Communism was tried by the first settlers in the USA (employment, money)

[Vf6cruiser]

They decided to all work for communal good, pool food etc in one storehouse. This lasted one year and was quickly abandoned because there was a group who slacked off and lived off of others hard labor. Thus the start of the DNC and the socialists of today. Nothing has changed.

[Retroit]

True.

”The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times, that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God. For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could, this was thought injustice. ?And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them." -William Brandford

Communism is “a kind of slavery.” Very well said.

Originally Posted by Vf6cruiser

They decided to all work for communal good, pool food etc in one storehouse. This lasted one year and was quickly abandoned because there was a group who slacked off and lived off of others hard labor. Thus the start of the DNC and the socialists of today. Nothing has changed.

You know, just typing "thus" doesn't magically create an actual link between two things.

Challenger broke apart due to an o-ring failure. Thus I ordered an iced coffee this morning.

That makes about as much sense as the drivel you've posted.

[latimeria]

It had nothing to do with the facts that they were ill prepared, had to live on the ship for a while, arrived when they couldn’t grow crops, and other sundry problems. Nope, it was solely communism.

[enraeh]

Originally Posted by JasonF

You know, just typing "thus" doesn't magically create an actual link between two things.

Challenger broke apart due to an o-ring failure. Thus I ordered an iced coffee this morning.

That makes about as much sense as the drivel you've posted.

I thought you liberals were so much smarter than everybody else.
Why is it you can't recognize sarcasm?
It's been around at least since Shakespeare days.

[Redshadowz]

Communism only works among family members. Beyond the family, it is a failure.

[Redshadowz]

To understand where communism works, and where it doesn't work, you first need to understand the word "love".


What is love? What is its purpose?

I know that many people don't give the word much thought. Or they just associate it with some feeling that they can't really explain.


Love exists for one purpose, to suppress selfishness. Love is the only thing that can suppress the natural inclination towards selfishness.


The more you love someone, the more you would be willing to give yourself to them. Whether that be your time, your money, or even your life.


If you couldn't love, you would be unwilling to do anything for absolutely anyone else if you didn't benefit. This benefit can either come in some kind of payment, or the avoidance of some sort of consequences.


The failure of communism, was that the people didn't love each other. Communism can only exist where people love each other. All other societies must be built on rewards and consequences.

[in_newengland]

We already had a thread on this.

I do genealogy and I found out that my ancestors were Pilgrims and Puritans (two different groups.)

So I know they tried to share at first. AT FIRST because they came with almost nothing at all. They did not arrive to find lovely cleared fields and beautiful places to graze their sheep. It was wilderness. So they got together and cleared some land to share for a while.

It worked for a while. Human nature has it that there are always a few lazy slobs and the early settlers were no different. Most were really diligent, hard workers and they resented the few. Gradually they developed their own land and stopped with so much of the sharing. But they didn't throw EVERYTHING out--they still shared but they developed more of a balance, just as today's people want to do. Early settlers were known for sticking together and helping each other.

No one today wants socialism (no matter what the far right tries to tell you)--today's people want a balance of capitalism with a social safety net mixed in. That is all. Most first world countries operate like that. All capitalism=greed and too much cut throat competition. All socialism=laziness and letting others do the work. Answer=a mixture.

Yet we still get these silly threads implying that people want socialism or communism.
Someday maybe they'll stop and think. And get a clue.

[engineman]

That was the idea of Hippy Communes, didn't work there either.

[whogo]

About the only successful communes have consisted of religious sects.