Let me take a more specific approach...

[Baron Samedi]

Just a little thing to think about for that CB Shin... what about specialisations? People who work harder in more difficult jobs aren't going to want the same amount of pay as someone who has an easy job are they? Specialisation counts. What do you think of that? Eventually nobody will do anything hard [i]because they won't get ahead[/i].

Humans want to get ahead. You can't change that.

[sunyippee]

Well... I'm Chinese. ~ It is the truth that almost everybody in my country knows Karl Marx, maybe it's certain because China is a community country. And now I'm in my sophomore year, my speciality is economics, we learned plutonomy which is based on Marxism last year, and it is a required course. (But I was not very interested in it. ) Alright,as a member from a communist country, I have two points to share.
1. [QUOTE]Actually, I don't agree with China and Soviet Russia's methods, because they twisted a system which was suppose to be glorious. The leaders of those countries kill a lot of their own people, and took most of the nation's wealth for themselves. [/QUOTE]
Um..I don't want to emphasize that the method of my country is flawless, but what I can pledge is: our leader is anything but the person so horrific and self-serving. We live well and restful.:)
Our leader is the same as yours.

2. Marxism is not only longing for "perfect community", but also contains a lot of other viewpoints of economics which is valuable to any country. And the "perfect community" it refers is based on the situation that everybody has the required moral level.:love:

[James]

[color=#707875]Sunyippee, I don't know exactly what your situation is, but I don't think it would be fair to say that the Chinese system of government is necessarily appropriate for the population.

Bear in mind that there is no freedom of religion in China and that there are still significant limits on self-expression. If you are currently living in China, though, you may not realize the difference (if you haven't lived under a democracy, for example).

However, limiting social freedoms isn't the same as Communism, at least in terms of freedom of expression and so on. It's too easy to mix the two up, in my view.

I think China is an example of a "successful" Communist nation -- but at the same time, China is recognizing that it needs to open up in order to grow. China had to liberalize its industry regulations in order to enter the WTO for example.

The thing is, China can't and won't succeed without a level of transparency and democracy. I know that there are already democratic activities going on at the local level around China. So I think it's more a matter of when, rather than "if".

And if you look at the protests related to the proposed anti-subversion laws in Hong Kong...you can see that Hong Kong is enjoying a level of democracy that the rest of China isn't (but will, at some stage).

But having said all of that, Communism doesn't automatically equate to a dictatorship. You can still be a democracy and maintain a communist system of economics -- provided that it's what the people actually want. If you look at the experience of Hong Kong, though...I think it's pretty fair to say that HK is a model of what the rest of China is moving towards.[/color]

[sunyippee]

James, I apologize for my unclear description. Because I was impatient to have supper. ~_^ (and now a full stomach:D )

The situation I mean is that people's moral level is high enough and the wealth is excessive. So, as Marx says, people can take whatever they want. It is the ends that communist country shoud gain, but so impossible to achieve. And in my country, we say we are in leading strings of communism, so China is socialist country to be exact.

In my view, there is no need to doubt if China take the communist road is correct, but just a happenchance in history. There has been a capitalistic government in China in 1910s, but soon collapsed. Anyway the government now is assiduously and effectively.

Um.. about the social freedom, is that the case? Maybe.. But I would like to say that we'd better take it nothing more than a different culture. For it is harmless and not just due to the government, nor the communism. The custom plays an important part also.

Some more, agree with James, "Communism doesn't automatically equate to a dictatorship. You can still be a democracy and maintain a communist system of economics "*applause*:rolleyes:

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Deathbug, if you do some research on the internet, you will find that I am not the only one who thinks this.[/B][/QUOTE]
I know; tons of people are stupid; what's your point?


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Even other capitilists have acknowledged Marx's theories. [/B][/QUOTE]

What do you mean "acknowledged"?


