Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: makemap

China is not capitalist. It is still a communist dictatorship which allows mostly communist party members to apply for businesses which helps the communist party. In Cuba it is similar. Loyal communist party members are living in mansions, or really good houses, meanwhile the rest of the nation is in disarray.

Mothers who are expecting a female baby in China are forced to abort even if it is their first baby. Of course, there is the "1 child policy" so if a mother is expecting a second child it doesn't matter what sex it is, mothers are forced to abort. Many escape, or try to. If they are caught, they are imprisoned, and fined a lot more money than most Chinese make in a year.

Since the "1 child policy" was implemented in China suicide is the number 1 cause of death of young women in China.

vimeo.com...

There is still persecution against many religious people and groups in China. The communist party in China still suppresses religions to "limit the public influence of religions such as Christianity".

Chinese Persecution of Christians Reaches Highest Level in a Decade

China is not capitalistic, and neither is Cuba, nor North Korea. These dictatorships use capitalism to gain money and keep oppressing millions of people.

That isn't communism if the government controls everything. It is then Fascism. To be honest China is a mix. At least their not like the US kicking you out of homes for no reason and you have to fend for yourself.

www.youtube.com...

Pure Capitalism doesn't work either. The only thing stopping corporations or even companies from taking full control is the government which can turn fascist. You can say the whole world is in a mix ideology. It isn't just one. Freaking Saudi's on the hand is in Imperialism. Quit thinking Capitalism has to do with companies/corporations being in control. That is not how it works. If they get full control it is called "Corporatism" where everyone relies on the companies for laws and to live off from(just like US right now).

a reply to: makemap

Communism is where the government more or less owns everything for the "common good." It is called the workers paradise, but the workers have no real control as everything is controlled for the best interests of the state and the "common good" which are often billed as one and the same.

Fascism is where the government dictates how everything must be run, but individuals are allowed to own their own property so long as they use it at the state's command.

Both are tyranny and splitting hairs for that fact.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: makemap

Communism is where the government more or less owns everything for the "common good." It is called the workers paradise, but the workers have no real control as everything is controlled for the best interests of the state and the "common good" which are often billed as one and the same.

Fascism is where the government dictates how everything must be run, but individuals are allowed to own their own property so long as they use it at the state's command.

Both are tyranny and splitting hairs for that fact.

Look up the dictionary of a Community. Again, another person putting workers into the ideal. As I said before, the word has nothing to do with the workers. If you are going to do that, then your just better off calling it a Republic/Caste system. Government doesn't own everything in Communism. The people do based on ideology/culture, everything is for the public, not much private areas especially in companies or factories. Government is only there if needed to help keep the country intact. Laws that work for the people whom the entire community implements.

Capitalism, same thing. Only difference is the way the people live is extremely private in housing areas(not allowed to enter). Companies are also private, but work for the country and doesn't follow the Government much nor the public. More individually secret and not to be bothered with laws of "Do not enter".

You can look at Imperialism in the past, which was a bit communist if you have no king or government control. Everyone can move about on farmers homeland without having to deal much with private/governmental rules. Private laws started implementing when thieves started stealing.

Take a look at Sparta. It was Imperialist only because it had a king and slaves. If the king was gone. What would you call when the Spartans friends can just move into your Spartan home and enjoy some wine? Its like your friend digging your fridge for food and giving some back to you without each other having paying.(Past had lots of farmland for food, so technically you wouldn't run out of food). Doubt today when we are not allowed to even grow our own food or take any food off the farm area without paying(This is Capitalism/Fascism(if the government controls it)).

All the safety laws have nothing to do with not being communist. It is the ability to enter and exit supposedly private areas.

Capitalism = Capital

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Quote: "the nominal value of the authorized or issued shares"

Capitalism your home is an extremely valuable and a private share. Why else everyone has the ability to sell and buy houses?

Communism = Community

Buy and selling homes doesn't exist everyone works as a community.

