..,factors like mobility and happiness were never considered ONLY MONEY.
I hope you aren't saying there that Communism allowed it's people mobility or that they were happy under Communism. Communist countries considered leaving their borders for almost any reason a crime against the state. As for happiness, in the USSR and in Mao's China there wasn't much to be happy about. Things are improving in China (with a long way yet to go) and the USSR died under the weight of its own mismanagement.
"I hope you aren't saying "
Yeah I guess it sounded like that. Remember, though, the virtually everything that we learned about life under communism was through the filter of capitalism. I remember learning from the nuns (in grade school) how, in Russia, the government would actually spy on its own people; and, if they didn't like what they heard they would actually imprison people WITHOUT CHARGE and for YEARS <hear gasps from 5th graders>. We were told that this is the natural outcome of communism. Bull. A dictatorship is a dictatorship. Any time a leader expects people to believe that their rights are being stomped on "for their own good" or "if you're not a criminal you have nothing to fear", it ceases to matter what name they give their economic system. As we are WELL aware, suspension of rights can occur in a "free" society (oxymoron intended).
It terrible coz the rich dont like it.. How dare you demand equality between all people.. You see god(s) chooses some people to test with their wealth and others with their patience.. its a great way to maintain the Master - Slave relationship between people (i mean captialism ofcourse) i say Anarchy
Well, I suppose they might respond that "In fact, people aren't equal. Some are smart and industrious and some are dumb and lazy, so why should what they enjoy be equal?"
I wasn't using "enjoy" in the sense you think. Substitute the word "have" for it (which is a common usage of the word) and you'll see what I was actually saying.
I didn't say that.
I don't see communism working in the long run with a larger population. Some people are driven by wanting more status (bling) than the drive to say be creative or helping others etc. Nothing wrong with that it's what makes the world go around. So long as there's a basic standard of living that the rest of the community can enjoy: basic medical care, food, clothing, shelter, safety then I think it's OK. And we all have to pull our fair share of the load. But to move forward there has to be motivation and if you take that away then unfortunately I can see many bright, resourceful people not meeting their potential due to no reward system being in place.
And honestly we already DO live in a democratically socialist nation. Fire, police, garbage collection, government, etc etc is all of us pooling together for the common 'good'. Just like you don't call a fire service and negotiate a contract when your house is ablaze, and hopefully never have to use the fire service we have, it's in the best interest of all to have these programs in place BEFORE they're needed and where everyone contributes. What's wrong with extending it to healthcare? Not an everyone-gets-everything-they-want but basic preventative medicine and pay your way into the kitty for when you need it (like fire or police etc).
I believe communist theory goes that eventually people won't live in your "large populations" but in much smaller communes.
"And honestly we already DO live in a democratically socialist nation."
If you're referring to today's US of A, the owners of businesses that can hire lobbyists get socialism (i.e., bailouts by taxpayers). The rest of us get democracy only on the days we elect our oligarchs. They, our oligarchs, get democracy in legislative bodies.
I understand the very first bailout to have been the redemption at face value of the paper given to veterans of the Revolutionary War in payment for their service. Most of them sold their paper for far less than face value to speculators. The new government paid them face value.
For info on another early bailout, search on Yazoo land claims or related terms.
The US of A has had many economic crashes. Our most recent one (2008-2009) brought huge taxpayer bailouts to the same people who caused the crash.
It strikes me that you have hit squarely in the bulls-eye of this discussion. Like MOST people (the VAST majority) you seem to react more to the words "communist" and "socialist" than to the reality of the systems they represent. You seem to want everything that any good communist wants - just not the name. The idea that hugely progressive tax rates (which are one side of the "share-the-wealth" equation) serve as a major disincentive to ANYTHING has simply been proven false time and again. When I was growing up the tax rates for the very top tax bracket was 90%. And at that time there was, on one hand the greatest expansion of wealth ever in America and, on the other hand FAR less bitching by the oligarchs than now, when they are paying little or nothing. (Sends me spinning back to my theory that wealth and income disparity is the factor that contributes most to national "unhappiness".)
I agree with Cara Coleen,
And you know, Unseen... I've only read part of the Communist Manifesto, but it's not really that horrible as an idea, either. Now, I do not think it should be implemented, but the intention is not evil by any means. The real problem is people corrupting all great "isms" and subverting them to their own ends, and giving them bad reputations.
I would question the defensive nature of the statement:
The subject title says it all. To listen to some GOP'ers talk, you'd think socialism was Communism.
What's wrong Communism? Seriously, there is a considerable degree of merit in the idea of planned economies and one doesn't have to take all of Stalin's garbage to accept some of the basic premises of Communism, imo.
I suppose dictatorship "isn't all that horrible as an idea" until some fallible human(s) assume the role of dictator.
Explain, please, what is meritorious about a planned economy, since it takes considerable limitations on human rights to achieve it.
The problem with communism (note the small "c") is that it can only work in a dictatorial atmosphere of one party without the interference of competing parties and ideas. This is why a "dictatorship of the people," while a later accretion to the notions of communism, is also a necessary one.