posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:34 AM
reply to post by ANOK
The concept of communism was around long before Marx.
The ideal of communism, and the reality are very different.
That is why the USSR was state-capitalist and not communist, the state owned the means of production. Communism is not state ownership, that
was just propaganda to demonise the idea, and to fuel the arms race so arms manufactures could make more money.
What you are saying here is essentially what I am saying. The difference being that IMO, any attempt to create a communist system will always turn out
like the USSR, or China.
I would also point out that capitalism is a component of a market economy, IMO, it should not be the basis of the economy. Even property ownership
should have its limits. Assets like the water supply or avenues of transportation should not be owned by any group. In order for a market system to
function efficiently, there must be a fair set of evenly enforced rules which also include limits on property rights.
I understand the concept behind incorporation, and I am against any form of corporation being given the status of an individual, or the owners who
control a corporation having their assets completely shielded from liability for their actions, while acting behind the corporate mask.
For example, when the banks failed, the corporate execs who made huge amount of money while riding those institutions into bankruptcy, should have had
all that money taken back, and then some.
What I am saying is that the current International Corporation has morphed into a communist entity akin to the former USSR.
edit on 31-1-2013
by poet1b because: Typo