Which is most likely to raise the standard of living for the poor: Socialist/Communist govt's or Technology?
951857
Technology.  Just look at Russia to see why socialism is a horrific idea.  A generation living under the government of the USSR has created an entire country of people with entitlement minds.  Since coming out from that government, they have no work ethic, and that is why you see all the dilapidated buildings that there are in Russia.
193191
There is no doubt that medical technology will continue to advance. But it is likely that the law of diminishing returns will (or maybe has) limit the improvements that such technology will bring to any patient or humankind overall.\n\nWhilst we still have rampant infective diseases such as Malaria and Tuberculosis decimating 3rd world countries and entire generations dying from malnutrition, we need to ask ourselves if gadgets that bring a little bit of extra function to a small number of people are really progress, or perhaps just ignorance?
175464
No.  Because the graft and corruption that occurs in our form of government can't be irradicated, it would be worse because EVERYTHING would go to the governmet, taxes would go higher.\n\nThe Pilgrams almost starved because a socialist system called common course and condition.  The theory was that everyone bring it what they produce and everyone gets the same provisions, what they found was people were relying on others to do the work.  When they changed to a more market based society they paid the debt they had to the investors off in half the time
625012
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.
671338
all we need is education. school would be important in this but i mean more the common knowledge type things. we are quick to take up information that appeals to us even if its wrong. our assupmtion that government should solve problems & provide. it shouldnt & cant. theres nothing free market cant do better & more efficiently than government. used to be space travel was the only thing but thats now out too. a business must perform at the lowest cost or its dead. government & businesses on government contracts dont, the taxes will never run out as long as we're willing to pay them. the manpower will never run out as long as there is a higher ratio of impoverished than finacially secure.
1042180
One of the biggest problems I see with 3rd world gov'ts is corruption and abuse of power.  This is a cultural problem, not a social one, though it's impact is definitely social.  Unless and until this problem is admitted, dealt with, and resolved, no amount of money, aid, education, propaganda, king-making, nation-building, or peace-brokering will help the economy and thus the plight of the average citizen, at least long-term.\n\nAs far as "teaching" them to develop, one method that is reasonable and has been proven effective is to involve the average citizens themselves in the process of education, aid-distribution, and working smarter not harder.  This grassroots approach, seen in Bangladesh and some African locations, not only enlightens the masses and improves their condition, it replaces the traditional, pre-modern, ineffective, abusive, tragic methods and lifestyles with lasting positive change.
61456
Capitalism is best to solve poverty, but only if the income generated under it is taxed properly to redistribute the wealth to help the less fortunate.  Capitalism brings more creation of wealth and provides for more opportunities to help the less fortunate.
402702
if by caring you mean, keep the politicians rich, and everyone else poor, then yes.\n\nCommunism has been proven not to work several times.  Free market is what works.  If you work hard, you are rewarded.  If you do not work, then you are not rewarded, unless some liberals get some things their way.\n\nedit*  the question asked about who cares about WORKING people.  Capitalism takes care of people who WORK.  If you are looking for a handout, or looking to have the government take things you worked hard for, and distribute them to the non workers, then socialism is for you.\n\nSocialism:  Study hard, work hard, become a doctor or start a business, and have everything you worked for given away to the people who chose not to study or work.
108979
Wealth should never be redistributed or built by the government for individuals within the society. Each person is responsible for themselves and those within their own family unit.\n\nSo with this in mind, the obvious answer is YES, sustaining the economy is more important than any socialist wealth building programs.
542374
Communism, Socialism... I dunno, you pick :)
904916
Wait.  Slow down.  Too many questions in one post.\n\nAnarchy is no government, outside of perhaps small, practical, local based government.  There are major pit-falls with this, such as, what do you do when your society grows bigger than the local village?  And, how do you protect your little local village from the large, hostile, heavily armed military under the control of the king who controls five villages, and wants to take over your village and confiscate your nice, fertile fields?\n\nCommunism is different from anarchy, in that while communism's ultimate goal is a classless, stateless society, it relies on government to redistribute property to attain this classless society.  And, as we have all found out after the glorious experiments in Russia, China and Cuba, COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK.\n\nSocialism is a broader political philosophy which holds that the means of production should be distributed equally among all in society.  Socialism actually encompasses a pretty wide array of doctrines, anywhere from your classic Marxist-Leninist (sp?) Communist doctrine to the more moderate socialism that helped spawn trade unions and welfare programs.  \n\nSocialism, anarchy and communism are all kind of intertwined.  My best advice would be go to the sources, Marx, Engels, Keynes and Chomsky.  They'll give you some nice big ideas to turn over in your head for awhile.\n\nLast note:  "Socialism" has been turned into a dirty word by modern conservatives.  Extreme, unadulterated socialism is not good and does not work, just like extreme, unadulterated capitalism is not good and does not work (do some research on the Industrial Revolution and the "Gilded Age," the economic conditions of which lead almost directly to the rise of socialism and communism).  There are valuable concepts in socialism which can and have made society better - such as labor unions and social welfare programs.
