<p>Communism that is presented on the novel Grapes of Wrath!!</p>
<p>Well about socialism not being good/working.
How can we even know if soci. Will work? Name me one TRUE soci. Governtment.cant ?? That's because TRUE communism/socialism has NEVER EXISTED. There has been forms but their is always one dictator refusing to give up his power.</p>
<p>Now me personally.I think they all have their pros and cons.I believe dem. Is the best applied so far.but like someone above said,inteligent people need to be under this dem. And quite frankly americans aren't known for bein to bright lmao.</p>
<p>Well about socialism/communism not being good/working.
How can we even know if either Will work? Name me one TRUE soci/comm. Governtment...cant ?? That's because TRUE communism/socialism has NEVER EXISTED. There has been forms but there is always one dictator refusing to give up his power.</p>
<p>Now me personally.I think they all have their pros and cons.I believe dem. Is the best applied so far.but like someone above said,inteligent people need to be under this dem. And quite frankly americans aren't known for bein too bright lmao.</p>
<p>Socialism WOULD be nice on paper, but it could never work.</p>
<p>A quasi-socialistic democracy.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The United States played a nice role in the Soviet Union collapsing so you can't just be like OOOOO USSR failed therefore communism will never work.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Actually, we really didn't contribute at all. Reagan just recited a few soundbites to make it look like we were making progress. The USSR collapsed more from internal instability than anything else. Perhaps our greatest contribution to the fall of the USSR was funding the Afghan warlords, which turned out not to be so great of an idea.</p>
<p>Please stop equating socialism with communism.</p>
<p>^ Why not? Socialism is just an immature form of communism. In fact, in theory, socialism eventually leads to communism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, they collapsed...
that doesnt mean they werent effecient. I am no communist, and while one party system is the most efficent doesnt mean its he best. THe commies industrialized in 20 years (1920-1940), it took america and britain over 120 years to do the same (1780-1900)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And Hitler got Germany out of a depression.</p>
<p>I feel like I'm the only normal person here (since most people on these forums are from the US), my vote: representative democracy</p>
<p>"Socialsim is pretty much the same as communism, except without the violent take over, and a lil less developed. And there are a number of nations right now that are true socialist countries. Most of the EU is closing in on socialism, and as they do, their economies cease/slow growth because who wants to work hard when it doesnt get you anything. Everyone (almost) here works hard to have a good GPA. Well in a "true" socialist country, some of your GPA points would be given to the stupid stoner kids who do not want to work. But its fair, because were all equal.... right? I mean, you wouldnt want to make the dumb stoner kids sad because they dont try, and you do try and are intelligent, so its just not fair for you to have a higher GPA than the stoner... right?"</p>
<p>And what about the poor intellectuals who can't afford to even attend college, and so consequently their spots are replaced by affluent and dim-witted frat boys? And again stop equating socialism with communism. One is a more extreme variant concerning both political and economic ideologies and the other is almost purely economical in nature.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And what about the poor intellectuals who can't afford to even attend college, and so consequently their spots are replaced by affluent and dim-witted frat boys?
[/quote]
If those poor people were so smart, they could apply to a need-blind college, getting a full-ride, and dazzle the masses with there brilliance. Also, the frat boys you are describing are the drunk, sport obsessed ones seen at the either lower tier colleges and Animal House, or the Frat boys who are still intelligent, like the ones at top tier colleges, and just don't like you.</p>
<p>Back to the topic, we all understand that there is a difference, but one, socialism, inevitably warpes into the dreaded communism. It is a result of corruption and misunderstanding of the the true socialism. You may disagree, but you are arguing that humans are not corrupt, fallible beings and we live in a utopia, while in reality, we are far from it.</p>
<p>"getting a full-ride"; my point exactly. </p>
<p>They don't like me because they are intelligent? Ad hominem much? Maybe high school students is an appropriate forum for you. </p>
<p>Talking of fallacies, has anyone ever heard of a slippery slope? </p>
<p>Socialism seems to be working quite well in Europe, and has yet to as you said "warp indo dreaded communism."</p>
<p>And as far as communism goes, there has yet to be a genuine example. So we can hardly say it doesn't work.</p>
<p>^^ Yeah, and maybe we should create a subforum for pretentious jerks.</p>
<p>Anyways, the socialism in Eurpope is doing wonders. I mean, lets compare us to them. We, the most powerful, richest, country on Earth is no match for a these watered down socialists. If by doing "quite well", you mean making little progress and being poor. There are exceptions, but not even they are that well off.</p>
<p>What do you call communist China, USSR, North Vietnam, ect? They are communist, they call them selves communists, they have communist governments. Just because they cannot replicate the Communist Mantifesto does not mean they are not Communist. Look at democracy. It is suppose to be a political systems where everyone is equal and happy, but, as you can see with the U.S, that is not the case. However, we are still considered a democractic nation because that is where we fit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^I am not sure if that is an attack or not, kind of ambiguous. If you were attacking me, than I believe you should realize that the failure of the third reich was not political, but strategic. The reason germany lost WWII was because it invaded Russia, aka strategic error. No one knows what would have happened to germany had they not effed it up, but if you were trying to show Germany as an example of where 1 party failed the state, it simply is not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm just pointing out that it depends on your definition of a "good" government. The Soviet government was effective in the sense that it promoted industrialization, just as Nazis Germany could be considered effective for stimulating the economy. But both government had to kill a lot of people to accomplish their goals - I wouldn't choose either of these as the "best" political system.</p>
<p>anarchy.
totally anarchy.</p>
<p>Democracy, with a free market economy and with enough government regulation to provide a comprehensive social safety net, higher educational opportunities, employment benefits, health care and retirement security for all citizens -- something that a "pure" capitalist system will not produce. Take a look at the Scandinavian countries, particularly Denmark. These guys have figured it out, and for the most part, it works. Very high taxes, but Danish citizens get a lot in return for the taxes they pay.</p>