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]There was one major error I noticed in your post. If you do take away the dictators, as you said, then the wealth that sustained them would be distributed evenly among the people. There are many factors in a countries wealth that have not been accounted for in your posts other than government. [/B][/QUOTE]

As more factors enter into the equation, retaining stability becomes more difficult, not easier. It's like basic economics: supply and demand is an easy conept. If that's all there was to maintaing a health economy, everyone would have one. However, as you add in more factors, complexity increases and it becomes harder to retain stability.

Adding in more factors only makes the house of cards shakier.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Resources and trade are two big ones. If you have a resource rich country, like America, I'd think twice before saying that a Marxist government would fail right away.[/B][/QUOTE]

In America, I estimate that a Marxist government would fall in under fifteen years, and the entire country would fall into anarchy. That's about half the time it took the Soviet Union to go down the tubes.

America got to where it was under the combination of three factors: a working republic, a vibranr economy and a unique national mentality caused by the nation's originating circumstances. Why would you alter a winning formula?

Besides, if your system can only function in already-successful areas, than it's not really a winning-system.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] You also put it your post that Thomas Jefferson agreed with private ownership and while he did so, he also wanted government to take as little a part as it could in the economy, which therefore formed his democratic ideas. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes...? This didn't really lead into anything...


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]You've mentioned several times that he Marx wrote such "crap" as Das Kapital and The Communist Mannefisto. Simply saying "his ideas suck" is a very base arguement.[/B][/QUOTE]

......you did listen to all the times I explained [i]why[/i] I thought his ideas sucked, right? I just got tired of typing them over and over again. Consider "crap" my new shorthand for that.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] You also say that the impoverished cannot advance in class because all the money is hoarded by the government. [/B][/QUOTE]

No, I said that the impoverished can't advance in class because there is no place for advancement.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Doesn't that itself violate Marx's theory of "Abolishment of Class"?[/B][/QUOTE]
Sure does; its' the worse version of a bad system to start with.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] A change I could make to make it work more efficiently is everyone gets an equal income, yet has the right to private ownership.[/B][/QUOTE]

Won't work; people won't work at more difficult tasks if they wouldn't recieve a higher salary than the ones doing easier jobs. Besides, enterprising people would save their cash and eventually become of a higher class.

You'd have basically started the whole economy over with more ineffective rules.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Let me explain. That change has something in common with capitilism. Careful managers of their money will lead to them eventually having great wealth, while someone foolish might end up homeless.[/B][/QUOTE]

How's that different than what we have now? Smart investors end up with more.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] You might be asking "Doesn't that go against Marx's main premise of Abolishment of Class".[/B][/QUOTE]

What you've done is taken a single detail of Marx's plan and altered it to the point where it's no longer remotely similar to what Marx envisioned. You're niether a communist or a Marxist, I'm afraid. I'm not quite sure what you are.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] The answer is no because everyone is still sustained by an equal income. [/B][/QUOTE]

Like I said, no one would work under those conditions.

Would you put in all the time and effort to become a doctor if you could make the same cash as a bag-boy off the streets?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] I also think that those who don't work shouldn't be paid anything. [/B][/QUOTE]

People who don't get work don't get paid now. They get cash from the government to sustain themselves (ideally) long enough to get a new job.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] It's very difficult to imagine a country working together like that, but by getting rid of the lazy, so much the better. Here's the motivation for this, "You either work, or you starve". [/B][/QUOTE]

My gosh, that's cutthroat. Even I don't feel that harshly, and I'm socially conservative.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] That might seem similar to America today, but the difference would be no charity organizations to support them. Why should the hard working spend their time helping the lazy when the lazy can't help themselves?[/B][/QUOTE]

Dear God...... :laugh: You do realize you're reciting the basic creedo of the cutthroat capitalists of Rockefeller's days? You've done a complete 180! I'm even more successful than I thought...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] It might sound cruel at first, but it is actually very fair if you think about it. [/B][/QUOTE]

See above comment.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]That's just one way I think Marxism could be improved. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's not an improvement; that's so far removed from Marxism/Communism that it's something completely different.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Finally, Let me ask you this. Do you believe that his theories are so hopeless that they cannot be changed for the better without sacrificing his main premise?[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes; yes they are.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]If your answer is no, I have another question. If by some miracle of god (as you would put it),[/B][/QUOTE]

What does my belief in God have to do with anything?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] it could be changed, what differences would you have made to his philosophies. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'd have made them into capitalist ideals. ^__^

Seriously....I'm not sure what you are anymore. You call youself a Marxist, which is a Communist in denial, yet you reject most of Marx's creedos, and are harsh as a pure Capitalist on social issues. I don't think you're a Socialist...