Socialism = Social

Fascism(was pretty new)=fascio

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Quote from dictionary "The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group,""


This is why the world is using a mix of ideologies. One cannot truly work unless the people in the country as a whole is united. Humanity greed is the only thing that stops the unity from happening.

originally posted by: makemap


Look up the dictionary of a Community. Again, another person putting workers into the ideal. As I said before, the word has nothing to do with the workers. If you are going to do that, then your just better off calling it a Republic/Caste system. Government doesn't own everything in Communism. The people do based on ideology/culture, everything is for the public, not much private areas especially in companies or factories. Government is only there if needed to help keep the country intact. Laws that work for the people whom the entire community implements.

Capitalism, same thing. Only difference is the way the people live is extremely private in housing areas(not allowed to enter). Companies are also private, but work for the country and doesn't follow the Government much nor the public. More individually secret and not to be bothered with laws of "Do not enter".

Well, you missed something. Either way, collectivism might not be such an uncomfortable living arrangement for a society as long as you don't disagree (in any way, shape or form) with "the people" (society). As soon as you disagree on a point that you cannot compromise on, you will definitely start to get very familiar with the disadvantages of this as an individual.

A collectivist society cannot afford any amount of individual freedom. Because if you're free to be an individual, you're completely free to simply stop being a team player. You don't wear the shirts and the hats. You don't pay the membership dues. You don't rabidly seek out non-conformists and flag them for conformity treatments. You can simply do you own thing. And of course, that means you can just sit on your butt and wait for your body to wear out. If it is possible to find a way to eat, sleep and stay alive without producing much of anything or paying large tax bills, there are people who will do it and the collective will immediately sense the danger in that. Because obviously, it can be a much easier life if you can cheat the system somehow. But everyone inherently knows that if too many people unshackle themselves from the rest of society (and stop being tax cows) the tax milking system will become unsustainable at some point.

Eventually, something has to give. Either.......

1. Taxes will have to go up and up and up for those who decide to and try to be good little worker bees (In a big government system, taxes will go up and up and up for these people regardless but that's beside the point).

And/Or......

2. This system will eventually start to break down. There will be so many people who are not "paying their fair share" that it will be impossible not to notice. The good little worker bees will say this isn't fair to them (They'll be somewhat right, of course but the fact that they are ALL slaves will simply be lost on them, I guess).

And there you have it. Whether you have socialism or capitalism, what you really have is one inescapable fact. We are simply livestock. The kind of pen you live in really only matters when it comes down to how your owners (whomever they may be) deal with those who can see that they are slaves. Openly totalitarian systems simply have little incentive to be diplomatic. If they give you an order and you don't obey immediately, it's not going to cost them anything in the eyes of the rest of society to force you by any means necessary. After all, it's just "fair". If you have 250 million obedient milking cows and 20 million who don't want to be milked, the troublemakers need to be gotten rid of. When you live in a cage, you might as well try to tune out the bars and the concrete walls and the locks and the guards and so forth.

Anyway, allowing slaves to believe they own things is a dangerous concept. Because sooner or later, they're going to realize that if they can own a house, they should obviously be allowed to have ownership of their own body and mind. And of course we all know that we're well beyond the point where you have any real choices over your own body.

So. "Workers" is really a euphemism. At some point, it became unfashionable to call them what they are. Property. Whether you're the property of a single wealthy man, a corporation or the property of society, a slave is a slave is a slave.

a reply to: makemap

I see your pretty little words, but in a "community" of 350 million who have by now all trained to belong to different competing ideology and identity groups, that's all they are - pretty little words.

The only way to enforce a real "commune" for the "greater good" on this society is to use a great deal of force, top to bottom, and more or less eliminate anyone and everyone who refuses to comply and enforce, brutally, the collective on everyone else who is too cowed to resist.

That's how it was done in the USSR, and that's how it was done in China, and that's how it's done in North Korea and that's how it's done in Cuba, and that's how it would be done here. To deny it is to play the part the power brokers refer to as the useful idiot. They play on your idealized notions of what you think you're getting to push for the implementation of the power they want and then when they have it, you'll be discarded, forcibly if necessary just like anyone else who refuses to comply.

a reply to: ketsuko

The red scare is creeping up on 100 years.

