Its time to defeat the powers that be - by adopting communisim!

So my alternative to your idea is to have a capitalistic society that is ran by a much smaller government than we have today. One that doesnt redistribute wealth. A government that doesnt tax business at all, because businesses create jobs, net worth, goods, and services for your populace. One that lets businesses and people succeed and fail based on the natural consequences of their choices. One that doesnt interfere in our lives except when we do real immediate physical harm to another person. One that lets us die of lung cancer when we smoked for 20 years (even though that pack of cigarettes tells you its going to kill you) and now we dont have enough money to pay the medical bills. One that lets a family fail when the parents are too busy smoking crack to read to their children. One that expects some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Federal government should do just a few things.
Defend the country.
Defend the constitution.
Defend the environment in a reasonable way.
Provide a court system to deal with interstate issues.

State government should do just one thing.
Defend the state.
Provide a court system to deal with issues covering multiple interstate jurisdicitions.

Local government should:
Provide education.
Protect its citizens.
Provide a court system to handle local issues.

I've noticed people confuse socialism and communism quite often. There is a bit of difference between the two. Maybe this will help the discussion!



Socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.


Communism

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Okay, so here is my bit. You keep speaking about “true communism,” as if such a system is the end all be all. What the preponderance of history has shown us is that there is no “true” form of anything. Life and its daily challenges require immediate adaptations be made to the “plan”. These changes are made by imperfect people with their various agendas.

Here is where the balance lies. If you give these people too much power (what we call communism) human nature will inevitably corrupt the leaders. If you give these people to little power (what we call pure capitalism) then the leaders will not have enough authority to bridle business from making grievous infractions. It is all about finding balance.

Personally I think that business and government have mixed so far as to be a detriment to both. I want the government to deal in the power they are granted by the people (the constitution) and that is about it. I don't want to be told where to work, what I can have (communists love to take guns), or who will represent me unless the people have a choice in the matter.

To sum up there really isn't a communism or capitalism. The question is how much power are you going to take from the individual and give to this entity called government.

reply to post by NettleTea

---

In my opinion you have made the most sense of all of us. You are correct, as in all things in life, there must be balance.

"Pipe Dreams"? It sounds more to me like you are rather quite lazy. Why has it proven so fruitful for our forebearers, and immigrants on a daily basis, yet you somehow believe it to be a failure? You lack a work ethic, you lack innovation, and you lack an educated understanding of Capitalism in general, and it is in fact that simple.

Or, to sum it all up, Socialism is essentially the Knock at the Door of Communism.


[edit on 4-2-2009 by TheAgentNineteen]

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

---

Where do you get that? Our current system does not have room for more than a handful out of a hundred to become hugely successful. If everyone took all the steps you speak of to be successful there would be success for no one. The solution is to compensate the janitors only slightly less than the doctors, lawyers, ceo's, and others who take in a disapportionate amount of our nations resources.

That is insane. Why would anyone become a doctor, lawyer, or ceo when they could be a janitor for close to the same pay. Who in their right mind would study for years, sacrifice their time, etc... when the whole time they could have just kicked back, smoked a little weed, and got a handful of tush. I will tell you what, if you can get me a janitor job for what I get paid I will get rid of the stress and relax while I am cleaning up somebodies puke.

Personally, I would at least like to have the chance to become one of the handful out of a hundred rather than no chance at all. If I fail to succeed then I will sit back and admire the ones that do.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by Orion52

---

Thank you for exposing this point of order.

The OP is debating an economic model (capitalism) against a form of government (communism)

Capitalism is just a theory or a business practice.

The United States' form of government is a constitutional republic, not capitalism

However, operationally the US has functioned more like a democratic republic since 1933.

democracy is communism ( one man one vote) mob rules

The current nationalization of the banking industry, in fact is a corporation of the government.

Communism = democracy = corporatism = fascism

reply to post by NWRHINO

---

So what form of government do you recommend? From what I get from your post they are all bad. Maybe I just took it wrong.

I don't really care if it's leftist or rightist economically, so long as it's not authoritarian, which if you think about it is what almost all governments are or have been, including the US. Although you have a nominal choice between two people that pretend to represent everyone, what else do you have control over? Nothing! When a party messes up, the other wins automatically, no matter how incompetent they both are; it's a closed system that encourages corruption.

Helps a lot to think of the spectrum as graph paper rather than linear. One axis is liberty-authority and the other is left-right economics. The important one is the former.

