Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which economic system do you find most likely to reach the theoratical "Utopianism?"

Since that will never happen with the freewill of men, I vote neither.

As long as people can think for themselves, there will always be conflict(social, political etc..) aganst others that oppose their way of thinking. So no utopia me thinks.

with an economic system alone you will not reach utopia.

People likes the idea of Communism. But they prefer to live in a Capitalist nation. It will never work.

well one never knows what will evolve

When we live in a world where no man is greedy.
Where no more technological advances can be made.
When there is no corruption...

communism will be the way forward!

But we'll either have robot slaves, or will have nuked ourselves, before that happens

Read The Bible sometime, God is so obviously communist.

So untill the Rapture. Communism will never work. (Which I'm not suprised about, anything less then onimpetance could not begin to overpower the selfishness and sickness that is mankid..)

I'm not fond of capitalism, but it works. I'm no fool, I see how our goverment gives us false health tips so we're sick and have to buy medicines, I see how they find new and inevntive ways to keep us spinning around in circles, where we have deaubts even after we have long sense passed away. They are greedy and peverse, and yet they are the only things keeping these devil of a species from destroying itself.

But I'm voting communist, simply because I know it could work if the population were dramaticaly less, and we forced people to comply. It's not a dismemberment of free will, you can choose to be an ass and get yourself killed or exiled, lol..

If communism were done right, we'd all be like one gigantic family looking out for one another. Like The Smurfs.

But communism doesn't promote development... there's no incentive to advance

I believe Capitalism to be the Right and best system for the Progress of the Human Race.........now in the far future I could imagine a kind of Communist ...or actually probably more Anarchist way of live....for the economic system...Capitalism just is the best so far....

Originally posted by dave123
But communism doesn't promote development... there's no incentive to advance
True, but advance into what? How far have we come as a society in captalism? I think we could live without Ipods and THX movie graphics..

That's all capitalism is really good for, is turning us away from our roots. Making us more and more like the aritifical crap that we create. We don't even build half of the stuff we make now, it's sad. People get ENJOYMENT out of farming, and planting, they get a sense of peace as they work with the Earth. We've lost that. If anything, capitalism gives us the incentive to depress and become less then..

I admit it would be hard for me to "move backward", but that's because I was raised amongst technology, but for the betterment of mankind I'd be willing to give it a shot. If the Amish can do it, why can't we?

Interesting outlook on the world.... very refreshing.

Originally posted by dave123
But communism doesn't promote development... there's no incentive to advance

I think the idea behind communism is that people do things because they need to be done. I think what Spelljammer said about "advancement" is very true, though I personally don't think I could live without the joy that is electric guitar.

That said, I think the flaw behind communism is that people are jerks and there will always be greedy, lazy, and selfish individuals. If we could somehow get everybody to agree on the system, it would be great, but I doubt it will happen, at least any time in the forseeable future.

mutualism

Originally posted by Neo_Communist
Which economic system do you find most likely to reach the theoratical "Utopianism?" in theory communism is closer to utopia

but communism doesn't work in practice AT ALL.

so i guess neither

Living the Amish way is only possible within the confines of a capitalist society that effectively protects them. It is not a reliable way for the world to exist and would conemn many to misery if replaicated on a global scale.

Only the continued evolution of modern liberal democracy can seriously advance the prospects of mankind, for the forseeable future.

True, but you're still thinking with a "someone somewhere is going to be a consumeraist state" mindset, I'm thinking with a "post appocalyptic" mindset. Think about if the cold war ACTUALLY happend..

Perhaps another good example of communism would be the "primitive" cultures of Vodo shamans you hear about on discovery channel. These tribes run simaler to what Marxist would've wanted. True, there are "head preists/preistess", but everybody and everything needs a leader. Even the most vicous of animals are lost without someone to be thier compass..

It would be hard to go backward, very hard, perhaps to the point of nothing less then World War 3 like Einstien said. "I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but I know World War 4 will be fought witch sticks and stones". But one can hope.

I am not denying the fact that consumerist capitalism is not necessary for happiness.

For example, in the exhibit on the south bank of the Thames up right now- a vast collection of prints related to the campaign to make Povery history (a very interesting, if rather lopsided, assortment) two of the facts on offer was along the lines of "More people have a phone in New York than in the whole of Africa", and then something along the lines of that the vast majority of people in the world have never made a phone call.

