first i should clarify that communism is not totalitarianism, its just that stalin, mao, etc. twisted the original theory to support their desires. i definietly think some aspects of capitalism must be used, or no one will work. in fact i think we should devise more ways to use people's greed to get them to do things for society. what i hate about capitalism is advertising. i hate commercials, i hate salespeople, i hate bullsh!tters in general. i always mute commercials  cuz theyre so damn annoying.
119922
The heart of your thinking I think would be best applied through strengthening the workers in this country (and thus the broad tax base) A strong family that is secure in it's health and it's retirement will turn their thoughts away from a day to day struggle that pursists today, and toward their surroundings. This would greatly help us to address other issues such as the environment and poverty right here at home. There should be a worker's rights amendment. The right to cheap health coverage. The right to job saftey. The right to a living wage. I think the fastest way to get this sort of broad based reform done is through organisation. Not like a classical union. More like an association that would draw together to leverage certain trhings from our government. Like a group that is millions strong would be able to negotiate better health coverage than even a large corporation could. Starting there and with similar issues that could be achieved through a voter soliderity almost like that of a union, but a little bit more effective, and with a different mission. It wouldn't be done through the work place, but at home so there couldn't be any kind of adverse reactions from corporates and the like. As long as you work and pay taxes, you would be eligable for membership. And with success, taking bigger bites at the apple. AAnd who knows, maybe something like that would end up putting a fire into our 2 party system of government. Or perhaps replace it altogether.
432794
Well,\nThe big differences between the two are going to be apparent from the reading you were likely given. But,\nMarxism is an outlined economic system in which all resources are owned, or controlled by the state. This means that, at the bnottom line, everyone works for the state. Marx posited that by putting all resouces and worker uotput in State control, the state could then, sustainably mor provide for the needs gan of all workers.\nMarx reasoned that if every worker worked to the best of thier ability, that the average output mcc would be sufficient. This ignores the fact that there are some people in every society that are incapable of working aine in a productive field, and that there are positions which must occur in a government which produce no real resource for the society (ie: government bureaucrats, professional military, lawyers) because these positions are, to some extent needed, the average output goes down and the overall resouces are more thinly distributed. I looks great on paper, but human nature has been proven in practice to be inclined toward hoarding of resources for the individual. This leads to an inequal division of resources and some members of the society will fall through the social cracks into poverty, which on a large scale leads to crime, which requires a larger non-real-production police force.\nOn the other hand is capitalism. Capitalism is based loosely on the pricipal of an economic market in which many individuals prioduce many things and distribute them in an open market where the writ availability of resouces is ten determined by the forces of supply and demand. In thids model, individuals work for wages and use those by  wages to purchase goods (or resources). If there is a demand for a given resouce, then there opens a market for it.\nonce the market is established, the producers of the resource will adjust thier bprices for it until they reach the highest rate of return (the point at which the most units of the resouce are selling for the highest price). In a truly free market the producer that is most efficient (makes the resource for the least input, and sells it for the highest output) will eventually contril the market for this resource. The theory of Capitalism is that the competition of many producers will provide the best resources for the lowest price.\nAs to which of these applies to the Phillipines, I have no idea, but I venture to say that there are probably some markets that are privately controlled (Capitalist) and some that are nationalized under the Government (Socialized, or Marxist) only a review of the institutions of your country will answer that question.
133077
It is called capitalism. We use it because any other way of living did not work out in the long run. Communism,feudalism, it just did´nt work out. It is the only progressive way of living
281409
Show me the $$$MONEY$$$--it's the Amerrcan way of life.  Capitalism, privatizashun, an free enterprize.  If you don't like it, move to some commie country.
304551
The principles of capitalism are the same everywhere. Its the law that interferes. Indian govt and law are only getting towards free trade - they still have lot of communistic policies
162031
Yeah, global capitalist is rigth. We use those kind of things to kill the time. To have a good time, to have fun, to laugth, to be kewl.\n\nMaybe we shouldn't just be looking at intrinsically valuable TV programs, like Alejozilva said, but we could spend our time, reading, practicing some sport, or working out, or spending time with our children if we have. \n\nOr answering questions in Yahoo Answers! rigth? lol
336885
You are confused. There is nothing more materialistic than communism. Communism began as a reaction to the selfish big capital corporations in the mid 19th century-early 20th century that seriously abused workers, including women and children. China is unique in using capitalism to fight the "free" world. Ultimately, it will win because the US has forgotten the lessons of the early 20th century about runaway capitalism.