Those commies sure are inefficient.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ketsuko

The red scare is creeping up on 100 years.

Those commies sure are inefficient.

You should read Witness by Whittaker Chambers for a detailed account of the goings on among communist infiltrators.

a reply to: greencmp

Are you kidding? That book is over half a century old. From the McCarthy era to boot. Everything in it must be true.

Giving someone a chance to try and scare me isn't going to change the fact that communism failed.

a reply to: daskakik

I'm not kidding.

a reply to: greencmp

Well you should be.

Before you take this as a flat out dismissal, it isn't. Communist infiltrators happened, big deal. All countries have intelligence agencies.

Who knows what you think that book is supposed to do but, I am well beyond the point where the actions of some group will surprise, shock or scare me.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: makemap

I see your pretty little words, but in a "community" of 350 million who have by now all trained to belong to different competing ideology and identity groups, that's all they are - pretty little words.

The only way to enforce a real "commune" for the "greater good" on this society is to use a great deal of force, top to bottom, and more or less eliminate anyone and everyone who refuses to comply and enforce, brutally, the collective on everyone else who is too cowed to resist.

That's how it was done in the USSR, and that's how it was done in China, and that's how it's done in North Korea and that's how it's done in Cuba, and that's how it would be done here. To deny it is to play the part the power brokers refer to as the useful idiot. They play on your idealized notions of what you think you're getting to push for the implementation of the power they want and then when they have it, you'll be discarded, forcibly if necessary just like anyone else who refuses to comply.

What you looking at is not Communism. You should be looking at power control pyramids. There is a reason why Chinese army is called People "Republic/Liberation" Army. The Army works for the people. You should be looking at systems such as Monarchy, Republic, Caste, Classless.

It says Communism is a classless society. Therefore everyone is the military/worker/citizen/government. Meaning no Monarchy class systems. Collectivism is the class society of Communism. You would more than likely call Communism a "Classless system"(as in no pyramid class system).

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

You would see Republic system in Capitalist country where government has limited power of control.

All countries today has more governmental power than the past. Not much of a Republic to be honest, soon to be Oligarchy.

These are the control systems you should be looking. "The other words like Communism, and Fascism are just ideology on how the country should be run".

For example, you can have Corporatism where a production firm controls the entire country without a government and be a "Classless Society" or they can be an Oligarchy Society. It can't be called Communist because it is a company that is in control, not the country or the people. Even with the Government(Possible Puppet) not in control. It is the Company that has the most power so it would still be called Corporatism. If the government has more control than the Company it would either be Fascism or Capitalism. Can't be Communist because communism gives power for everyone including the workers/non-workers. In Communist countries usually the citizens do multi-role stuff like being a military personnel and a worker at the same time(just like Sparta, but, it was Imperialist because it had a king). They fight when ever needed.

Take a nice look at the Monarchy Pyramid for Imperialism.

mediamonarchy.blogspot.ca...

This is where everyone gets wrong. You cannot have two words of the same ideal.
Capitalism has nothing to do with companies. It is the ability to live privately. As long as Companies don't control your land or you. It isn't Corporatism. As long as the Companies or Government doesn't have full control of the Citizens, it is still Capitalism. The main ideal is land control. US seems to be the one heading for Corporatism.


en.wikipedia.org...

Quote: "Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned. Private firms and proprietorships usually operate in order to generate profit, but may operate as "private nonprofit organizations."

Hint: You can have "Democratic Communism"/ "Democratic Capitalism" where the citizens vote for certain laws. But, "Democratic Fascism" is where citizens(government is still considered as a citizen, so it could just be a government vote only) vote for Governments to control(what is the point of that?). But, don't be confused when I say that. US isn't full fascist, yet. As the Government doesn't got full control of citizens or companies. Maybe they do through all the taxation.. If the President is in full control, then it would be "Imperialism" as the President is suppose to be the Leader/King who implements the law.

I prefer a trumph of the individual over the state and MY vote was delivered via M203 -A2/M60.

jonrappoport.wordpress.com...

a reply to: makemap

You don't get it do you?

