<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 9/9/10 6:55 AM, Tim Halterman wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimQg1UAMqjJr4JLnAeYckt2U5Pmxs5s9jBAdT+Z@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span>Really, what do you
make of this?</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font> <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
No current system is perfect and everlasting, communism,
capitalism or otherwise. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why? What makes them fail? Are some better than others? In what
ways. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimQg1UAMqjJr4JLnAeYckt2U5Pmxs5s9jBAdT+Z@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I don't think any system which requires people to do
something they don't wish or relies on exploiting another
being as a permanent solution. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Laissez faire capitalism requires neither.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimQg1UAMqjJr4JLnAeYckt2U5Pmxs5s9jBAdT+Z@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>These systems are simply biding their time until technology
advances to a point that a true communism is possible.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
BARF. Communism is utterly broken by design. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimQg1UAMqjJr4JLnAeYckt2U5Pmxs5s9jBAdT+Z@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> Communism in that sense being a society where
individuals are free to do as they wish and do not require the
exploitation of others to do so. I think Marx felt this way,
although specific quotes elude me (It's been a number of years
since I read his work).<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
That is not communism. In communism the collective owns everything
and the individual owns nothing. "From each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs" is a common slogan of
communism at its most idealistic. That is utterly unworkable.
When everyone owns everything and nothing no one has the right to do
with anything at all what she wishes. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimQg1UAMqjJr4JLnAeYckt2U5Pmxs5s9jBAdT+Z@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I always looked at the Soviet Union as simply picking a
model close to a hopeful end-state. Had technology progressed
at a faster rate I'm not sure the collapse would have been
inevitable, they could have simply evolved. I see the most
technologically advanced societies the closest to achieving
true communism.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
A state that killed tens of millions on its own citizens on purpose
is held up as an ideal and just before its time? This is utterly
abhorrent. <br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>