75557
Socialism is where the means of productions are owned by the society, hence the state and under the hegemony of the proletariat or the working class. It is for ending the exploitations of capitalism by the capitalists over the working people and bringing the working people up for the communist society. Communism is the next stage of socialism where the society will be classless and free of any sort of exploitation. It is more of kind of ultimate goal of the real human society which should be achievable after sufficient span of time, struggle, experiment and effort.
708077
It isn't a question, but three.\n\n-  What if people were (misspelling) so completely controlled by a powerful government (I can't understand the rest WHAT is like everyone else)?  Maybe you mean that everyone would be like everyone else?\n\nThe simple answer is Communism, a failed political and economic system.  The system fails because it doesn't encourage competition or development.  With complete government control all resources would be divided by the government or used for their projects.  There is always a limit on resources, not everyone in the US can get a cell phone, a big screen TV, and HDTV service.  Some people just can’t afford it all.  So some people have to do without.  Who determines how much of a resources is needed for a task.  If a building required all the available wood in the region then it would be sent there, but since the boss likes to make birdhouses he takes some for himself.  So what happens to you when you can’t get the wood to build your doghouse, or to repair your own house?\n\nAnother big problem is that since there are always shortages in a non-perfect supply system it encourages corruption.  In the above situation the boss might save some wood for you in return for sexual favors, is that fair?  There are only so many doctors available, so who would decide which one gets treatment?  The people in power would get the best health care and those who were not in power would have to make do with the rest.  All the best equipment and medicines would be transferred to those hospitals with the result of people dieing, when they could have been saved.  Is this fair, well if you are a family member of one of the rulers then it would seem fair to you?  Who would decide?\n\nIt is impossible to make everyone just like everyone else.  If you do that then the smart people would have to acts less intelligent, while the less intelligent would be responsible for more than they can handle.  How do you change everyone’s looks, say goodbye to beauty; everyone would look just the same.  If a government had this power then they would make all redheads and all blondes dye their hair black or brunette.  What happens to those with perfect vision?  Most people don’t have perfect vision, it deteriorates with time and eventually some people won’t be able to get it corrected to 20/20.  So what do you plan on doing?  Do you make everyone wear glasses so their vision will all be downgraded or upgraded to the norm?  What about the blind, or do you just kill them all off?\n\n-  What if all competition was removed from society?\n\nAgain communism is the simple answer.\nAnother good answer is illustrated by the TV Show (PBS) Guns, Germs and Steel.  The reason why most primitive societies haven't advanced as far as others is because they didn't need to.  The pressures of their environment are less so they don't need to improve things.  When all you have to do for breakfast is go outside and chuck a spear then why invent a supermarket, and all that is required to build it?  Why bother to invent a brass spear or even a rock knife if you didn’t need it?\n\nCompetition forces advancements and development (as per Darwin's theory of Evolution).  Without competition the species stagnates and eventually dies.  Why run the race when you can’t win, why bother to enter the race at all?  The points on Yahoo Answers don’t mean very much, but most people like to gather points for bragging rights.  If there wasn’t a point system then why bother to answer any questions, or ask them?  Competition is basic to what we do and how we live.  Viruses compete against the body’s immune system.  When your body defeats a virus then it keeps immunity to that virus for a very long time.  Once you get Chicken Pox then you are immune to them.  Without that competition you could get infected every single time you are exposed.  The same is true in our society competition is needed to improve.\n\n-  What if technolo
346502
yes. but it will take great resistance to get-rich-quick schemes orchestrated by american corporations. instead, because there is a great push to bring ICT (information and communication technology) to "third world" countries, and the Philippines is one of the places poised to benefit, that's where the effort should be pushed. not only can ICT bring people a free education, it can allow people in the countryside to have access to information they might not otherwise have, enabling them to bypass people who would cheat them. it enables them to bypass, in fact, all kinds of people who would censor their knowledge, and otherwise do them ill. it can be a great tool for getting out from under oppression. \n\n(see this link: http://owli.org/search/node/philippines?PHPSESSID=c9a8f079b33e9cad428fb1ef8bad7e89.)
497169
Maybe Socialism is better, but capitalism is more human unfortunately.\n\nsocialism is a great idea, but it has to be everywhere for it to work because if there is a capitalist nation next door then it begins dragging the socialist down.\n\nsorry I had to be practical
236397
It is the only way to ensure equal economic opportunity.  All other systems try to make equallity of outcome, which is impossible.  Even at it's best socialism and communism stifles innovation and opportunity.
223015
I would say computer technology.