I think you're very confused about what you are. Perhaps you should reconsider your position.[/color][/font][/size]

[CB Shin]

:laugh: Confused? How about trying different ideas off the top of my head? Before I answer to your post Deathbug, Baron Samedi, "getting ahead" is considered a motivation. It can simply be replaced by another motivation. Once again I fail to see how "If the country goes up (wealth), so do the people, if it goes down, so do the people." is so difficult to understand. Yes, a person with an easier job would get the same pay as someone with a harder job. Let me explain, No matter how hard the job is, you still need that job done, whether easy or not. Specialties only help, because if you have a job that you like, regardless of difficulty, so much the better. Oh right, Sunyippee, I am a Chinese/American and I know that China is recovering now. I meant when Mao Zedong overthrew the democratic government, not the present government. Anyway, it's good to meet a Chinese nationalist.

You just called me stupid, but it doesn't count because you didn't "directly" say it... I most consider myself to be a Marxist/socialist, I was simply throwing out ideas to sound more capitilist because honestly, I don't even care about our argument anymore. Niether I nor you have changed our minds about anything and my approval rating on the OB has just gone down the drain... Over 700 views and Deathbug is the only one arguing with me on a regular basis. I have my opinions, regardless of what you think, and you have yours. Shall we draw this argument to a conclusion, or do you feel I've missed something.

[Baron Samedi]

That may be the case CB Shin, but people aren't like that. That is where these philosophies really fail- with the people. People [i]will not[/i] want to work harder, for the same benefits. People are lazy, people are resentful, people do want to get ahead. Why should all of their hard work benefit someone else who is on Easy Street, hey?

The hard answer to face is- they won't.

People don't care if they need the job done... people want fairness on one level.. and on another they want to be better than everyone else. Humans will be selfish. All these ideas are marvellous, but the flaw in the system is humans. With ants it would be fine. But you can't have a society like that- the people won't be happy. Classes will happen. Always.

People have different personalities, different habits. They will separate, we can not mesh all classes together.

It just won't work.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] :laugh: Confused? How about trying different ideas off the top of my head? Before I answer to your post Deathbug, Baron Samedi, "getting ahead" is considered a motivation. It can simply be replaced by another motivation.[/B][/QUOTE]

No, it can't. It is deeply ingrained in the human psyche, and, quite frankly, it works. I fail to see how you can sa that the unemployeed should starve, but at the same time, say that the more skilled shouldn't recieve extra benefits from their work.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Once again I fail to see how "If the country goes up (wealth), so do the people, if it goes down, so do the people." is so difficult to understand. [/B][/QUOTE]

"A rising tide lifts all boats"; that's trickle-down economics, and it doesn't work. It was used by the cutthroat super-capitalists to justify their controlling of the vast majoriy of the wealth in the US while the working class lived in poverty.

I mean, if only one person owns all the boats, everyone else is screwed.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Yes, a person with an easier job would get the same pay as someone with a harder job. Let me explain, No matter how hard the job is, you still need that job done, whether easy or not. [/B][/QUOTE]

That doesn't make sense economically. My opportunity costs of taking a higher job (time lost, fatigue, stress, etc) has to be repayed financially in oirder for that job to be worth it. I'm noit going to purposesly be, say, a lawyer, with all the time and stress they put into their profession, and recieve nothing in return.