Shocking- but only to our western standards. When I repeated this to a friend of mine- who ois rather good at self-sufficiency, growing his own food and what-not- he pointed out that there are actually a hell of a lot of peopl;e who can live in their own self-sustained communities qithout the need for the internet and computers and who seriously would not care that they had not made a phone call; you don't need that technology to be happy and fulfilled.

A fair point. But on a global scale I remain resolutely convinced that only capitalism can advance humanity as a whole- unpleasant though parts of it can be.

Originally posted by Clovie
in theory communism is closer to utopia

but communism doesn't work in practice AT ALL.

so i guess neither

I don't agree with "AT ALL". Clovie, PRL was not as bad as you think. Compare it to capitalism in Poland: unemployment, poverty and a lot of affairs...



I don't vote. About the question: in theory: communism. In practice: none.

Originally posted by pinsleepe
I don't agree with "AT ALL". Clovie, PRL was not as bad as you think. Compare it to capitalism in Poland: unemployment, poverty and a lot of affairs...



I don't vote. About the question: in theory: communism. In practice: none. but what we had wasn't a REAL communism.

it had some points of it, but it wasn't what it was supposed to be
and sure there wasn't unemployment...
but there were other disadvantages.

and think about all the stuff they sent to ZSRR

Tell me what do you mean (about ZSRR/or USSR in for English).

In Polish

About our "not real communism". What are you talking about, sweety? I think I know, but I want to hear it from you glare

Also communists have that cool ass hammer/sickle symbol, what does captialism have? An S with a couple of lines going through it??? LAME!

Originally posted by Neo_Communist
Which economic system do you find most likely to reach the theoratical "Utopianism?"

Human greed nullifies Communism

Originally posted by Spelljammer
YOU SPEAK IN DEVIL TONGUES!!

...


Marry me...

Originally posted by Spelljammer
YOU SPEAK IN DEVIL TONGUES!!

...


Marry me... maybe later...

and it's a very nice language

Originally posted by pinsleepe
Wiem, ze nas wykorzystywali. Ale to nie ma odniesienia do "nieprawdziwego komunizmu"! Bylismy od nich zalezni. To tyle.

Wiem, jakie sa zalozenia. Tak myslalam, ze to powiesz. Jednak jest jedno "ale". Nigdy, w zadnym panstwie na swiecie nie panowal TAMTEN piekny komunizm. Wiec uwazam, ze w tej sytuacji nasz PRL jest swietnym przykladem komunizmu.

Z tego, co powiedzialas, mozna by wywnioskowac, ze ZSRR tez nie bylo komunistyczne. Chyba bym umarla ze smiechu, jesli ktos by tak stwierdzil. nigdy nie bylo 'prawdziwego' komunizmu. najblizej to byly chyba te hippisowskie komuny
to co bylo w ZSRR to byl leninizm-stalinizn, u nas byla jakas tego odmiana.

i to nie jest, ze my bylismy zalezni, tylko nasze glupie wladze sie im w ten sposob podlizywaly (tak samo jak teraz sie podlizuja ameryce ) i to jest strasznie wkurzaja, ze nas przez tyle lat okradali, i ze nikt nigdy nie probowal tego jakos odebrac..nie wienm, do sadu ich podac czy cos :s oni sie nawet Katynia wypieraja to jest po prostu absurd

i nasz PRL moze słuzyc jako przyklad realnego komunizmu, ale nie tego pieknego ideologicznego, ktory bylby zblizony do utopi, a takie bylo pytanie.


(właczyłam spellcheck i napisalo ze jest 71 bledow )

Oczywiscie, ze bylismy zalezni! Przeciez to oni ten caly system nam narzucili! Clovie, co mialas z historii w liceum?

5 na koniec a co?

i wiem, ze nam narzucili, ale oficjalnie to bylo to pojebane 'trzy razy tak'

Communism is the better system, at least if people wouldn't be selfish bastards or lazy bastards or whatever.

No system really works but Capitalism is the best choice for us right now. Maybe we will actually have a good system in the future but I doubt it.