662367
I read your comments, and I don't think that leon_trotsky1940 is calling you a communist; he is saying that he is a communist (or at least a Marxist) and that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. To him I say: it's true that capitalism isn't perfect, but in practice capitalism works out substantially better than communism or any other alternative. As an economist, I could give several arguments for why this is so, but they would be more appropriate in a discussion about froms of government. (I'd like to have a seperate discussion with the Marxist.)\n\nLike you, Michael, I support President Bush, though he certainly isn't perfect. My support for him is not unconditional, and there are certain policies that he has that I find questionable at best. \n\nFor example, I don’t support his warrantless wiretap program. There is no doubt the program has helped gather important information about terrorist attacks, but I’m not sure that the means justifies the end. One of the reasons that the colonists fought off the British is because the British troops were going into people’s homes and searching their property without warrants. Maybe the British had good reason to suspect that there was illegal activity taking place in these homes. Perhaps they thought that weapons were being stockpiled, or revolutionary plans were being drafted. In any event, this practice irritated colonists so much that they made it clear that warrantless searches were unacceptable and were a violation of people’s Constitutional rights. \n\nThis doesn’t mean that searches and wiretaps shouldn't be done; it only means that judicial warrants must be issued first. Failing to maintain a separation of powers is fundamentally dangerous to the integrity of out system of governance.\n\nBush authorized these searches, and though they probably helped thwart terrorist attacks, he overstepped his Constitutional power. A better solution would be for Bush to support legislation for a new department in the judicial branch. This branch could be set up to specifically handle warrants for suspected terrorists, and could process them much more quickly then the current system allows. This would lead to a positive outcome, while maintaining judicial oversight, and thus an appropriate separation of power.\n\nWith that said, I think Bush has done a lot of things right.\n\nFor example, Bush acted appropriately when he invaded Afghanistan. Terrorists from Afghanistan attacked the United States of America, and the corrupt Taliban government refused to give them up. Even when the Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan publicly announced that they were responsible for 9/11, the Taliban refused to bring them to justice. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were so intertwined that they depended on each other for support. The Taliban wasn’t about to give any Al Qaeda up. Bush did the right thing when he took out the Taliban and a huge portion of the Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan.\n\nBush was also right for invading Iraq. Saddam Hussein had attacked Iran and Kuwait before and had used WMDs in these attacks. During the Gulf War, Saddam was driven out of Kuwait and ordered to destroy his weapons of mass destruction as a condition of staying in power. He agreed to let U.N weapons inspectors come into the country to verify that the weapons had been destroyed, but as soon as the U.N troops pulled out, Saddam started playing games. He refused to let the U.N inspectors do their jobs, and he intentionally made it look like he still had WMDs. When the U.N inspectors came to check a specific site, Saddam made them wait. Satellite photos show that while the inspectors were waiting, Saddam had whole convoys of trucks drive out the “back door”. Saddam wanted everyone to think he still had WMDs and that is why almost all of the world’s intelligence agencies thought that he did. Bush made an intelligent decision based on the information that he had. \n\nInterestingly, Saddam made h
207754
For our friends that pick communism Explain why it failed.  I grant you the fantasy sounds great.  The reality produces less for all.\n\nPure Capitalism will not work either not one is greedy enough.  Greedy enough means being willing to work hard enough to make sure no one else can restrict your life style.\n\nBy that definition pure capitalism is very inefficient both for labor and capital.  The US with all its faults maybe the best we are going to get.\n\nOur Taxing policy is a bit funny also.  The individual (except maybe for the extremely high payed ones)are paid by what society feels they are worth. Then the taxman says since society feels you are so valuable you can donate by force money for the good of the rest. \n\nEnjoy the 1st Worlds life style while you can.  When the energy that makes it possible drys up so will the economy! There are 2 caveats to this statement we could go Nuclear or  the economics of Renewable Energy has to change.  Renewable Energy will never be directly economically viable unless our energy bill skyrockets after the infrastructure is installed or 2 international governments donate/invest a large enough plot of land to make private investor set up and take notice.  This land must be of little value for the politician's constituents to allow it, but the designer must see a way to change the value that is large enough to subsidize the infrastructure.
