I believe that communism can operate as a mulitparty system much in the same way (actually better) the the system of capitalism does now. After all, not every communist thinks in the same way, so why wouldn't they form different parties In a pure communist system?\n\nAfter all, who here ever remembers voting for capitalism?
204175
Capitalism is an other word for greed. Communism is about sharing, neither work very well in its entirety. However some socialism in a mix with capitalism would work if you could get the capitalist to see that it would restore order to a chaotic society.
127608
In animal farm he's saying that while communism is good in theory, it does not factor in human nature. It's because of human nature (greed/laziness) that communism does not work. Not everyone can do the same amount of work, or will accept th e same amount as they're given.
270905
No, I'm not satisfied. But, there are other countries with multiple party systems(take Italy, for example). Those governments are very inefficient because there are way too many competitive blocs. This leads to coalitions that work towards each party's benefit. Not that great either, now is it?
263420
What is Communism? \nCategory: News and Politics \nWithout a doubt, you’ve probably heard about communism. And, also without a doubt, you’ve probably heard all sorts of horror stories about it — from your teachers, from the media, from politicians, even from your church pastor or preacher. \n        They tried to scare you. They want to keep you from finding out for yourself. If you asked one authority figure for a second opinion, they usually told you to ask another authority figure. And if that didn’t satisfy you, then they told you to read the history books they wrote for you.\n        Do you see a pattern here? The one person they will never tell you to talk to, however, is a communist. Why? Because a communist might go “off script” and tell you something they don’t want you to hear.\n        So, what is communism? Well, there is communism, the theory, and communism, the society. Let’s first deal with communism, the society.\n        To begin with, communism is a society without bosses or servants, without superiors or subordinates, without masters or slaves — in short, communism is a society without classes and the stress, conflict and antagonisms that go with the existence of classes. Contrary to the history they teach you, classes are a relatively new thing in the human experience, having been around for only about 25,000 of the last 50 million years of human existence.\n        “But,” someone might say, “there are a lot more people alive today than there were back then.” That’s true. What’s also true is that we are smarter, more conscious of our world and more technologically advanced than our ancestors. We really don’t need someone standing over us, telling us what to do and when to do it. If necessary, we can work that out together, in common.\n        Because it is a society without classes, communism is also a society where all aspects of society are developed and administered in common. That means not only the political system, but the economy, culture and social relations too. Can you imagine, having an equal voice, along with your co-workers, in deciding how conditions at your job would be determined? Or, having a say, along with your neighbors, in shaping how the city’s budget will be spent?\n        Democracy is a key element in the development of communism — but not the stale, formal “democracy” we are taught about in school; we are talking about democracy as a practice, a real-world tool that works for those who work.\n        As well, communism is a society without a state. Now, when we talk about a “state,” we are not talking about councils and assemblies that debate issues and adopt policy. When we say “state,” we mean the armed organizations that enforce “order” (the rulers’ “order,” that is), like the police and military.\n        “No police?!” Yes, no police. What are the police really for? Well, when you live in a society where goods and services are restricted to a few, you end up with the many in need. When you have so many in need, you need to maintain order. However, if you live in a society where the needs of everyone in society are met, what need is there for police? If everyone’s basic needs — good food, decent housing, worthwhile education, etc. — are met, what basis is there for most of the crime in society?\n        Sure, there may be times here and there that may require some kind of investigation or enforcement unit, but those times would be relatively few and far between, and could easily be handled as they come up.\n        It is also the case that communism is a society without money. “Without money?!” Yes, without money. Why does money exist? Basically, it was invented so that one group of owners wouldn’t get screwed by another set of owners. But, if you have a society where the factories and workplaces are owned in common, and we can sit down and plan out three months, six months or even a year in advance what w
142310
History has proven pure communism or socialism doesn’t work.  Humans are free thinkers and eventually demand access to individual freedoms and rights.  History has also proven pure democracy and capitalism doesn’t work either.  Louis, Tocqueville warned of a “tyranny of the majority” which some say may be occurring in America today.\n\nThe answer is a balance between the two.   In a perfect society there would be enough social programs to support the poor, sick, and needy while providing opportunity for those “go getters” who wish to pursues wealth and success.
