Anarchist wrote:Where do you live? Im not aware of any True Socialist country existing in the world. Russia was Communist a highly corruptable form of Socialism, but far different.
Hmm...I live in Texas, so you know. Ron Paul's district, actually.
As for True Socialist, Russia did have that. They claimed to have tried to move on to True Communism, but Lord Acton was right. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." They couldn't move on. Neither can the Chinese (I'll be the first to say that they're not 'true' socialists, though. They tried that and nearly starved themselves to death)
esentially a resource that never runs out, and takes less time to create
Currently our world is completely dependent on Crude Oil, when it runs out were screwed no matter how you look at it. A renewable energy would be biofuel(has serious problems) wind energy(clean energy)
We rely on trees for paper(complicated process needing many chemicals)
While a tree takes 100 years to grow to maturity, a hemp plant takes 6 months(and is far more usefull) too bad its illegal.[/quote]
I would assume that true capitalism would tend towards 'renewables,' then, to better secure a supply of money for the future.
In a socialist society, the government would still regulate potentially 'harmful' substances, e.g. weed, in favor of the common good.
I concur that we're completely dependent on crude oil, but I don't see it running dry soon enough to warrant a rush for 'green' alternative fuels (though the air-powered car is pretty sweet).
Theres two examples, its common sense being ignored for the sake of supply and demand.
Funny thing about that. Common sense is a rare thing.
Again thats Communism, Socialism is distributed at local levels with the goal to eliminate collectivism(spelling?) What you refer to as pure capitalism is better known as the free market, while I agree its would be a better system compared to the world today. It still has some of the problems that capitalism would have; Foreign investors,outsourcing,and promoting competition over cooperation. Its far from perfect.
Socialism eliminates foreign interferance, and replaces currency with renewable resources in order to evenly distribute the wealth to all. In order to improve quality of life beyond needs and into luxury. Higher technologies would need to be invented, this is where free education and cooperation will proove its efficiency.
I was working under the impression that Communism was a form of anarchy. Anarchism can't plan anything, due to a lack of archism and enforcement methods.
I don't see a problem with foreign investors, outsourcing, or competition over cooperation (though to compete effectively, one must cooperate with others).
While I agree that money isn't exactly a good thing, it's in human nature to make whatever's available into some form of money. We desire reward for labor, and the ability to use it for frivolous things.
Remember sharing?
Never was good at it. ^_^
Socialism includes the elimination of currency as an inevitable goal(perhaps still used in global trade) making cost irrelevant. Its all about resources. Our education systems and our medical system is private, thats why the wealthy get the best education and the best treatment.
Socialised education and healthcare makes class irrelevant, simply sign up for what you wish to learn and do. no longer worrying about food,shelter, and medical treatment for that is a Need of society.
Isn't socialism for removing borders and all that? Or am I confused between you and Marx again?
While I agree with you in principle, I can't ever see it working in the real world. Humans are, by nature, not very altruistic. We want rewards for our labor. We want accolades. Money (or stuff) is that reward, and having a lot of it brings praise (see Paris Hilton or Donald Trump or Bill Gates).
Um...you're an anarchist, right? Who would be there to sign up with?
Your comment about food, shelter, and medical treatment strikes me as bogus. Somebody has to work for those things. You make it sound like you just sit back and let the sky rain down blessings.
not sure what made you say this, however I agree.
Sorry. Anarchy thread, page 5. You said you were against organized religion. I should have quoted.
I believe we have the right to possesions, but noone has the right to own the world.
I should've clarified.
Do you believe in the right to own land?