{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/2/2013 5:21:41 PM
11
I don't know if communism is what you mean. Looking out for one another is a far cry from total equal distribution. There needs to be a balance. Undesirable traits must be weeded out, or the gene pool as a whole is weaker. That said, there needs to be a group for there to be a gene pool. If there is an ideal socioeconomic system, it would be a Democratic Socialist-Capitalist hybrid. There has to be failure to weed out the weak, but there has to be a system to take care of the group as a whole.
Communism just makes everyone equal, regardless of strength/weakness.
English
-
^Doesn't understand communism.
-
I don't? Please explain. Because I thought it was the Economic/political system in which everyone had the same set of resources, regardless of what they did. Everyone had equal say in the government, and had equal pay. So, a doctor would make the same amount as a dock worker. Everyone was equal.
-
Everyone is equal, of course. But the idea of equal pay is wrong because communism is moneyless. If you mean pay as any form of remuneration for labour, then still no. Those who work are granted access to a communal store which they can take from freely. People who don't work - they would be given the bare minimum. My answers may be a little different from other communists, as I am an anarcho-communist but only insofar as the best method to implement the system.
-
Whether its money or access to what money buys, that is a meaningless distinction. If I give you enough money to buy milk, or give you the milk, either way you get milk.
-
Fair enough, but the point still stands. Saying everyone receives equal pay for labour is incorrect; everyone who works receives equal rights to 'pay'.
-
Now my points stands about the interpretation of the article. If we give all individuals in the group equal access to resources (be it through money or otherwise) then there is no way to reward the successful or weed out the weak. As a result the gene pool stagnates, and eventually collapses under the weight of its errors. This is the best reason why communism can never work. Not that anyone has actually made a go at doing it, but its flawed at its core. There needs to be a system in place that weeds out weak traits. In socioeconomic systems, the best yet is a Democratic Capitalist system. The ideal, if we were to mirror nature, would be a socialist-capitalist hybrid, where the necessities are met, but only the truly successful are rewarded, but that's neither here nor there.
-
Of course there is. Those who work get resources. If they are bad at their work, they lose access. Those who perform well are granted access while those who are not good at something or choose not to work get the bare minimum for survival until they find a way to be productive to society.
-
Your stupidity is only matched by your blind narcissism and ignorance.
-
I apologise if I'm not effectively conveying my political philosophy, but I really don't feel the need to justify myself to the likes of you.
-
Dat edge.
-
I know. I cut myself climbing into bed at night.