81487
Someone who believes in the socialist ideologies put forth by the philosopher Karl Marx, though he was once quoted as saying "I am not a Marxist" which goes to show that the term really took on a life of its own historically.  The basic concept is that all members of society make roughly equal contributions and receive roughly equal benefits, as opposed to capitalism where people compete for a greater share of society's benefits.  The theory is very in-depth, and scholars still debate over what exactly is implied by the term Marxism, or if or how it differs from socialism or communism.\n\nI think socialism focuses more on social equality and pooling of resources.  Communism focuses on the economic and political constructs of a government that commands the economy and the major industries.
352673
I don't know, but I don't like it.  That is why I oppose political parties.  If there were no political parties then polititians would be forced to tell people what they think on certain issues instead of just hiding behind the label of a party and having people vote on you based solely on your party.  Not to say that no one looks into a canidate before they vote but the number must be considerably small on both the republican and democratic side.  Because I know that America will never get rid of political parties I think that a third party is a good compromise because with a third party America is not split in half.  With a third party then all parties have more of a chance.  People will still blindly vote for their party, but this way at least every party would be more equal.
225871
I think you are talking about Economic System of Canada. Well Canada is neither Communism nor Capitalism. Canada is socialism economic. I want to suggest you research about three economic system at Wikipedia.
563760
The short answer is that China is still communist because that's the system that works best for them. There are several brands of communism. Despite what many people believe, all communists are not the same. China's brand of communism is not the same as Russia's brand of communism was. \nWhat is really going to be interesting is to see what happens now that China is becoming a capitalistic country (just take a look at where most of the goods you buy are produced) and with what is happening inside China itself. \nIn Beijing, for example, ten years ago the bicycle was the main way of getting around. When we were there, it was hard to believe the number of bikes we saw, and the number of people and the amount of goods that could be piled on one Pigeon (the trade name of China's most popular bike). Now that the economy is allowing personal wealth, there is a great deal of interest in private motor vehicles. Just think for a moment of the impact that will have! Unless they jump directly into a non-fossil fuel technology, you will have the potential for a billion more cars spewing fumes into the atmosphere, a screaming world wide shortage of gas and oil, and incredible traffic jams in the major cities. \nAh, yes. We live in interesting times!
126379
If George Bush has his way, this country will run exactly like China. Government spying on citizens, and consolidation of power in the hands of a few.\n\nEvery communist country there ever was turned out this way. That is why the republicans are fundamentally more communist than are the democrates. If you are looking at the philosophical principles of "equality" in communism, then democrates are more communist than republicans. But if you are looking at the actual reality of communism, which are basically just forms of dictatorships, republicans are more communist. \n\nRepublicans are basically anti-capitalist. This may seem odd as they always play themselves as being pro-capitalist, but they are really pro-feudalism. They are against competition. They see that capitalism without countering principles of socialism to balance it can quickly and easily be turned into a form of feudalism in which those in power maintain their power through financial superiority rather than sheer military might. This was similar under feudal systems, in which the Kings and Queens maintained power by virtue of the fact that they had so much money. They used that money to buy a military for themselves, and to enforce their will upon others. That is essentially the ideal of the republicans as well. \n\nCapitalism, which was born out of the Western Enlightenment and the birth of liberalism, depends on competition to maintain its health. Republicans are fundamentally against competition, and all their policies are aimed at consolidating corporate power into the hands of a few (in otherwords, they are pro-monopolies -- they are also against workers rights and unions). They maintain the illusion that they are pro-capitalist because they focus on the idea that socialism and capitalism are fundamentally polar opposites, so that there are no governmental policies to help gaurantee that healthy competition continues. But being opposed to socialism isn't pro-capitalism, it is pro-feudalism. \n\nLikewise the Chinese did the exact same thing, just in the opposite direction. They claim to be pro-communist, but they