You're inciedibly naive if you think this would work. Besides, it still wouldn't wliminate classes.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Specialties only help, because if you have a job that you like, regardless of difficulty, so much the better. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's great if all you can do is screw tops on bottles at the coke plant. For those people with skills, it's not as easy as you would have it seem. They get royally screwed under your system.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Oh right, Sunyippee, I am a Chinese/American and I know that China is recovering now. I meant when Mao Zedong overthrew the democratic government, not the present government. Anyway, it's good to meet a Chinese nationalist.[/B][/QUOTE]

It's funny you should mention China; China is no longer a communist country, not in the original sense of the word. They have a free economy. China's economy is unique to China.

China's current government will stay in power as long as they keep the standard of living high; that's their social contract with the people. Why do you think the governmentwas scared to death of SARS? Because if it lowered the quality of life by a substantial defgree, the people would kick them right on out.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] You just called me stupid, but it doesn't count because you didn't "directly" say it... [/B][/QUOTE]
Don't kid yourself; if I wanted to call you stupid, i wouldn't do you the luxery of mincing words.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] I most consider myself to be a Marxist/socialist, I was simply throwing out ideas to sound more capitilist because honestly, I don't even care about our argument anymore.[/B][/QUOTE]

If you don't care enough about your ideas to support them, can they really be that important? I think communism is a horrible system that borders on pure evil, and I'll argue that point as long as need be.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Niether I nor you have changed our minds about anything and my approval rating on the OB has just gone down the drain... Over 700 views and Deathbug is the only one arguing with me on a regular basis. I have my opinions, regardless of what you think, and you have yours. Shall we draw this argument to a conclusion, or do you feel I've missed something. [/B][/QUOTE]

You had no idea you were arguing with an aspiring law student, did you?

I'll quit arguing when I win.[/color][/size][/font]

[CB Shin]

Heh, fair enough. Baron, I see what you mean. Humans are too intelligent and different to think alike for one major goal or accomplishment. Only a few elements make all people want to accomplish something, since the beginning of the human race. Individualism, everyone wants to be recognized for what they have accomplished. Wealth, indeed everyone does want to get ahead. I want to concentrate on Purpose, what motivates you to want to do something. Deathbug, do you only want to become a lawyer because it pays well? It seems to me you love arguing, and to make a job out of it would be a dream come true wouldn't it? A remedy has to be made, to combine all three elements and yet maintain sense of equalism.

Deathbug, I was throwing out ideas because I wanted to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, niether of us think alike...at all. I don't think we've reached an agreement on anything so far. "Winning the arguement" isn't the goal here is it, or am I missing something? Is it really impossible to have two people reach a compromise without completely abandoning their beliefs or morals?

[Bio]

[size=1]I'm tired of this. CB Shin, get your head out of the clouds, get off your high horse, and don't read DeathBug's words, read what they [b]mean[/b]. Not everything he says is a personal attack.

Now, your going to explain how calm you are, and [b]completely ignore[/b] DeathBug's explanations. He's explaining what he means, yet you ask him over and over to do just that. I don't know if your reading half the things he posts.

Also, don't retalliate with that annoying, ::Haha, he's so oblivious, Haha, he just doesn't get it, Haha, he's beyond help:: attitude. I can feel it in your posts, and it's beginning to annoy me.

My point: Listen. Please.

This is as little of a personal attack as I can make it, but please don't start yelling back that I'm ignorant, and other adjectives of the like.

Here's my stance:

Marx had some ideas. Some good, some bad. I'm not completely sure wether or not he was well aware of how exactly any political system works... I'm sure he was well-versed, but like what has been said, he was a dreamer, and he didn't realize the flaws in his ideal system of government.[/size]

[Baron Samedi]

That was a bit harsh Arch ~_^.

And what you just said at the end... have [i]you[/i] been reading posts? Because that is what we are reaching. Marx had some ideas, which may have been good, but can not be effectively implemented in our society, due to human nature.

[CB Shin]

Is that really how you think my attitude is, Arch? I really think that Deathbug views me as "Oblivious, ignorant and not getting it." Point Blank: your mistaken. I have been reading the MEANINGS of his posts, and I even agreed to some extent. I simply have my own opinions, that's all and I'm not yelling or forcing them on anyone, at least I hope not. Alright than, if you were in my position, Arch, what would you do?

