<p>DE: a system in which the government controls the capital and is the market (communism) is not compatible with the principles of liberal democracy. It necessarily requires the repression of minorities (for example, during the Russian Revolution, kulaks, engineers, skilled labourers, and the bourgeoisie).</p>
<p>“People are poor because a capitalistic society needs a large lower class to continue functioning. Any upward motion by one or more people is met by downward motion elsewhere.”
A capitalist society is dependent on consumption. The more consumers with income and needs to fulfil, the more money.</p>
That’s socialism. Please learn what communism is.</p>
<p>
Why? If the government is a democracy, the people control the government, and the government controls the economy, isn’t that preferable to the very few controlling it in an economic oligarchy of the rich?</p>
<p>
Except the Russian Revolution wasn’t communist. Or really socialist, even, but they were closer to that. And yes, the bourgeoisie will be eliminated in communism, as the means of production will be controlled by the workers (all of them).</p>
<p>
It also relies upon a class divide; the workers and the owners, the producers and the consumers, those who make the food and those who eat it.</p>
<p>@Delorous Edd, I’m getting sick of going back and forth with you, it is not fun because in the end I wont change you mind and you wont change mine. But the blasphemous things that you state irritate me so much it’s incredible.</p>
<p>Athletics is not a limited profession. Think of all of the individuals who play on teams and make a living off of it. Did I say being in the NBA is not a limited profession? No I did not. You don’t have to be remarkable to be a professional athlete.</p>
<p>In terms of musicians, many of them did not attend schooling for their craft. If they are gifted, then they learned to play and instrument or sing by themselves. Here’s a few musicians who didn’t got to college for you: Kiss, Queen, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, the Who, the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Rihanna, Kanye West, Eminem, Guns N’ Roses, Styx, John Mellencamp, Van Halen, AC/DC… The list is endless. </p>
<p>How do I keep bringing up rare celebrity jobs when I state entrepreneur and engineers? Please inform me how.</p>
<p>Your statement about only 1% control the economy is incorrect. Yes the rich (like 20% of the population) control around 40-50% of the American economy. But the American economy is so large the rest that is controlled by everyone else is still more than satisfactory.</p>
<p>Being born into the upper class has benefits but does not guarantee success</p>
<p>No I don’t work 90 hours a week, and very few people do. I work quite a large amount of hours a week. I work an amount that I feel can allow me to understand many intricacies in the working environment. </p>
<p>And now you start talking about the world and how many can’t provide for their children. I thought we were discussing America!</p>
<p>Check your facts. You are arrogant and stupid for your fact about inheritance</p>
<p>And yet again a stupid comment. Many rich people do work just as much as everyone else. I would say the majority of them do. Most of the rich don’t lounge outside and drink martinis all day.</p>
<p>Your info about the economies and history is far off from the truth. It’s people like you who are too stubborn to understand history who make ridiculous comments. Socialism/Communism is completely opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is the freest economic system. Socialism/Communism is a version of a horrific economy in which people have no say in what they purchase, sell, and the entrepreneur options are terrible. The government has control over everything. I have taken many history classes and economic classes and understand political and economic systems. A democratic republic in no way shape or form can be communist, what a stupid statement that goes to show your limited knowledge. And for your info the European countries that are socialist are not fantastic places to live in.</p>
It is a limited field! Not everyone can be an athlete! There is only a certain level of demand, lower than most professions. Can everyone in America sign up to be a professional athlete and make millions? No? It’s limited.</p>
<p>
No, it isn’t endless. You seem to have problems with the idea of a limited profession. Oh, and I could name more people than you just by listing the members of a few orchestras (ie, the New York Phil). Giving lists of examples does not a statistical analysis make. Stop generalizing.</p>
<p>
You keep focusing on musicians and athletes. How many times have you talked about engineers? I’d like you to go back and count.</p>
<p>
If the top 1% control 40% of the wealth in the US, then your numbers are way off base.</p>
<p>
No, but it’s a whole hell of a lot better than being born poor. Most born rich stay rich. Most born poor stay poor.</p>
<p>
And you work hard labor? Lots of bodily use and risk? Heavy lifting and the like?</p>
<p>
We live in a world economy, no? Or do you not care about the lives of the billions of poor starving to death across the world? Being an American citizen makes you no more human than them. Much of the wealth of the US is built upon the backs of these people, through exploitative neo-colonial capitalism (see Nike, Coca-cola, basically any other that owns factories in 3rd world countries).</p>
Why would you say that? Do you have anything to support your claim that most rich people work as hard as most workers? Given that not even most rich people earned their own wealth, it seems like an inaccurate statement, but I’ll wait for you to prove it.</p>
<p>
You need to study philosophy and economics to know communism; nowhere in history has it ever been implemented. I am a history major, though; how much history education have you had?</p>
<p>
Yes; in capitalism, the economy is controlled by the few, in communism it is controlled by the many.</p>
<p>
Oh boy. For the rich, perhaps; not for the poor, who, lacking even basic economic liberty, can easily be reduced to wage slaves.</p>