are really pro-feudalism (where the power is in the hands of a few, and competition is at a minimum), just like the republicans. They managed this by stressing that socialism and capitalism are mutually opposed. By riding the country of competition, they could make sure the government alone had the final say. In otherwords, just like the republicans they are fundamentally anti-competition. They translated "equality among the people" to mean, "equality among the people EXCEPT the government". Which is basically just a form of fuedalism. People who have ties to the government for one reason or another enjoy riches, the masses lie stuck with no real upward mobility. (Although this is changing to a degree.) So they are exactly like republicans in that they see socialism and capitalism as mutually opposed, and the end result on either end is the same, feudalism. It just takes a capitalist system longer to get there because it takes it longer to consolidate the power into the hands of a minority. But following our present course that will inevitably happen, and we won't be any fundamentally different than communist China if we continue to follow republican strategies, because it will be impossible to compete against those who have all the power. And once this happens, the government will automatically have the green light to spy on, and lock away citizens, as there will be nothing to keep them from doing so. The press will basically be controlled by the powerful few (who will control the corporate and government), along with everything else. We already see the first steps in this direction in the present day.  \n\nThe democrates are pro-capitalist, pro-socialist (though they will not openly admit this due to the social taboo). In other words, they are pro-mixed economies, in the vein of many present day European nations
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
555171
Hi. Great question. Consider communism in two ways: in theory and in practice. As a theory, a philosophy, communism was the vision of an ideal state where all people would share equally, there would be no poverty or exploitation, no war or classicism. It was almost a religious ideal for many people. The philosopher who shaped that vision the most into a practice was Karl Marx. At the turn of the century, his attack on capitalism set in motion as political force that challenged the political status quo. It frightened the rich and powerful with the image of working people rising up to take over the government for themselves. In practice, Marxism has been tried to various degrees in different countries. In Russia and China, for example, it was the state system, but in truth, this kind of Marxism had little to do with the original image of communism for a free society. Both the Soviet Union and China were dictatorships. In Vietnam and Cuba, communism has been much more successful, although they were severely stunted by the economic pressure put on them by the United States through boycotts to starve them out. In the end, classic communism has yet to be tried. There are many communist parties still around, but there is no clear vision for this philosophy and the memory of the old Soviet regime still haunts the reputation of the communist hope. Study Antonio Gramsci of Italy (1920's-1930's). This is a good communist thinker,
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.
671866
Potentially, there would be NO restrictions that would limit or refuse the coming of a 3rd political party. In fact, the history of the United States has actually had 3 political parties yet one of them seemed to always fail. (This was easily seen in the 1800's while Americans continued to establish their democracy).\n\nToday, we know this "3rd" political party as the "Independents." Independents claim they do not pick and choose which party they want to belong to. Instead, they "supposedly" agree with neither the Democrats or the Republicans. They are a party of themselves and create new ideas that do no lean to one side or the other. Some might even consider the Independents as the "middle" man.\n\nHowever, because the U.S. is so politically divided, the Independents rarely make it into office due to their scattered infrastructure and organization. Because in a political system that either goes one way or not, a majority of citizens find it hard to "come between." This isn't to say that this cannot exist, but it's difficult. It's like the ole saying, "You're either with us, or against us."
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?
299626
The answer to social problems is not capitalism or communism, it is somewhere in between ... ideally humanism  applied in governmental form. Sadly power and corruption at the top level generally ensures that which ever system is in operation is mis-used to the detriment of the masses and therefore doomed to eventually fail .... bummed out  millions versus bunkered government ... no contest, if you see what I mean.
645388
Doesn't matter what political party you are everyone like Reagan.\nHe was a Democrat You know why he changed parties?\nHe seen the Democrats for what they really are, a Communist party. Think about it.