Originally posted by Fishy
Communism is the better system, at least if people wouldn't be selfish bastards or lazy bastards or whatever.
Well, in a proper communism I believe lazy/selfish bastards would either be executed or forced to immigrate elsewhere..


True, I keep hoping Wal-Mart will control the global market and create a world communism..

global Wal-Mart = world communism?!?!

...Wal-Mart doesn't even use unionized employees! They are on a mission to make sure workers in the retail industry do not earn a living wage.

Ayn Rand Capitalism please

If you are not a communist at eighteen, you have no heart...
If you are not a Socialist at 25, you have no soul....
If you are not a conservative at 35, you have no sense....

Democracy is the worst system of government imagined.... but it is preferable to all the other worst systems...

(anyone know who said the above??)

seriously though, Anarchy is the perfect system, everyone living in harmony with no leaders, doing what is best for all because they can, not for what they themselves can get out of it, Ordnung, as it were... problem is, we would end up with verwirrung.... not so much the land of do as you please, as the land of take what you want... it would take generations to achieve, and would require the full and willing consent of everyone... which is why it may never happen.... personally I believe the best practical method of government is benevolent despotism... the big problem is finding a suitable despot...

Originally posted by big gay kirk
If you are not a communist at eighteen, you have no heart...
If you are not a Socialist at 25, you have no soul....
If you are not a conservative at 35, you have no sense....

Democracy is the worst system of government imagined.... but it is preferable to all the other worst systems...

(anyone know who said the above??) Churchil?

In theory communism. In practice neither.
I do prefer social democracy to the cannibalistic capitalism of the American model though.

How about consecrationism?

how about no?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In theory communism. In practice neither.
I do prefer social democracy to the cannibalistic capitalism of the American model though.

no you don't...Social Democracy is the ***** of all systes...it sucks so much it's not even funny...we have it for 50 years now and we turned one of the finest nations in the world into a herd of lazy dumbass idiot shits........way to go Social Shit.....

I can prefer what I want. And just as I wouldn't want the American model of capitalism, I don't mean economically stagnant Germany's model of social democracy.

you meant the flourishing growth of French social, well English... Spain... Poland... Switzerland... well remind me, which one is it that has seen such record growth and productivity please....

thats right, doesn't exist

Originally posted by zoomonkey
you meant the flourishing growth of French social, well English... Spain... Poland... Switzerland... well remind me, which one is it that has seen such record growth and productivity please....

thats right, doesn't exist
Because everyone's so happy under ultra-conservative capitalism. Do you measure your quality of life solely on economic growth - it'd be a lovely world with you in charge.

Originally posted by Fishy
No system really works but Capitalism is the best choice for us right now. Maybe we will actually have a good system in the future but I doubt it.


Capitalism and Communism are probably two of the worst man made systems to date..One opresses those deemed "weak"...the other discourages the spread/growth of "independent thought."

The real problem is that many people don't seem to realize that man wasn't inteaded to rule himself. That's why we have so many problems in this world, because no man is righteous enough, selfless enough, benevolent enough to lead mankind. Well actually there was one, but mankind put him up on a cross and killed him, because this world doesn't take a liking to people who "make sense" by showing others compassion and truth.

No "man made" system of government will ever last due to all the evil that exists in this world.

George Bush didn't die on a cross.

We may not be the son of God, but did you not read my post? Every pack needs a leader, even lowly animals cannot function without a compass to lead them.

The point is to stop being lazy pricks and actually choose a REAL leader. America and slowly but surely the entire world have this horrible philsophy of "lazy bastard". Something a capitalista nor a commie sympathizer would tolerate..

Originally posted by Clovie
Churchil?

spot on....

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Capitalism and Communism are probably two of the worst man made systems to date..One opresses those deemed "weak"...the other discourages the spread/growth of "independent thought."

The real problem is that many people don't seem to realize that man wasn't inteaded to rule himself. That's why we have so many problems in this world, because no man is righteous enough, selfless enough, benevolent enough to lead mankind. Well actually there was one, but mankind put him up on a cross and killed him, because this world doesn't take a liking to people who "make sense" by showing others compassion and truth.

No "man made" system of government will ever last due to all the evil that exists in this world.