The kind of socialism and communism you want only and can only exist on paper and in theory. In the real world, it fails and becomes that pyramid scheme where the few at the top control all for the rest.

That you continue to blindly espouse it is why I label you a useful idiot. You just continue to blindly insist it's what we need and vote for policies that you are told will bring it about. But what you really do is usher in that pyramid scheme, and when the trap snaps shut and the gilding comes off the cage and you cry foul, you get removed just like those of us who fought you and the ones at the top all along.

a reply to: Phantom423

And Bernie Sanders will fall on his face if he's elected. The mindset of the United States is "redistribution of wealth" - without the individual responsibility of creating that wealth. Take from the rich; give to the poor. What a concept! What happens when the rich disappear or simply stop producing?

A wealth and wage cap on the top 1% to 2%.

Redistributing the wealth of the owners to the workforce who are the ones most responsible for creating wealth. The man sitting in the office, or the shareholders at the golf course are doing much less to generate wealth then the workforce that bust their buts everyday to produce the actual goods and services that are being consumed.

The shareholders and office workers are looking to generate wealth for themselves, and in most cases, without concern for the workforce, the environment, or the overall health and stability of the nation.

Everyone who works is responsible for creating wealth. But only those at the top are getting the wealth that is created by exploiting the workforce. The middle and lower classes continue to sink into poverty while the billionaires keep getting wealthier and hiding money overseas, which creates a shortage in the monetary supply.

The capitalist system works best for all when the money earned is money spent. Billionaires are not reinvesting in the American workforce so they are destroying the capitalist model, stagnation of money is not good for the model.

Who cares if billionaires disappear. Anyone who thinks that billionaires have progressed this world and are somehow necessary is very confused. Billionaires have lobbied against competing technologies. The wealthiest have suppressed green energy technologies that would compete with their billions.

What is better than billionaire owned corporations? It's called smaller businesses using the supply and demand model. Not mega corporations that control supply and price who have enough money to outprice all competition until there remains no competition.

The end to uncontrolled capitalism is all commodities owned by a few. Capitalism operates best for the corporation with a controlled supply and set price model. Controlled by corporations who's concern is not to create enough commodities for all but merely to short supply the world and thus create an artificial limited supply with 100% demand and increased prices, while those at the bottom do without.

Unemployment is also another tool of uncontrolled capitalism. If there were enough jobs for everyone willing to work, workers would have the power to negotiate wages. With 17 - 21 million unemployed the minimum wage workers have no ability to negotiate wages, they will simply be fired and replaced by someone who is unemployed and willing to accept whatever pay they receive.

If we eliminated welfare and created minimum wage jobs for the unemployed who were willing to work, those working in the private sector would have more ability to negotiate wages without the fear of unemployment. This is what I believe FDR was trying to do with the New Deal.

Putting a wealth cap on the top 1% to 2% will not destroy capitalism, nor will it hinder progress. It wil not destroy supply and demand pricing, it will encourage it through smaller competing businesses. It will ensure that money earned is money spent, the true power of a capitalist marketplace.

Putting a wealth cap on the top 1% to 2% will end the push for a facisist corpocracy, because their will be nothing to be gained. The end of elitism will not harm anyone. And to bring the elitist back down to earth will help them let of go of their psychopathic desire for wealth and power.

I have created several threads on a controlled capitalist environment through the institution of a wage and wealth cap. In those threads I have made suggestions on where I think the wage and wealth cap should be.

The difference between social fascism and
social democracy.

Social facism, is where we are headed. A minority of people imposing laws that they call socialist.

Social Democracy, is where we need to be headed. A majority vote to ensure that what is best for the majority becomes the law of the land.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people is a Social Democracy, protected by the ideology of a constitutional republic. Unless you want to eliminate all social programs and allow for corporate anarchy.

Although I support a wealth cap, I favor democracy over any other ideology. So you would not find me imposing a wealth tax unless it were the will of the majority. I am not a facisist.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't understand what a "wealth cap" is. How do you determine how much a person is allowed to earn? And where do you find these altruistic individuals who 1) have the intellectual and creative wherewithal to create the wealth; 2) who are not driven by the natural human condition of competition and 3) who agree to have no say as to how much they earn?

