Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sorry, but that make no sense. May be am not 'sophisticated' enough. As long as there are independent thoughts given to us by nature or by some deity there WILL BE inequality, in ideas, labor, and products. In short, there will be inequality in everything.
Yes it is. The family unit and the monastery.A purely Communist society is possible.
So far the democracy/capitalism combo worked pretty good.It may not be best for every country just as capitalism or even democracy may not be.
Actually, the more sheeple there are the better the communism society will take root and hold.Communism doesn't mean everyone is equal in thoughts and ideas. In fact a true Communist society could not function if everyone thought the same things.
Fair enoughCommunism just means equality in front of the law,...
How do you mean 'equality in finances'? You mean if I work hard and make more money than you that give you justification to take from me?...equality in finances etc etc. Not in individual thought or ideas etc etc.
A family unit and a monastry is NOT cummunism, but dictatorship. Communism is about pure equality in EVERYTHING.
You seem to not understand the basic reason as to why the gap is so wide. You see, India is a flourishing democracy in contrast to a one party China that steam-rolls its way to get things done. The ordinary folk don't have a chance against the State to protest the usurping their lands by the State. Protesters are just imprisoned or shot if they even think of fighting for their rights. How many millions have been displaced to make Shangai?In fact the gap is increasing constantly, which makes sense considering the fact that China has averaged much higher growth rates than India has, with a larger base economy. In order to catch up, India is going to have to significantly bypass China's growth rate, since their base economic size is much smaller.
You seem to not understand the basic reason as to why the gap is so wide. You see, India is a flourishing democracy in contrast to a one party China that steam-rolls its way to get things done. The ordinary folk don't have a chance against the State to protest the usurping their lands by the State. Protesters are just imprisoned or shot if they even think of fighting for their rights. How many millions have been displaced to make Shangai?
You can't trample on citizens rights in India. Acquiring land, for example for industrialization and power generation etc, is easier said than done. It take years in contrast to China. Well, that's the pitfall of a democratic system. The people voices count unlike China where the Party is supreme. Fall out of line and you're screwed!
But India will soon catch up. India has other advantages that China doesn't. It's just a question of time. China's economic bubble will soon burst, as the US of A's economy goes kaput! Then we'll talk!
Cheers!
Yes it is. The family unit and the monastery.
So far the democracy/capitalism combo worked pretty good.
Actually, the more sheeple there are the better the communism society will take root and hold.
Fair enough
How do you mean 'equality in finances'? You mean if I work hard and make more money than you that give you justification to take from me?
I don't know which country has more entrepeneurs. If you take a look at the Chinese and Indian diaspora you will see that the Chinese generaly have more economic cloud and the Indian more political cloud.
You cannot take an anomaly to be emblematic of the theory. Every family is 'dysfunctional' to some degree. But the point here is that the family CANNOT be anything but a Marxist dictatorship. You have members of this society that for a large measure of their lives are incapable of making wise decisions and need guidance. That is what the parents are for. No matter how flawed their decisions may be, those decisions are still far better than what the children can do for themselves. The father is usually the figure who does the physical 'manly' jobs around the house so he will need to use more of the family's resources to satisfy those responsibilities. The children may have some responsibilities but far less demanding so they will receive less of the family's resources. Remember the Marxist credo: From each according to the his abilities. To each according to his needs.I suppose a family unit could be a Communist replica.
What would the Capitalist equivalent be? A dysfunctional family? One kid leaves school at 15, the other becomes a professor, parents end up living the high life and squandering everything?
What is usually accepted as nominally 'socialist' policies were previously considered to be moral imperatives. Eventually some became legal obligations. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the people are PERSUADED into believing that these programs are morally worthwhile beyond their personal moral realm.It does in the US but even now you see more socialist policies becoming more important. Obama was accused of being a Socialist if I'm not mistaken.
Sorry, but you are wrong here. And it is not capitalist but democratic. If people are so easily convinced to give up their intellectual and emotional resources towards an ideology or political persuasions, we would not have campaign reasons and seasons, no political parties, no national debates, no exposures of scandals, no 'dirty' politics, no 'mudslinging', no fixing the ballot boxes or at least charges thereof, no elections laws, and the list goes on. Do you see any of those under dictatorships? More like bullets than ballots.This applies to Capitalist societies equally. The more sheeple, the easier it is to swindle the population.
Yeah...Good luck in trying to remove greed from the human nature. Communists tried and failed.In fact I think Communist societies function best when people aren't sheeple but they haven't got a competitive greed instinct.
Of course it would be. Was that not Jesus? But look at it this way, there is NOTHING to prevent you or I or Bill Gates from giving away most our earned income and accumulated wealth, keeping only what we need to survive. But we have to do it from internal compulsions, not external coercion.In essence you would be a selfless immaterialistic individual. The question is do you consider this to be a good trait?
A 'dictatorship' is a catch-all term for any country that does not allow competing political ideas. I said 'not allow'. Did not say 'does not have'. An allowance simply encourages the creation thereof. Anyway, a 'communist' country not only violently suppresses competing political parties but also enforces, not encourages, characteristics of communism, such as communal property, anti-capitalism, and conformity. A dictatorship can encourages capitalism under state controlled capitalism like China today. So yes, we can dispense with the label 'communist' for China and insert 'dictatorship'. For Cuba, can still keep the 'communist' label. Same for the former USSR.
Not only does is not scale beyond a certain point, it alse stops working when there is an interaction needed with other societies. Because if everything is free, it is worthless (a value of 0). But as soon as there is trade with others, the products stop being worthless (a value > 0), so you need a monetairy system => there goes communism.If I can interject, the fundamental flaw in communism is that it doesn't scale up beyond a certain point.