ever lived in a communist country. You'd expect them to flock to places like North Korea, Cuba, or perhaps Venezuela and Bolivia if it's so awesome.

One world communism + nationalism. I love my country and I'll fight the good fight here rather than sloping off to a different country which doesn't meet my standards but is at least a bit closer.

Actually it would seem the refugees are going strictly from communist or socialist states to capitalist states.

First of all, I think we're going by different definitions of Communist if you're including North Korea of all places as communist (Hint, I am going by the actual definition of Communist).

Secondly, we've seen literally billions of people attempting to turn capitalist or monarchist nations into communist or socialist ones.

Thirdly this is some weak ass rebuttal. It is basically Argumentum ad populum and contains no insight or criticism of Communism itself.

Overhead:

Considering I'm lowering myself to debate with someone who makes vast reaching statements that not only lack evidence but actually fly in the face of all available evidence, you should count yourself lucky.

"Lowering yourself" to debate with me? Really?

Uggh, sure thing your Majesty, I won't impinge my lowly ignorant self on your enlightened boots any longer. Blablahb, he's all yours.

JoJo:

Overhead:

Considering I'm lowering myself to debate with someone who makes vast reaching statements that not only lack evidence but actually fly in the face of all available evidence, you should count yourself lucky.

"Lowering yourself" to debate with me? Really?

In the few posts I've paid attention to you, you've ignored scientific peer reviewed evidence, selectively quoted me, shown an ignorance for modern history, etc.

This shows you're either not arguing in good faith or are simply bad at presenting your point of view. This isn't exactly Dawkins vs Williams right here.

Overhead:

JoJo:

Overhead:

Considering I'm lowering myself to debate with someone who makes vast reaching statements that not only lack evidence but actually fly in the face of all available evidence, you should count yourself lucky.

"Lowering yourself" to debate with me? Really?

In the few posts I've paid attention to you, you've ignored scientific peer reviewed evidence, selectively quoted me, shown an ignorance for modern history, etc.

This shows you're either not arguing in good faith or are simply bad at presenting your point of view. This isn't exactly Dawkins vs Williams right here.

I promised myself I wouldn't reply to you again, but ugh, I guess I'm a masochist... if you read my replies to you again, I stated very clearly that I refuse to debate with someone who had a overly condescending and/or insulting attitude. It's a general policy I have. That is reason I have ignored your points. If you really want to debate with me, quote me again without the attitude in another thread.

JoJo:

Overhead:

JoJo:

"Lowering yourself" to debate with me? Really?

In the few posts I've paid attention to you, you've ignored scientific peer reviewed evidence, selectively quoted me, shown an ignorance for modern history, etc.

This shows you're either not arguing in good faith or are simply bad at presenting your point of view. This isn't exactly Dawkins vs Williams right here.

I promised myself I wouldn't reply to you again, but ugh, I guess I'm a masochist... if you read my replies to you again, I stated very clearly that I refuse to debate with someone who had a overly condescending and/or insulting attitude. It's a general policy I have. That is reason I have ignored your points. If you really want to debate with me, quote me again without the attitude in another thread.

Sadly I am only currently at the socialist level of posting of "From each according to his ability". As you argue your points badly and dishonestly, I won't treat you seriously and will be a bit mocking. You have yet to earn a more sophisticated level of response.

Perhaps when I make it to the communist level of "to each according to his need" I will selflessly give you the affirmation and positive posting manner you desire, regardless of the level of your own posting.

Until then you'll either have to cope with it or learn to post earnestly and appropriately.

Overhead:

JoJo:

Overhead:

In the few posts I've paid attention to you, you've ignored scientific peer reviewed evidence, selectively quoted me, shown an ignorance for modern history, etc.

This shows you're either not arguing in good faith or are simply bad at presenting your point of view. This isn't exactly Dawkins vs Williams right here.

I promised myself I wouldn't reply to you again, but ugh, I guess I'm a masochist... if you read my replies to you again, I stated very clearly that I refuse to debate with someone who had a overly condescending and/or insulting attitude. It's a general policy I have. That is reason I have ignored your points. If you really want to debate with me, quote me again without the attitude in another thread.

Sadly I am only currently at the socialist level of posting of "From each according to his ability". As you argue your points badly and dishonestly, I won't treat you seriously and will be a bit mocking. You have yet to earn a more sophisticated level of response.

Perhaps when I make it to the communist level of "to each according to his need" I will selflessly give you the affirmation and positive posting manner you desire, regardless of the level of your own posting.

Until then you'll either have to cope with it or learn to post earnestly and appropriately.

Look up post 43 on this thread, you were the first to argue badly by lowering yourself to petty insults, for which there's no excuse even if you disagree with my points completely.

Vegosiux:

Not G. Ivingname:

I read the communist manifesto and didn't see the part about, "the large centralized government will give way to no government at all," can you please point to the part when Carl Marx explains this part of his ideology?

The large centralized government cannot exist in a classless society. If the society truly wishes to move on into a classless one, the government has to go.

... That wasn't my question, I was asking where this idea of the governmentless social society came from. Also, if the classless society based on only the goodwill of the people for the greater good, how is going to make sure that capitalism doesn't come back?

Not G. Ivingname:

Vegosiux:

Not G. Ivingname:

I read the communist manifesto and didn't see the part about, "the large centralized government will give way to no government at all," can you please point to the part when Carl Marx explains this part of his ideology?

The large centralized government cannot exist in a classless society. If the society truly wishes to move on into a classless one, the government has to go.

... That wasn't my question, I was asking where this idea of the governmentless social society came from. Also, if the classless society based on only the goodwill of the people for the greater good, how is going to make sure that capitalism doesn't come back?

I would be hard to track down exactly where the idea came from for a stateless society, simply because in the early days of communism everything was very splintered, there were minor groups all over the Continent with their own differing beliefs and philosophies and I believe this was a widespread belief even before Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and the communist groups became more united.

I do know Engels wrote about it a bit:

"The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection - nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society - the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society - is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."

A full on Communist society would still have structures, for instance however labour is allocated, that could be referred to as the State, but the vast majority of its functions would have been taken away from it and the ones which are left would be functioning in ways so different and democratic that it doesn't really make sense to still call them the State.

Also, if the classless society based on only the goodwill of the people for the greater good, how is going to make sure that capitalism doesn't come back?

It's never going to be impossible to take a retrograde step from a form of communism back to capitalism, but once communism is initiated in full excluding external influences it would probably be harder to change a communist country back to a capitalist country than it is to change a capitalist country to a communist one (Which I can tell you, is really damn hard).

The rich bourgeois would have ceased to exist as a class, so they wouldn't be able to use their disproportionate wealth and income to try and sway people with their opinion or force this on others. The structures and relationships which encourage capitalism would have disappeared. Societal pressure and norms would also probably make the majority of people think of capitalism the same way your typical 40 something American thinks of Communism (The enemy!!!!).

What bores me so much is that we've accepted there's levels of capitalism, some feel welfare is good and a necessity, then you've got the folks who yell 'let him die!' at Republican speeches.

Yet with communism, we either hand over the world to Chairman Mao, or nothing.

I pay some attention to US politics, and it's just tedious that any attempt to assist the poorest members of society brings the usual cries of 'OMG Obama wants the US to be a commie state!', healthcare, welfare, anything which, putting politics aside, just shows a little compassion for your fellow man.

It's not communism, it's called 'society', not living 100% for number 1.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked