we aren't even talking about socialism :idea2:
The scientific definition of communism can't work in real life. Sure, a system of government in which everyone lives in peace while working as hard as they can to provide for the welfare of their countrymen sounds great from the administrative perspective. In real life, however, people won't work "just for the hell of it." People need an incentive. In capitalism, the incentive to work hard is to receive more compensation. In communism, there is no real incentive to work hard. If someone is told to show up at work for 8 hours a day and he will get the equivelant of $10 in compensation regardless of whether he accomplishes more than 10 men or whether he sleeps all day, guess which one he will choose. You're anchoring society at one point of advancement, as no one has a desire to work any harder than they have to. As for the "no police force or army," that is just wishful thinking. When people (remember, we're talking about real life here) see an opening, they will take it. You can't expect an entire nation of people to just play nice. Sure, communism sounds great on paper. Unfortunately, it can't work in real life. It's not just a coincidence that communism has failed in every nation that has attempted it. Anyone who supports communism has never lived in a country that has implemented it. Communism is a cult. It stresses the absence of religion (Even for you atheists, no society in history has ever retained its morals in the absence of religion) and total commitment to a national entity in which people are nothing more than numbers in a scheme of national production vs. national consumption. Sure, capitalism isn't perfect. It tends to give power to the wealthy few at the expense of the destitute many. Even if capitalism is evil, communism isn't a righteous response to capitalism and democracy. In a democracy, even one directed by the wealthy, leaders are made to answer for their decisions. In a communist government, the leadership (I hope I don't have to explain the necessity of a central leadership in any form of government) answers protesters with a trip to Siberia. The global acceptance of communism would be a steady spiral towards a world in which human beings are nothing more than than high-maintenance machines working towards some end--most likely, and here's the irony, the betterment and continued comfort of the upper (government) class.
i doubt anyone of you will read that, buncha lazy asses :lol:
but lotta, i won't to molest your avatar, fuck, you are ridiculously beautiful. but then you have to live in Finland! good going! k i'm being gay, you need to get on msn, darling.
we used to have a saying "you can't pay me little as little as i can work"(maybe the translation isn't the best :lol:)
Capitalisam requires you to find a way to earn a buck,and then when you do it you can hire other ppl to do work for you,which is nice...
Altho not many have the spirit of entreprenurian...in that case you'll have to be real hardworking...
There's no perfect sistem,maybe we'll live in peace when one day they invent holodeck,but nah :rolleyes: ...
bijeli, i know this may be a new idea for you but: working hard gets you far in in life. *shock* haha, i don't see the hard part in grasping this concept. a doctor should make more than a road worker. it's just common sense: the doctor worked harder. you don't have to be an entrepreunor to have a nice job...
The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess another’s wealth but also the desire to see another’s wealth lowered to the level of one’s own.
Capitalism is the only social system that rewards merit, ability and achievement, regardless of one’s birth or station in life.
Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism. The winners are those who are honest, industrious, thoughtful, prudent, frugal, responsible, disciplined, and efficient. The losers are those who are shiftless, lazy, imprudent, extravagant, negligent, impractical, and inefficient.
if you understand what morals are, bijeli:
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n3/thompson.html