EXCELLENT POINT!


the inherent corruptibility of man is what holds us back. thats why every system is flawed.

my point about social democracy is that it stagnates the economy. the heavy taxation stunts growth, without growth there is no job creation and no room for people to better their own lives. its not the governments job to provide EVERYTHING (welfare, health-care, Medicare, employment, unemployment, social security etc etc ad infinium) for the people. people need to learn to take care of themselves, manage their own problems and stop pointing the finger at others for their own mistakes.

capitalism, in theory puts us all on playing field that rewards actions and hard work instead where you were born.

when a truly capitalistic transaction takes place both parties are happy, if you weren't happy you wouldn't have given up 400 in exchange for a computer or 200 for an i-pod or .80 for a loaf of bread.

in a socialist system, you pay 400, or whatever price is deemed by the government, whether you like it or not. you have no choice.


sorry for the rant... I'll get down now...

Originally posted by big gay kirk
spot on.... what have i won?

Capitalism, but with limits and regulation.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Capitalism, but with limits and regulation.

Which is what capitalism should be, so agreed.

Do I get the merchandising for this fight and can I give the money back to the people?

Anything that is not Communism

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Anything that is not Communism

Jesus would have supported Communism.

Man, I used to be a hot-headed little punk.

Well I choose Capitalism!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Man, I used to be a hot-headed little punk.

its fun reading old threads, eh?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Man, I used to be a hot-headed little punk. Was gonna. Mega ******* there.

Originally posted by inimalist
its fun reading old threads, eh?

Nope, not generally

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Was gonna. Mega ******* there.

Quite true.

Give just those two choices I would pick Capitalism as being the most likely to reach its ideal at some point. Although ideal Capitalism would probably have a lot of the things that people where I live fear about Communism. And I mean some really minor things too, I was once in a sociology class where a dozen or so students got really pissed about the fact that fraud could be punished by the government.

If I could pick anything, I would probably go with some modern form of Socialism, obviously large Capitalist markets are unavoidable in anything remotely realistic but there are a lot of things I'd rather just be sure get done by someone than leave to markets.

Originally posted by Neo_Communist
Which economic system do you find most likely to reach the theoratical "Utopianism?"
How about the system that hasn't crashed and burned in every instance of its implementation.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
How about the system that hasn't crashed and burned in every instance of its implementation.

Good luck with that one. Communism/Socialism doesn't work because people are greedy. Capitalism without restraints doesn't work either....because people are greedy.

Good thing that capitalism has demonstrated the capacity to so efficiently allocate resources that it produces the highest standards of living in the entire world, then.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Good thing that capitalism has demonstrated the capacity to so efficiently allocate resources that it produces the highest standards of living in the entire world, then.
Actually the countries that are the highest living standards are socialist/capitalist mixtures.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually the countries that are the highest living standards are socialist/capitalist mixtures.

exactly

-isms wont save us now

Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually the countries that are the highest living standards are socialist/capitalist mixtures.
And how many of those are Communist mixtures? None. Boom, baby, the free market wins again.

except when it causes political cronyism and major market problems like those the world is experiencing now?

actually, your comment above about needing a system that hasn't crashed and burned is one I agree with 100%

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Boom, baby, the free market wins again.

No...it doesn't. The term "free market" is an oxymoron. Markets are too easy to manipulate by those with the largest amounts of capital.

Like another poster said.....the countries with the highest standard of living are a mix of socialism and capitalism.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And how many of those are Communist mixtures? None. Boom, baby, the free market wins again.
No, the free market lost. Controlled markets are the ones that won.

And why is this? Because of government involvement.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And why is this? Because of government involvement.

Actually it's lack of government involvement. The financial crisis of 2008 likely would never have happened had the banks not been deregulated in 99.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Actually it's lack of government involvement. The financial crisis of 2008 likely would never have happened had the banks not been deregulated in 99.
So Jimmy Carter and the CRA that wormed its way through the loan process which categorized denying loans as "discriminatory" had nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
So Jimmy Carter and the CRA that wormed its way through the loan process which categorized denying loans as "discriminatory" had nothing to do with it.

They had a lot to do with it. But the excessive risk taking of firms such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns far beyond what their corporate charters mandated had a much more direct impact.