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Deathbug, do you only want to become a lawyer because it pays well? It seems to me you love arguing, and to make a job out of it would be a dream come true wouldn't it? [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, actually, a dream-come true job would be a video-game tester for Nintendo. Lawyer is just a close second.

Am I motivated by the idea that I can become wealthy in the practice of law? It has crossed my mind. I could become wealthy by being a doctor as well, but I wouldn't enjoy that.

However, if I'm going to get payed the same as everyone else, I might as well be a clerk for a comic book shop forever. I'd get to do something I like, and not have to spend three years busting my arse at law school.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]A remedy has to be made, to combine all three elements and yet maintain sense of equalism.[/B][/QUOTE]

Here's my solution: offer everyone the same opportunities for success and advancement as everyone else, and those who are willing to work towards their goals will advance, and those who aren't, won't.

You could even go in-between and work as far as you're willing, advancing accordingly. equality of opportunity, not equality of result.

Admittedly, America doesn't yet have equality of opportunity. We're working on it.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Deathbug, I was throwing out ideas because I wanted to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, niether of us think alike...at all. I don't think we've reached an agreement on anything so far. "Winning the arguement" isn't the goal here is it, or am I missing something? Is it really impossible to have two people reach a compromise without completely abandoning their beliefs or morals? [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't need to compromise because I'm right, and history has proven me right, and I know it.

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek regarding winning, but I am perfectly content to argue my stronger position all day. Not to offend, but one of us has an edge over the other. I'm not the one who's offering compromise, because in this case, I don't need to.[/color][/font][/size]

[CB Shin]

Well, at least we're trying to make a compromise (even though you say YOU don't need too :laugh: ). Surely being a lawyer has other privileges and rewards. You bust your arse for 3 years, but then take it easier, right? I think the hardest work you'll being doing in your entire law career would be education, so my point is it all balances out in the end. You certainly are a firm believer (and very strong-willed I might add) in your own ideas.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Well, at least we're trying to make a compromise (even though you say YOU don't need too :laugh: ). Surely being a lawyer has other privileges and rewards. You bust your arse for 3 years, but then take it easier, right? I think the hardest work you'll being doing in your entire law career would be education, so my point is it all balances out in the end. You certainly are a firm believer (and very strong-willed I might add) in your own ideas. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]Actually, that's entirely false; I don't know of this "take it easy" firm you speak of, but the hardest part of being an attorney isn't law school, it's being an attorney.

(Watch me tie that back into the topic)

If being an attorney had other "Privilages and rewards" in exchange for hard work under a Communist or classless system, the system would be flawed, because I would be recieving a reward for addentional work. That would destroy the notion of classless-ness.[/color][/font][/size]

[CB Shin]

I think you were a little confused about the other rewards and privileges I was talking about. I meant that as liking your job, which reaps personal rewards, which could mean anything. It would not be materialistic as you think and I apologize for mistaking a lawyer's career as being easy, though actually you would make your job easy. If you had a job you liked, it would seem easy to you because you enjoyed it, but if you hated your job, than of course it would seem difficult so there are many other factors to a job other than just income.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Oh holy hell. Reading this argument hurts my head. Just to help you guys out I'm gonna clear something up.

Communism, COMMUNISM, is an ideal. It is where a society ENDS UP, and until it does, strives for. Communism is built under the idea of "everyone contributes what he can, and takes what he needs." Ideally it means that all social services are provided and all basic needs met. There is no allowance for luxury, but since it is inherently "unneeded" there need be none. And clearly this describes a utopia.

All communist countries, and I think you know this but you keep jumping around so much you lose yourselves, are in fact socialist, and therefore have a government that controls nearly all the resources. These governments say (and the people believe) that "Communism is on the horizon." The irony in that should be clear.

