<p>
</p>
<p>Why must any system that strives for equality among people be communism? What does communism entail? Why doesn’t it work? How doesn’t it work? When has it not worked? Is it possible that specific instances in which it hasn’t worked were hurt by specific features that are not generally characteristic of communism?</p>
<p>
A classless, stateless world system with a democratic economy and equality among all people, where everyone’s needs are provided for by the labor of everyone. An end to wage slavery, big business, and the tyranny of money, that no one need die for not having enough cotton fiber paper with assigned imaginary numbers.</p>
<p>
Communism (a classless, stateless world system of equality and democratic economy) has never been implemented, and thus has never failed. A few countries have claimed to be communist, as propaganda to win over the poor who knew that communism was good for them, but the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was as Socialist as it was made up of Republics: Not at all. Yet the word “Republic” has not been demonized. The People’s Republic of China is not communist, just as it is not a people’s republic.</p>
<p>
Wait a second… on CC Political, you said that you weren’t a socialist, didn’t you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, duh. Us Americunns live in a Republic and we’re the greatest. Therefore, we have to ignore when any “bad” places use it. They ignore the name. COMMUNISM IS EVIL!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not 100% Socialist, but I lean Socialist. I believe in a mix. Any kind of Socialist revolution would have a mix of Socialism and other political systems, so I am all for a revolution.</p>
<p>ETA: I am unwilling to declare myself as one thing or another. It is impossible. There will ALWAYS be things about a theory that you disagree with (unless you literally wrote the theory) and therefore I believe you should say you “lean” to a side. I’m not registered as a Democrat either.</p>
<p>
Right, there would be a good amount of Communism, too. Maybe a tad bit of Distributism. Maybe. Though these are all economic systems. As for political… Well, democracy, direct on the local level, indirect (republic) on the global level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think the world population has quite reached the point where we’re experiencing fierce competition over resources. Basic necessities like food and water are still plentiful, just disproportionately distributed across different geographic regions. If you’re speaking about other resources like petroleum (which I don’t think you are), population control is hardly an appropriate response to their waning supply.</p>
<p>At any rate, this is why I hope to improve the existing methods of desalinization. If we can efficiently clean ocean water and make it drinkable/suitable for irrigation, that would help alleviate water and food shortages. The problem is that current desalinization techniques are terribly expensive.</p>
<p>At current production, the Earth can support 8 billion people, IF resources were distributed evenly. They are not, so people starve. Better production and farming would let us support more. Expansion into and colonization of space would open up new frontiers for human growth.</p>
<p>
Same here. No Party Affiliation. I don’t even agree with the party system, anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would a higher population lead to higher productivity? If so, then that number could potentially rise, provided productivity rates increase as well. What is the Earth’s carrying capacity for humans? If such a figure even exists, that is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. For example, the largest source of fresh water that we have here in the United States is the Great Lakes. If we were to distribute that evenly over geographic reasons, there would be not anything left. We are seeing that now with the massive loss of water in the Great Lakes each year. </p>
<p>That 8 billion is a theory, one of MANY. We cannot tap into resources like the oceans and expect there to be no consequences. We only look at short-term solutions and don’t care about what it will mean for the future. Better farming? Cool, what happens when the nutrients run out? Distribute water? Sweet, what happens when the Great Lakes dry up? </p>
<p>We need to reduce our population to a NATURALLY sustainable level. We cannot count on technology to sustain us. Period.</p>
<p>I plan to reduce the population to a sustainable level, by becoming a serial killer. I’ll focus on prevention by targeting the girls who wait in line for reality TV auditions. It will be a revolution.</p>
<p>
Reminds me of a class where a girl was passing out organ donor cards, and my friend quipped that she should get everyone to sign, then kill them, since more people could be saved that way. We were making jokes about Utilitarianism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Boys audition, too… </p>
<p>“The only problem with the human gene pool is that there are no life guards on duty.” - No Idea</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody really knows what the Earth can support. Carrying capacity is a really artificial concept anyway, when you consider how technology inevitably shifts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Eh, it’s a pretty natural result of a large indirect democracy. It’s not really something that can be agreed or disagreed with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fresh water is definitely a problem. Improving desalinization technology is definitely an important task.</p>
<p>
Sounds like eugenics.</p>
<p>Actually, a search yielded “bumper sticker” as the attribution to that quote.</p>
<p>But the greed for money is what spurs innovation, without money for people to compete over, we probably wouldnt have these computers to type on, while i do lean left, capitalism has alot of good in it.</p>
<p>
It can be agreed or disagreed with… It’s not a natural result, but one of several possible results. It needs work, though I’d be fine with getting rid of them altogether. Not the most pressing matter, though, and I don’t feel like debating it. I’d just end up copy and pasting from an old thread of mine on the topic.</p>
<p>
In our current system. Though for computers, a big reason we have them is desire to kill others, because the technology came from war. Then again, war is fought for economic reasons, one way or another.</p>
<p>There is no war but class war, there is no struggle but class struggle.</p>
<p>But in a different society, the common good or love for invention could motivate people, who would be able to dedicate the time, as they wouldn’t have to worry about starvation or homelessness.</p>
<p>but what about the people who would be like “psssh I going to get the same thing that hard working guy is getting anyways, might as well not work”</p>