<p>I think that after a country has built a solid enough economy from capitalism, it can effectively move on to something like communism.</p>
<p>Myself- if you knew what I was responding to, then you would understand my comment that seeing as Ayn Rand does not offer objective truth, simply an opinion, saying her name in defence of your argument does not offer it validity. Obviously we are individuals. That is so evident a point that it did not need to be reiterated. The comment simply had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.</p>
<p>Why should it? What do you think maintains an economy? The very definition of economy is the production and <em>trade</em> of items. What are you really advocating?</p>
<p>Who said trade had to end? We could trade amongst ourselves.....I'll give you my corn if you give me that wedding dress in your window.</p>
<p>Names don't offer any validity Gambadent - only ideas have validity. Ideas are good or bad based solely on their own merit. Anthem has a good representation of individualism - but is unnecessary to perceive that fact. Dropping names means nothing - "thought does not bow to authority" (Rand). :p :p</p>
<p>Tell that to the creators of the atomic bomb.</p>
<p>Eric - then why not just use money?? Why go back to bartering?</p>
<p>Tell what to the creators of the atom bomb?</p>
<p>because bartering is based on necessity, while money is used to amass wealth....(yes, yes it also provides a handy medium on which to trade)....but, again, in reality, money has evolved into a completley different usage.</p>
<p>Atomic bomb........"thought doesn't bow to authority".........nevermind, it was a joke</p>
<p>What's wrong with amassing wealth?</p>
<p>Because the action of amassing wealth for oneself often has a negative impact for someone else. Communism is built on COMMUNity effort, while capitalism is built on individual goals.</p>
<p>doesn't bartering allow for inequality, too. I mean, what if your dresses are ugly, then no ones going to want to give you any corn.</p>
<p>Eric - please explain yourself. If you understand we are individuals, then what is wrong with individual goals? How does having money hurt others? Why do you view collectivism as superior to individualism?</p>
<p>Gamabdent -</p>
<p>You're right. Bartering is not Communism, it's a primitive form of Capitalism. I think Eric needs to learn a lot more about both systems.</p>
<p>Because collectivism works on trying to make everyone happy; trying to give everyoen what they need to survive. Individualism itself doesn't help anyone but oneself. Individualism can be apart of collectivism, though. People with different talents, working in different ways to help one another. </p>
<p>Yes, I realize that that actually happening is pretty ridiculous. It's like "Utopia".</p>
<p>I don't mean bartering in the ancient sense of well you give me this and i'll give you that. What I mean is that everyone has everything....everyone shares everything. There is wealth, but it belongs to a single entity.....the people. My concept of communism is much different then the forms practiced by countries. I speak of communism, not necessarily as Marxist or as the contemporary concept of what communism is, but as people living in a commune.</p>
<p>You still haven't explained <em>why</em> you think that's better.</p>
<p>Because i would rather see everyone on an equal playing field and happy, then, personally, have a great amount of wealth while others do not. That's just me, tough....which is the fundamental problem of communism. I prefer it, and believe it's possible.......but the transition would be a difficult thing.</p>
<p>Making everyone happy is impossible. The transition wouldn't be that bad - just kill anyone who opposes you. That's what they do in every other Communist country.</p>
<p>hahaha....their concept of communism is a fallacy. Mine is just unrealistic.</p>