You talk about a dictatorship arising with Communism. I don't know how many of you misinterpreted that, but a couple did. One of you mentioned "dictatorship of the proletariat," and that's exactly right. But if you think about it, in true communism, the proletariat is EVERYBODY. So what does that mean? It means there IS NO GOVERNMENT. Under communism, the need for a government dissolves. So it is not only an economic but a social state.

Which of course brings us to a few obvious reasons as to why Communism is an idealistic and flawed theory. First of all, from an economic standpoint it fails to take into account too much. The idea of supply and demand, for example. Another is the unescapable fact that people WANT luxury. Marx failed to think about even the basics of human nature. His point of view was restricted to that of a repressed working-class, and he did not give thought to WHO really runs a government. Of course those in power DESIRE power, and that's why they're there. And they didn't desire it because they grew up poor, or middle-class, or rich. And more than one out of a million people desires it. Anyway you get the point.

One of you asked is it possible to make communism work by "fixing" it without destroying its main goals/ideas. The answer is NO, at least not in reality. Of course it depends on what level of the "main ideas" you want to survive, because Socialism in its greatest moments (I suppose that would be during the latter parts of WWII) did resemble it from some angles (if you don't count the extreme governmental repression and quite utter lack of freedom). But really, you cannot have anything actually LIKE Communism, and everyone and their dog realizes that now. Everyone except, unfortunately, the dumbass masses who reside in Socialist nations and don't have the brains/balls to know any better. The people that realize it and have the courage emigrate and move to the U.S. (or Canada, or, if they have to, Israel, etc.). The rest don't. ...Well there's more to it, but I don't want to get into immigration policies because there's too much to say.

Anyway, all that having been said, I think you guys should be done. There's nothing to really compromise on. Mostly it seems to me that both Deathbug and CB Shin are wrong. CB Shin, you are wrong because you find too much "right" in Marx's theories. Either that or you don't understand them worth crap. Deathbug, you have a more reasonable viewpoint, but it is also a bit extreme. You seem to almost completely favor 100% capitalism, while wishing for equality of opportunity. But of course human nature will have those who are successful try to suppress competition, leading to a breakdown in the latter. Additionally, it means you don't give a damn about those who get left behind in society, taking a "if they don't have it they didn't earn it" approach. This is just ridiculous, because how can you say that to the elderly whose pensions aren't enough to cover their medication needs and so forth? Anyway, I may be mistaken about some of your views, but that means you are very careless about what you write, because you do make some bad impressions in several posts.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ScirosDarkblade [/i]
[B] Deathbug, you have a more reasonable viewpoint, but it is also a bit extreme. You seem to almost completely favor 100% capitalism, while wishing for equality of opportunity. But of course human nature will have those who are successful try to suppress competition, leading to a breakdown in the latter. Additionally, it means you don't give a damn about those who get left behind in society, taking a "if they don't have it they didn't earn it" approach. This is just ridiculous, because how can you say that to the elderly whose pensions aren't enough to cover their medication needs and so forth?[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]Actually, I never favored 100% capitalism.

[QUOTE]We don't practice "pure" capitalism anymore, and we haven't for a long time. In theory, right now, we have altered the system so that anybody can advance through the economic ranks and eventually earn riches via hard work and innovation.

Sadly, in practice, that doesn't always happen; in fact, it hardly does. tHat is a flaw in the system that needs correcting. However, it is still better than communism, where the poor will always be poor, without even the slightest hope of advancement.[/QUOTE]

100% capitalism screws a lot of people over, and all the wealth in the nation is concentrated in the hands of a few. (Ironically, under all communist regimes, you get the same result...)

I am in complete favor of equality of opportunity, and while I'd like to believe that the government never has to interfere with the private sector, the fact is, they do, or the "Cutthroat super-capitalists", as I called them earlier, will walk all over everyone.

If we ever achieved complete equality of opportunity, which is what I support, then "If they don't have it they did'nt earn it" woul be accurate, because whoever "they" are could have earned it. [/color][/font][/size]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Almost everything you say there is very true. The only thing that still annoys me is you keep referring to "communist regimes" which in fact don't exist. They are Socialist regimes, and that's why power is concentrated in the hands of a few. Communist nations don't exist.