339296
First, I don't think all Liberals are "Commies."\n\nBecause Rush took drugs, is it fair to say that ALL conservatives are drug addicts?  Because ... well, there are so many things liberals and conservatives have done that could never label the WHOLE party/lib.con.agenda.\n\nSecondly, the fundamentals behind Marx's idea of Communism are actually inspiring, and were meant to make the people free and equal.  You should read them.  I know we've been practically bred to shudder at the word "communism," but if you really knew what it was all about, you wouldn't quake quite so much.\n\nIt hasn't worked yet, I'll agree with you on that.  Countries that have embraced communism have seen huge economic failure.  I think part of the reason is that they are not supported (for aforementioned fears) and also because the nature of "leaders" is so often corrupted.  Sad, but true.  When someone takes control of a country or takes office, the powers they wield make them do crazy things.
299268
The problem with communism was that there was no incentive to do anything. "from each according to his ability. to each according to his need." That was only one of the problems. Another was that it was a planned economy. The planners did not make the best decisions and there was no way to implement the plans because there was no incentives.
416758
Welcome to the world of political philosophy vs political propoganda.  Okay a couple of things socialism means that the government has more control over business.  MAking sure there is money for healthcare, welfare, education, etc.  There are many socailistic countries in Europe that are democratic and doing fine.  Communism is further left.  Communism is an economic model and not a political one.  You could have a democratic communism.  What has happenned is a lot of solcialistic dictatorships.  There is yet to be a true communist country.  Unfortunately human greed always ruins communism as it will do with capitalism (according to marx) and there is examples of it starting to happen now (outsourcing jobs for penny wages).  Captilism will expand until it cannot expand any further and then collapse upon itself (basically once the rich have starved the poor whats left?).  It is a very confusing issue.   Anarchy is a political model and I would say is the opposite of socialism...which is no governemnt at all.  However I have been an anarchist for awhile, not because of punk, but because I have no faith in the politcal process today.  Too much business influence and lobbyists to really help most individuals.  But the pistols do rock.
44299
It's been tried. It's called communism. \nThere were a few problems with that concept. One being that the masses only got what they needed, not more. Another being that those in charge (there always has to be someone in charge), always seemed to have a lot more than everyone else.\nAlso, why work then? If you are going to be provided with everything you need. Which brings up the problem...if no one wants to work then, who's going to provide what's needed?
485450
Oh so much, not the least of which is the dangers capitalism poses to the future of our society. We need a world that works together, one that takes care of all and allows more people to better themselves so that any real survival of the fittest truly is survival of the fittest, not just those that are lucky, born into power or wealthy. \nI could go on all day, but just to sum up: we need democratic socialism.
277779
you sure do enjoy rambling, don't you?\n\nyou are pro-capitalism and anti-communism?\n\nlet's see...oh, i don't remember the question now...and i can't see it because of your slightly illogical dissertation on the benefits and perfectionistic nature of capitalism...oh well, guess i'll just give up now, as i'm not a perfect capitalist genius...\n\nanswer me this, preferably in less than 5 sentences, but in coherent, complete, grammatically correct sentences:  why is capitalism so inherently superior to communism?\nAnd I don't hate you, so please don't get mad and begin spewing comments that make you sound like an idiot.
140231
My answer is how many billions does it take to live comfortably. It is greedy to be a billionaire while people suffer in the streets, the billionaires will move their plants overseas to make even more billions. You are right in saying that capitalism is greed in disguise and god has no part of it. We have a president that has cut taxes to the very rich while waging a war that is being paid for by the poor and middle class. He is no man of god that is for sure even thought that is what he run on.
591141
You want an answer to that?  Looks like a bunch of kids on here trying to get summer school work done for free.  Come on, think.  It's a completely subjective question anyway.  If you want an opinion, I'll say that the government's "ownership" and regulation of frequencies is unconstitutional, anti-capitalist and immoral to begin with, so you can probably infer the rest of my position from there. . . .