<p>
Do you even know what the difference between socialism and communism is? They are very different, you know. And in communism, all workers control the means of production, so the choice in production is much more varied, being made by more people (often independently), rather than a few.</p>
<p>
In socialism. Not communism. Honestly, you’re making a fool out of yourself here.</p>
<p>
Evidently not.</p>
<p>
I said it can be socialist (which it can), not communism. Communism requires a world, classless, stateless society, obviously a country (democratic republic or otherwise) couldn’t be communist.</p>
<p>
Social democracies, actually. And no? Have you lived in them all? Have you seen the difference in standard of living? Universal healthcare? Better education? Sounds kind of nice, though certainly could improve, hence communism.</p>
<p>At D, once again you are incorrect on a different thread. THAT is communism open the dictionary,
com·mu·nism
[kom-yuh-niz-uhm]
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.</p>
<p>Or are you going to go rant to Webster that it’s wrong?</p>
I will trust the creator of communism over a capitalistic corporation on what communism actually is. This definition is blatantly wrong; being in a dictionary doesn’t make it less so.</p>
<p>Of course, Columbia Encyclopedia defines it as “a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.”</p>
<p>Short definitions often lose important things. Going by the things outlined in the Communist Manifesto is probably a better way to distinguish these things.</p>
<p>Interestingly, [the</a> 1871 Paris Commune](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune]the”>Paris Commune - Wikipedia) was an example, but was incidentally crushed by the French Army in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War. It suggests that Communal Anarchism/Communism is feasible, but it never had an opportunity for long term success. That said, I’m continually annoyed when people suggest that the USSR and the People’s Republic of China show the failures of Communism. Bolshevik theorists (Bukharin, for instance) recognized the lack of a capitalist system in Russia that made the development of socialism, as far as Marxist beliefs suggest, impossible, and the same is true for China. Regardless, their autocratic governments make them only communist in name.</p>
<p>Why are we talking about socialism in this thread anyway haha</p>
<p>Isnt this was community colleges, non flagship state schools and FA are for?</p>
<p>I realize CCs aren’t the best option, but they are easy to get in and affordable, so if someone wants a college education they can get one for relatively cheap. Some colleges are definitely overpriced, but those elite colleges are worth it to some.</p>
<p>But the government has enough problems then to finance everyones education. Some colleges with huge endowments should make college less of a rip off for everyone though.</p>
<p>The problem with too many people having a bachelor’s (more bachelor’s than jobs that required bachelor’s degrees) is that some people will wind up underemployed. The only problem with that is that those people paid for bachelor’s degrees, so if they aren’t getting a job that requires a bachelor’s, they wasted time/money. If the government subsidized their education, tax dollars were wasted as well.</p>
<p>No. -____________________-
People who worked extremely hard to get into their college of the dreams just be surrounded by people who just got in because “college is a right”… there would be a riot.</p>
<p>college isn’t for everyone. i’ve met people who only had a high school diploma and are living EXTREMELY comfortably. </p>
<p>also, there’s so many things that would go wrong with this. just because you can go to college, doesn’t mean you should. yeah, just let a 36 year old man who can barely speak english go to college just to flunk out. totally.</p>
<p>I had to throw in just a quick thought, I don’t know if it has been said or not seeing as i just saw this thread.</p>
<p>But for all those who don’t really realize it out there, but those people who don’t go to college end up waiting your tables, cleaning your cars, asking you for fries with that. If you give everyone in the world a degree than we have x number of jobs with no one who wants to do them because they think they are higher than those kind of jobs. </p>
<p>And even without a collge degree people can live very well without it. Neither of my parents went to college but collectively they make more than enough for my entire family to live comfortably.</p>
<p>Derek, your post seems almost seems contradictory … you say “people who don’t go to college end up waiting your tables, cleaning your cars, asking you for fries with that.” and then you go “And even without a collge degree people can live very well without it.”</p>
<p>Making a point that not everyone needs to go to college to be happy and that there can me a middle between fast food and doctor. And even more i am not degrading jobs like that, I work a job like that but still plan on going to college. But i have seen people at my job and at other jobs who don’t want to go to college/ don’t have the drive who end up working in those kinds of jobs, but those jobs are needed in society for it to run.</p>
<p>Who said college being a right means crapshoots will get into Ivy-League schools? In Europe it’s almost free for citizens but they still apply and get rejected from schools if they don’t have the right grades.</p>
<p>College should be a right- not a mandatory one. I don’t have to own a gun if I don’t want to but I have the right to by the 2nd amendment.</p>
<p>Just make a law, if one doesn’t get into any private schools (Which should be a lot damn cheaper), at least one state school must accept that student.</p>
<p>Who said one must go to college? If you choose not to, don’t go. If you worked your heart out, apply to better universities.</p>
<p>The point is that most students shouldn’t enter their lives with thousands of dollars of debt. You think that’s good for the economy?</p>