It's too bad that complete equality of opportunity is about as unreachable as communism. One is a bit closer to reality, but still both are impossible. Oh well.

[CB Shin]

Very clear insight SciriosDarkblade. I actually don't think that I find "too much right" in marx's ideals, I simply admire them. If you think about it, Marx's ideals were never really "finished" because he left out many factors in human nature, as you've said. I suppose the reality of it is that humans are too intelligent to be content with what they currently have. There's always the need to push further, which is part of the reason we've evolved so much. The only actual way a Communist country would be a utopia, is if humanity started all over again already with the sense of equality in their minds. But, as you can tell from my posts, I am very Iron-Willed (or stubborn...) and I'm always looking for ways to reform.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I wish I was as optimistic as you, CB Shin. It's staggering how little it takes to corrupt someone, which is why no utopia can possibly last. But it is a nice dream, and it IS possible to work towards improving society, even if it is only the lives of a few people, by living with values that privilege equality of opportunity and equal distribution of resources. It's really hard to enforce such stuff, though. Take Affirmative Action, for example. In some cases it levels the playing field for blacks and whites, and in others it simply switches them around, simply making whites less likely to be hired. So even things with a noble purpose have trouble working out. Eh, I'm not a sociologist, so I won't really get into trying to figure out how to actually better the world. The best way to do it is to become Superman and try to inspire virtue in people or something. And I guess on that note of B.S. I'm done.

[Sicarius]

Ok now i might have singed my bill into the asylum, but i propose that we ( Marxists) buy Kansas or Oklahoma, either one would do, and have Marxist people in charge. I haven't thought the thing through the whole way but at least it's a start.

[CB Shin]

I agree with Jun Yi. Marxism can work efficiently in perhaps a smaller environment. Has anyone read the book "The Giver". It would be something like that, only not as extreme to the point where it skips reality.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B] Has anyone read the book "The Giver". It would be something like that, only not as extreme to the point where it skips reality. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]Uhhh....you know the entire point of [u]The Giver[/u] was to preach [i]against[/i] the kind of enviornment that they lived in, right? We were never meant to envy the sheltered, state-owned reality; it was a very anti-communist book.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to live in that enviornment....

Besides, yet another flaw of communism is that, for it to work, [i]everyone[/i] has to agree with the system. Dissenters would, in fact, get released. Don't kid yourself.[/color][/font][/size]

[Bio]

[font=tahoma][size=1]I don't think that saying that you would want a book like [i]The Giver[/i] to be an example for that sort of thing. Everyone would be blissfully unaware of their captive state, and in this case, blissfully is not a posotive adjective. Here's an example from the book:
[i]
"Father? Mother?" Jonas asked tentatively after the evening meal. "I have a question I want to ask you."
"What is it, Jonas?" his father asked.
He made himself say the words, though he felt flushed with embarrassment. He had rehearsed them in his mind on the way home from the Annex.
"Do you love me?"
There was an awkward silence for a moment. Then father gave a little chuckle. "[i]Jonas.[/i] You, of all people. Precision of language [i]please[/i]!"
"What do you mean?" Jonas asked. Amusement was not at all what he had anticipated.
"Your father means that you used very generalized word, so meaningless that it's become almost obselete," his mother explained carefully.
Jonas stared at them. Meaningless? He has never felt anything as meaningful as the memory.[/i]

[spoiler]For goodness sake, these people are paired for marriage, jobs are chosen for them, and they can't even see in color. They are forced to take pills that make them impotent; they aren't allowed to have children unless it's their [i]job.[/i] This society that the book describes wants everything to be the same.[/spoiler] There would be no upper or lower class. This describes not only communism, but the very ideals of Marxism itself. Surely you mean to say you agree with the system, but would not do something as profoundly disgusting as [spoiler] executing the smaller twin, the elderly, or the sickly.[/spoiler][/font][/size]