I think you forget human nature. The "community" ideal is nice to talk about over a martini. But as I asked before, what country has successfully transformed their people into a society of robots who don't resent being "capped" on their production.

As for billionaires, it's just a matter of scale. It used to be millionaires. In the future it will be trillionaires (I think there are few around already). Who's going to tell them they can't have their $250M yacht, their Gulfstream, and 10 Rolls Royces in their garages??

That's the fundamental problem with trickle down socialism. At the top you must have a small group of dictatorial ideologues who have the means to enforce the rules of the "community".

The reality is people are not equal. They never have been and never will be. Some are smart, some are less smart and others are downright dumb. There can never be income equality because income is primarily dictated by the quality of your brain, the skills you develop and how hard you want to work. Throw in a little luck and you too can be a Steve Jobs!

No country has ever taxed their way to prosperity. Confiscatory tax policy has only incentivized the wealthy to find havens for asset protection. Look at the Kennedys - the famous liberals who would tax a bus driver to death, but who wove a cocoon around their wealth to protect it. www.forbes.com...

A flat tax with no deductions and no work-arounds would go a long way to equalizing the playing field. GE filed a 57,000 page tax return in 2011 on $14Billion in profit and paid practically no tax. How does that work?? You don't need a revolution to fix this type of problem. What you need is a simplification of tax law with the proper enforcement.

I understand the frustration of Americans. We have a dysfunctional government intentionally designed by the crooks we elect and send to Washington. But reverting to an ideology, or some derivative there of, which has a notorious history of failure is not the answer.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Isurrender73


That's the fundamental problem with trickle down socialism. At the top you must have a small group of dictatorial ideologues who have the means to enforce the rules of the "community".

Congratulations on making such a fine case for intellectual facisim.

I don't think anyone, no matter how intellectually gifted is worth as much as 25 other human beings. But I would accept such wealth disparity. A minimum wage of 20,000 and a maximum wage of 500,000 is far from communism.

I also support non taxed corporate spending accounts equal to a percentage of their GDP, as growing corporations are good for the capitalist environment as well.

Once a person reaches the cap, I promise another very intelligent individual will fill the role of spreading goods and services until they reach the cap as well. And this will continue until you have 2000 people at the wealth cap instead of one person making a billion.

Intelligence is not limited to those with money. I currently have very little money but am intellectually superior to most of the elitists with money. The major difference between me and them, I am not addicted to wealth and power.

The only way to make a billion is to exploit others, except the rare case of inventions. Most of today's billionaires are not bringing new items to the world, they are exploiting the workforce. We will operate just fine without elitists exploiting the workforce.

And those people that you suggest we need so desperately to lead us, in a democracy they are called elected officials. The general population knows that we are not all equal, which is why we choose to elect leaders who are more intellectually gifted. And a wage cap 25 times greater than minimum wage is far from equality.

How far from equality do you think we need to be? What number reflects intellectual superiority, or even mental determination and the will to excell at working harder than others? And remember I am against welfare but support social job creation, mostly in the environmental sector where we are currently lacking. So all able bodied people should work. How much inequality do you need to feel superior?

Those at the top have bought our representative democracy. Eliminate the asinine wealth at the top and you eliminate the ability for a minority to seize control of the majority.

We do not need private special interests groups dictating law. We need intellectually gifted elected officials who represent the will of the people.

Add - Where have I argued that we are all equal or should be treated equally? I have only argued for humanity and civil liberties.

Civil liberties is the ideology behind "all men are created equal." This is what the founding fathers promoted and the reason for the bill of rights.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I don't think anyone, no matter how intellectually gifted is worth as much as 25 other human beings. But I would accept such wealth disparity. A minimum wage of 20,000 and a maximum wage of 500,000 is far from communism.

It depends on how you define "worth". If you're speaking about basic human rights, I agree. However, one scientists who works 24/7 and discovers a cure for a fatal disease is certainly "worth" more than 25 dumb clucks who dropped out of school and expect everyone else to pay their way.

