Communism is horrible on paper., page 2

On paper? I would say just the reverse. On paper communisim looks lovely. And yet it's the definition of non-sense. If you read Das Kapital by Marx, you'll know why I would love to know what he was smoking at the time he wrote it. The comments made by him and those who apologize for him like to say; "communisim is inevitable because it's scientific" I would laugh at that if it diden't have so many dead bodies left in it's wake. I am both a scientist and technological historian, which you don't have to be, to know such (explative deleted) is very removed from reality.

For the most part, capatalisim and in many cases socialisim are economic systems, not sociopolitical structures. Its not to be assumed a nations economic system is also a componant of its other societal and political structures. Yes some nations that are in many ways by U.S. standards socialist, like several European nations, also have a political system joined at the hip with its socialist economy. Unlike communisim/facisim, with a socialist economy you can have a democracy, at least overtly, in one form or another. Like facisim, communisim is more afraid of its own people getting a wiff of something better, then anything else.

Communist nations like China, Vietnam, etc, want their people to be "content", at least not cause problems. So it was realized by Doung Szauping (sorry, real bad spelling warning) that Mao and his happy workers would never raise China's morbid economy beyond not just 3rd, but 4th world standards. Any dictatorship can do something people like, not that people would, with out a death wish, dare protest. On the ultraright Mussilini made the trains run on time, Hitler after 1933 put people to work (often under slave like conditions), and far left Mao fed most of the population. Before that happened with China forced collectivization (the so called "great leap forward"), and cutural revolution killed perhaps 40million people or so.

Marx wrote that as the population of a country developed its society after being "purged" of capatalist trappings, the political infrastructure would just "wither away"... Ah ha... I have been involved in the clandestine and diplomatic world for many years, and I know the movers and shakers in any government may APPEAR TO give up power, never give up power for free. Its quite obvious Marx/Engles never had even a remote clue about psychology, the motivations behind history, and not just names and dates. Consider Marx wrote "from each according to his worth, to to each according to his need". A very no holds bared redistribution of wealth. I don't want a redistribution of wealth, I prefer the creation of new wealth. To penalize people for being successfull just strikes me as stupid. Then why bother being creative? What happens when some one is taxed at an insane level, or money taken from you and given shamelessly directly to some one, because diden't Mr. Rogers say we should all share? (He wasn't in my tax bracket) Can you say "off shore account, and/or expand your company not here but overseas?

We do a form of "wealth re-distribution", and for most of our history always have, its called taxes. I have zero problem with people who make more $$ forking over more $$ then those who make less, as long reasonable rates apply. I was in an upper income bracket in the 1990's, paid more then I do now, and I diden't starve. Of course some things government does, they just don't do well, and some things they do. Good idea to pay attention to which is which. As it is, the U.S. has been a quasi-socialist since WW-2. And were not even getting to the recent bail outs. And these companies have often been run by not very bright bulbs, I woulden't trust to run a lemonade stand.