Free trade isn't helping either. It's producing a steady drain of blue collar jobs from the wealthier nations and there aren't enough high skilled white collar and professional jobs to fill the void....even if the workforce were educated enough (which it isn't)

As much as I hate to sound like a Reagan Republican, the problem is the amount of regulations imposed on businesses. The costliness of operating a business in America is far greater than operating a business in Mexico. If the government were to deregulate the industry, you would see job growth in America.

But now you'll say, "Won't that make workers slave wages?" Yes, it will. Until the job growth creates a labor shortage, at which point workers can use their labor as a bartering tool to increase their wages and benefits.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
As much as I hate to sound like a Reagan Republican, the problem is the amount of regulations imposed on businesses. The costliness of operating a business in America is far greater than operating a business in Mexico. If the government were to deregulate the industry, you would see job growth in America.

But now you'll say, "Won't that make workers slave wages?" Yes, it will. Until the job growth creates a labor shortage, at which point workers can use their labor as a bartering tool to increase their wages and benefits.

Except that, historically, there have only ever been labor shortages for unskilled workers when something suddenly removed large parts of the population. These days its even less likely, since machines mean that we only need a fraction as many laborers.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
But now you'll say, "Won't that make workers slave wages?" Yes, it will. Until the job growth creates a labor shortage, at which point workers can use their labor as a bartering tool to increase their wages and benefits.


That is what "free trade" is for...finding cheaper labor elsewhere in the world.

Mix of the two: Social-Democracy.

Citation needed.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Citation needed.

Well I can't seem to find any shortages of unskilled labor that didn't relate to war, famine of plague. But, of course, that's rather circumstantial. On the other hand, proving that claim wrong should be pretty trivial, just find one instance where the economy outgrew the population so much that unskilled workers were in high demand.

1. Make an unsourced claim
2. "PROVE ME WRONG."
3. ???
4. Profit.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
1. Make an unsourced claim
2. "PROVE ME WRONG."
3. ???
4. Profit.

A) Ever time I've seen an apple dropped it fell shot off toward the east.
B) Do you have a citation for that?
A) Well, no but I don't know of any instances of something else happening.
B) Ah-ha! Then it is equally likely the when dropped apples fly toward the west.
A) I'm pretty sure that's not true. I guess all you have to do is find some examples of it.
B) How dare you ask for proof of my absurd and baseless claims before proving your own absurd and baseless claims? Obviously I'm the one who's right.

Of course in reality we knotw that apples fall "down" and thus wish to fly off toward the south.

Actually in retrospect my claim was probably a bit extreme and my response very immature. So I'll retract it and say this instead:

I've never heard of labor shortages actually happening due to the cause you have as an example. Could you show me a historical example of it? (which you should do any way in order to shore up your argument)

Labor shortages are one of the causes of migrant workers. Americans don't want those jobs, so farmers insource cheap labor.

That being said, you're not understanding basic economic principles. Government regulations and minimum wage serve as a barrier to competition. Sure, they might be well-intentioned, but small businesses suffer a much greater impact on their ability to compete due to them. (Walmart paying someone $8 an hour hurts much less than the local Mom 'n' Pop store having to pay that much.) If small businesses can expand and grow, they provide more jobs and greater competition against megacorporations. More jobs means more people working (and thus a lower unemployment level), and greater competition means that companies have to offer better wages and benefits to workers.

If the wages and benefits aren't sufficient for the workers, they can unionize to get the company to offer them better.

It doesn't do any good to have more jobs if those jobs pay $1 dollar an hour. People making that much have no spending power at all.

I'm glad you mentioned competition. Start enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act and many of these Mega Corporations would be much smaller and there would be more of them.

Unions? It would be nice if people could unionize but when Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers in 1981 he basicallly stripped unions of any power to help their workers. Unions in the private secter are all but dead and without the passage of The Employee Free Choice Act (which isn't likely to happen) unions aren't going to make a comeback.

The gap between rich and poor in this country is now at it's largest ever since the 1920s and is growing. This is what an unregulated "free market" does. It concentrates wealth and destroys the middle class. The standard of living....for most....in the US will continue to decline.

First of all, people wouldn't work for jobs that paid $1 an hour. Second of all, you would see a considerable drop in prices with people making those wages (which is why imported goods are cheaper than those manufactured in the United States).