Your minimum/maximum wage idea is capricious and arbitrary. It would also result in discrimination and class warfare. I presume your intention is to assign people to groups based on their education, skill set and ability to perform. What do you plan to do - form committees to evaluate how "worthy" this or that person is? As a basic human right, no one has the right to determine the fate of another person. Your plan is all about predetermining the fate of everyone - a cradle to grave mentality that is diametrically opposed to human nature.

Once a person reaches the cap, I promise another very intelligent individual will fill the role of spreading goods and services until they reach the cap as well. And this will continue until you have 2000 people at the wealth cap instead of one person making a billion.

And what happens to the person who has reached their "cap". Do you put them out to pasture? Do they continue to work at the same wage? If they do continue to work, you'll have to plan to confiscate accumulated wealth because at an arbitrary rate of 500,000 per year in an economy with very little inflation will allow that person to accumulate wealth. What do you plan to do about that? Maybe that person is single, doesn't have a family to support and lives very nicely on $5,000 per month. What happens to the $440,000 he or she is left with? In 10 years, that's over $4M. If he or she invests the extra cash every month at 3%, compounded annually, that would amount to approximately $5,093,000 accumulated after 10 years ( 500,000/12 months = 41,666 - 5,000 monthly expenses = 36,666 extra cash per month. $36,666 initial balance, add $36,666 every month, 3%, compounded annually, 10 years = $5,093,000)
So there you have it. Wealth accumulates and grows at a steady rate. What's the plan for the person who's really an astute investor and consistently increases his or her monthly contribution? Do you confiscate their wealth. Do you tax the living bejeezus out of them such that they pick up their marbles and move to another country?

How far from equality do you think we need to be? What number reflects intellectual superiority, or even mental determination and the will to excell at working harder than others? And remember I am against welfare but support social job creation, mostly in the environmental sector where we are currently lacking. So all able bodied people should work. How much inequality do you need to feel superior?

I'm not the one tattooing a number on everyone's scalp. Your plan demands that people be classified into categories with predetermined income levels. I believe in laissez-faire. Let the people decide and let the market take its course. I don't object to regulation, but I do object to putting people in restrictive boxes.
About jobs, business is the life of the community. Business creates jobs, not government. In your plan, entrepreneurs who are capped may not have the resources to reinvest in the business. And the business I presume will be taxed to death in your plan such that by the end of the fiscal year, any excess cash for reinvestment probably won't be there. Will the entrepreneur have any competitive edge in the marketplace? Probably not because companies producing similar products will be faced with the same circumstances. Not everyone can make a better mousetrap. There is a lot of redundancy in the marketplace and the competitive edge is only obtained with increased revenue. Under your plan, it may well be impossible to achieve that.

Add - Where have I argued that we are all equal or should be treated equally? I have only argued for humanity and civil liberties.

As I said above, it all depends on how you define "equal" or "worth". Your plan has already made a decision on both because you have a minimum and maximum amount of income a person can generate. That has nothing to do with human rights or civil liberties. In fact, I would argue that your plan is a gross violation of civil liberties i.e. an individual's freedom to conduct their life any way they see fit within the framework of the law. Your plan classifies everyone from the git-go as to how much their working skills are worth.

In the end, I think your plan has a much greater negative impact on the common man in the street that it does on billionaires. A billionaire can pick up his or her marbles and leave town. A working man or woman usually doesn't have this luxury. There would be no incentive anyway for the person on the street to move forward because their "worth" has a fixed price in your economy.

Stuff of science fiction, but a good conversation.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: makemap

You don't get it do you?

The kind of socialism and communism you want only and can only exist on paper and in theory. In the real world, it fails and becomes that pyramid scheme where the few at the top control all for the rest.

That you continue to blindly espouse it is why I label you a useful idiot. You just continue to blindly insist it's what we need and vote for policies that you are told will bring it about. But what you really do is usher in that pyramid scheme, and when the trap snaps shut and the gilding comes off the cage and you cry foul, you get removed just like those of us who fought you and the ones at the top all along.