Libertarian communism, wrap your head around that. To understand, see Zeitgeist movies.

reply to post by count66

---

Consider the possibilities of a money-free resource-based economy.
Please check out my signature link.
Thanks

While this capitalist cesspool we have here isn't working communism wouldn't do it either. At the moment we have the chance, be it a shot in the dark, to prosper of our own Merritt. Communism we share everything. Little advancement.

The system is not the problem. While in this crappy Capitalist society Communism doesn't sound bad it well end up the way we are now. Corrupt individuals cause the problems we are facing not the political ideology.

Man, communism is abandoning individualism, private property, and a lot of other things we fought and worked to obtain.


Communism is EVIL . Communism brings Big Brother into your neighborhood, and the worse thing it's that Big Brother is not necessarily a camera on the traffic lights, it's a whole "sample family" who have the task to watch your block under the cover of " dealing with the local wage-earners problems" . My #~@^ !!!!

Let those 19th Century ideas rest in peace. I'd rather be shot at dawn than being a commie.

We don't need to pick a "system". If at all a need arises for change it must be both collaborative and spontaneous in nature, and most of all it should include the greatest range of all opinions possible. However, if the world powers continue to centralize wealth, authority and political influence in the hands of few the natural outcome will surely be socialistic. Unfortunately, whatever form these socialists might take will inevitably only serve to educate future generations on the inefficiency of forced social change. A median route should be pursued because reactionism is assuredly subject to the contrivances of base political ambition and will ultimately bring itself to failure.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by cognoscente]

Communism, Socialiosl, Marxism, Labour Movement call it what you want it never works in any form. They always end up with more people wanting to take out of the communal pot than put into it. It always becomers represive as the " party" strugggles to ensure everyone only gets what the party thinks they should have.
Communists always have the same excuses
(1) Ah yes but last time it was the wrong people in charge, this time WE know what to do"
(2) It will be different next time

Communism like any form of socialism is a disease of mankind, such systems are only fit for Termite and ant colonies. What the world need is less government inteference, less social welfare and more letting nature weed out the weak and feeble. Socialism is no better than paedaphilia, where as perverts only destroy one oinnocent life at a time, socialism destroys entire generations. I went to Poland, Romania, East Germany and Serbia after the fall of communism and I can assure you it is EVIL.
Most people who want to become communists just dont like the hand of cards life has dealt them and they think they should be able to take wealth of someone else who has had more luck. Life isnt fair get used to it.

I agree that our Western form of Capitalism isn't working (but then, is it true Capitalism? Are the markets really free and unobstructed?), but I don't believe Communism is the answer.

As others have stated, in theory, Communism is a good idea, but its high-up proponents know how corruptable it is. In fact, Marx himself probably knew how corruptable it is. What Communism is, is a means to oppress, disguised as a seemingly beneficial system. The true, hidden goals of Communism are to create a post-modern world where old traditions, beliefs and freedoms are sacrificed for the benefit of a new world order. And who gets to decide what the new traditions, beliefs and 'freedoms' of this new world order are? It's not you or I.

Whether Communism has any merit or not essentially comes down to whether you believe in returning to old values, or completely replacing them with new ones. And in a time where most of us simply want to be rid of current values, it's actually quite difficult to know exactly on which side of the fence to stand.

Check out a thread of mine detailing the threat posed by Cultural Marxism (and ultimately the true aims of Communism).

Socialist will never work... Why would I want design cars when I could fried chickens and make as much money?
What would be the fun of being a researcher when I could make as much money answering a phone all day and read the same simple script two hundred time a day
Really ????
I mean people would all be working in a assembly line cause its easy.
Nobody has refuted the wearing of helmuts, socialistismsers

I can not believe this thread, what do you think is happening now? people like you make me sick, why do you think government got out of hand ? because of folk's like you that see no evil, ear no evil, and say absoulutly nothing. when somthing need's to be done, everbody loved Reagon,as long as are pockets were full, but that is when the media was condensed, into four corparations, what a farce, there was some noise but not enough, i can go on and on, that is just one example. we need a third party not commies

Compare your statement with this definition from:

Communism - Wikipedia




I studied this particular subject extensively and what always amazed me about those who oppose communism is the fact that they NEVER accept definition of it as it is (and Wikipedia one I provided is indeed correct one) but rather create their own FICTIONAL definition which gives them room to DEMONIZE it to their heart content

Ignorance at it's finest