This is wrong on a number of levels, and Reagan was right to fire them. And this is coming from someone who hates Ronald Reagan.

No. The wealth gap is the result of corporatist policies, not the free market. Again, in a free market (not a corporatist pseudo-market like we have now), people will unionize. They can then demand fairer compensation for their labor. Furthermore, with more businesses expanding and competing, prices will decrease while quality increases. Everyone's standard of living goes up.

On top of all of this, a free market has nothing to do income tax rates. I support taxing the ultra-wealthy at a high percentage of their wealth (not because I begrudge them their wealth, like liberals do, but because we need to get the national debt under control). With higher taxes on the rich, the gap between wealthy and poor would diminish.

Left Wing, Right Wing, you can stuff the lot.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First of all, people wouldn't work for jobs that paid $1 an hour. Second of all, you would see a considerable drop in prices with people making those wages (which is why imported goods are cheaper than those manufactured in the United States).

Really? Go back to what happened in the UK in the early 80s when they eliminated the minimum wage there. You'd be surprised what people might work for when there's no alternative



Then why are unions all but dead in the private sector? Over 90% of unionized Americans now work for the Federal, State, or local governments.



Go back to what I said about those with the largest amount of capital manipulating the market. If workers at a business unionize that business will offshore if it can. It also strikes me as odd that if what you say is true then why isn't the worlds largest private employer, Wal-Mart, unionized...despite numerous attempts to do so? There was one store in Canada no less that successfully unionized but Wal-Mart shut it down.


At least we agree on something

And how did that effect market prices? What was the purchasing power of the pound? Did they unionize?

Perhaps you should provide proof of how Reagan's actions affected union membership. In doing so, you should note how correlation is not causation. In addition, you can talk about how the regulated market means people are less likely to unionize.

If the business attempts to outsource jobs, then the workers can strike and refuse to work. As far as Walmart goes--most of the people who work at Walmart are uneducated trash who think that unions are bad and that Walmart is looking out for their best interests. When there's no motivation to unionize, there's no union.

It is up to the people to fight for their interests.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No. The wealth gap is the result of corporatist policies, not the free market. Again, in a free market (not a corporatist pseudo-market like we have now), people will unionize. They can then demand fairer compensation for their labor. Furthermore, with more businesses expanding and competing, prices will decrease while quality increases. Everyone's standard of living goes up.

So, what is the difference between communism working in theory, and the free market working, in theory? What ends up ****ing up every single good idea? And how unrealistic is it to sing the praises of one over another, when the obvious answer is that neither are all that great when faced with the reality of the situation? Both work on paper, but end up failing miserably for the people forced to live under them. It just so happens that one outlived the other by a few decades and is now up for scrutiny.

Just playing a bit of devil's advocate. If the question is too much newb butthurt, then I'm sure a moderator will delete it.

I should also add that Walmart is good at union-busting. If the people were to band together and force Walmart's hand, Walmart would cave in. But because the people there are indoctrinated into corporate propaganda, too weak-willed to unionize, and/or entirely apathetic, Walmart will remain strong and union-less.

Communism is moronic in the extreme. The abolition of private property? Public ownership of the means of production? The notion that we can all get along and have happy feel-good time and nobody will be rich or poor? Communism directly goes against human nature. It can only work in extremely small communities of like-minded persons.

Communism is ripe for totalitarianism. As evidenced by the history of communist countries.

The free market places the power in the hands of individuals. And I don't support total government deregulation; I support the overall reduction of government regulation.

The problem with the free market is that it becomes abused as we see with corporations outsourcing to foreign nations for cheaper labour.

Monopolies are another example of the free market being somewhat in itself totalitarian.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Communism is moronic in the extreme. The abolition of private property? Public ownership of the means of production? The notion that we can all get along and have happy feel-good time and nobody will be rich or poor? Communism directly goes against human nature. It can only work in extremely small communities of like-minded persons.

Communism is ripe for totalitarianism. As evidenced by the history of communist countries.

The free market places the power in the hands of individuals. And I don't support total government deregulation; I support the overall reduction of government regulation.

Are you sure you're looking at this objectively...or realistically?