You seriously don't get words do you? There is such words as Communist State(the state is communist) or Communist Country. Communism is more towards your so called villages, live together without money and being completely classless. The only reason why kingdoms rise with a leader is because of war. when you need a leader in the role(Imperialism).

"You keep calling an Imperialist country a commie you are just blinding yourself towards slavery."

Just like how Stalin did it. Nazi Germany was heading more towards Imperialism because Hitler starting to have full control.

It is possible to have a communist country, it is just the amount of pressure other non-communist countries do to Communist countries causes them to have a leader to watch things. The amount of people can also be the issue why communism couldn't work well. If you do not have a leader/group watching the borders, you can easily be invaded. That is how it works. Just like the past when we have Barbarians.

Communism didn't actually fail, more likely it was in works for awhile and a change had to happen. The problem of Communism is like Capitalism. But, unlike Capitalism you'll know who is who(unlike the private thing). Both are breeding ground for Imperialism, Fascism or Corporatism because the people in the community is free to create whatever they want unless there was a law like American Constitution.

Imperialism you are not free because you have to obey or get full authority of the king/leader to even begin doing something unless the leader puts a certain law which you can freely do without asking for authority of the leader.
For example, building a new government. There is already a leader of the country. You have to ask the leader whether or not you should become a governmental body of the country. If you do successfully build your government like Soviet Union or Nazi Germany and have everyone supported to kick out the leader as the leader didn't even know about it. It would be called "Revolution". If you had to fight back with some people support, it would be called "Civil War". Same thing with Fascism, a government kicking out another governmental body.


In Capitalist or Communist country you have to ask the community/people of the country(kind of like democracy) or just do freely if there is no law within the community. If they say, "no", it is no. These systems have nothing to do with personal opinions. There is a reason why there are words called tyranny or dictatorship. You'll see when communism/capitalism starts disappearing when freedom of opinion or speech is forbidden, then, you are heading the correct way to one of these ideologies.

Democracy is the right to vote not the ability to create things. So if people don't like it you can ask for democracy and caste a vote whether the people/community of the country would like it or not.

Basically, today calling China a Communist country is directly incorrect as Government has some control. Calling Fascism is also not correct as there are Corporations within China including companies like KFC(not owned by China). China itself has many provinces each with its own laws. The Government doesn't have full control of them, they are really just there to hunt down evil within the country as the people want. Same with America. Same with Canada. Each country is a mix of ideology in one.

a reply to: Isurrender73

And here's a few other examples where you would have to exert dictatorial control over earnings:

1. A person goes to work for a new company in 1996. The name of that company is Yahoo. When the company begins public trading, the employees are offered stock options - all employees down to the janitor. Highly skilled employees are given stock options as part of their compensation. Stock options for employees are a good incentive that everyone is working for the benefit of the company as the stock rises in price. These are all common practices.

2. Yahoo stock comes out at $13 in 1996 and rises to $108 in 1999. The value of the options skyrockets depending on which expiration date the person holds (Note: ESOs, or employee stock options, have certain restrictions, but overall can be extremely profitable for employees).

3. In 1999, let's assume that the typical ESO has risen in value by a factor of 100, which is entirely possible. If a person is already a top executive making $500,000 per year and is capped, what happens to the proceeds from the options if he/she decides to sell? If the person initially was given 5000 option lots valued at $1, they are now worth $500,000.
Under your plan, no one can earn more than $500,000. But this person stands to double his/her income in a single year. And that doesn't include profits made in recurring investments which I described in my previous post. Historically, it isn't uncommon for a person to become a millionaire, even a billionaire, on stock options - whether they are working for a company or not.

And one more scenario:

1. Is the same as above.

2. The stock tumbles, the options are worthless and the company goes out of business. Everyone loses their jobs. Does your system have a compensatory plan for these unfortunate employees?

By now you must see that your plan has huge limitations. It would require a dictatorial system more stringent than any system which ever existed. You're focused on the billionaires who can take their assets elsewhere and be done with your system. But what about everyone else?