Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You overlook one thing...Human nature.......there will always, ALWAYS be those who carry more weight, work harder for the common good and ALWAYS be those that do the opposite. The only way your scheme will work is at the point of a bayonet.............
People can still work alone, and sharing production is needed to pool together resources as people won't be able to own vast amounts of capital individually anymore.
Within this context, working together is promoted rather than frowned upon.
And varying IQs won't matter because people can still have leadership positions, it is just that they answer to the population of workers democratically rather than the workers answering to him.
People can still work alone, and sharing production is needed to pool together resources as people won't be able to own vast amounts of capital individually anymore.
Within this context, working together is promoted rather than frowned upon.
And varying IQs won't matter because people can still have leadership positions, it is just that they answer to the population of workers democratically rather than the workers answering to him.
if no private ownership of land is allowed, where will you set up your commune?
You overlook one thing...Human nature.......there will always, ALWAYS be those who carry more weight, work harder for the common good and ALWAYS be those that do the opposite. The only way your scheme will work is at the point of a bayonet.............
Everyone ignores human nature. It's why I do not like to argue theories. Theories are no better than vast generalizations though and unfortunately, that is what most want to argue.
if no private ownership of land is allowed, where will you set up your commune?
What does that mean? Benjamin Franklin had his own opinions of his land was owned.
In fact the Republican Party was against plantation farming because an individual owning a land that size would force other farm hands to work for them.
Land can be owned by the space you use, then in a cooperative that land adds up as the population adds up and ownership is shared.
For what it's worth, your heart is in the right place, but every single thing you posted cannot and will not work.
In theory socialism/communism MIGHT work, but once you introduce the "human linkage," it has to fail... Period.
In a friendly discussion or a group discussion with college classmates, everything you stated sound workable, but its not... In the real world.
The truth is that Socialism will never take root in the United States since there are more "producers/productive" people than "takers/lost souls. Even an idealistic "millennial," with 10 years of a productive career under his/her belt will not support this dream once they figure out that it's not free and they're the ones paying for it, in the end.
No spin. No historical imperialist wrong doing. No founding father linkage... Where has socialism/communism ever worked? Or slightly ever worked?
For what it's worth, your heart is in the right place, but every single thing you posted cannot and will not work.
In theory socialism/communism MIGHT work, but once you introduce the "human linkage," it has to fail... Period.
In a friendly discussion or a group discussion with college classmates, everything you stated sound workable, but its not... In the real world.
The truth is that Socialism will never take root in the United States since there are more "producers/productive" people than "takers/lost souls. Even an idealistic "millennial," with 10 years of a productive career under his/her belt will not support this dream once they figure out that it's not free and they're the ones paying for it, in the end.
No spin. No historical imperialist wrong doing. No founding father linkage... Where has socialism/communism ever worked? Or slightly ever worked?
Until we get rid of the Federal Reserve people need to quit saying that we won't accept Socialism.
For what it's worth, your heart is in the right place, but every single thing you posted cannot and will not work.
In theory socialism/communism MIGHT work, but once you introduce the "human linkage," it has to fail... Period.
In a friendly discussion or a group discussion with college classmates, everything you stated sound workable, but its not... In the real world.
The truth is that Socialism will never take root in the United States since there are more "producers/productive" people than "takers/lost souls. Even an idealistic "millennial," with 10 years of a productive career under his/her belt will not support this dream once they figure out that it's not free and they're the ones paying for it, in the end.
No spin. No historical imperialist wrong doing. No founding father linkage... Where has socialism/communism ever worked? Or slightly ever worked?
Confederacy, local control of the economy, and sharing/pooling together resources will offer a lower standard of living but a happier and freer society.
There is no other way to save humanity from destruction. Ask yourself if consumption is the meaning of life, or saving yourself.
The majority of this country is religious (I'm not, but whatever) and believe in moral good over greed (ayn rand).
Today people are taught to consume as much as possible, but this is not human nature, and this is not what Epicurus taught. Anything and everything I do to help others, and dedicate my life to the common good will help strip away this fantasy of wealth above goodness.
Confederacy, local control of the economy, and sharing/pooling together resources will offer a lower standard of living but a happier and freer society.
There is no other way to save humanity from destruction. Ask yourself if consumption is the meaning of life, or saving yourself.
The majority of this country is religious (I'm not, but whatever) and believe in moral good over greed (ayn rand). Today people are taught to consume as much as possible, but this is not human nature, and this is not what Epicurus taught. Anything and everything I do to help others, and dedicate my life to the common good will help strip away this fantasy of wealth above goodness.
I would say out of all of the definitions of religious, 'churchgoing' is the least meaningful or important, yet the only one that most can claim.
I would say the majority of this country is not religious. Not at all.
It's interesting. I wasn't born religious, and I certainly don't practice with any organize religion today.
But when I first read about the evangelical sect of Christianity, historically at least, they didn't come off as right wing Reagan republicans, but as moral people who had greatest faith in those who worked on the land, sacrificed for others, and were equal and fair to all.
Nothing like this rat race we live in today. I still hold out hope that real religious people in this country still hold these views deep down inside.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
