Socialism, Communism, Capitalism and Freedom.

Well, I might agree with you, but there are a lot of "just plain folks" in Russia who long for the days of communism.

That's the thing, when everyone makes the same amount of money, then money is no longer the means by which people get what they need. Everyone has a job, but no one has what they need, and forget about "wants". So production is happening, but distribution is lacking and money means little to nothing anyway. There are people in formerly communist countries that would like to go back to it. They enjoyed the security and stability they see lacking in everyone having more freedom. But those who enjoy freedom would never go back voluntarily.

I think the ones who want to get back to the communism are the people who were more "equal" than the others, the ones who weren't exactly practicing the communism. It is well known that the communism is based on the theory that everybody has to be equal, but the leaders have had all the luxury they needed, they haven't had to stay in the queue for some old bread or meat, they could travel outside the country with no problems and so on. I think from all of political systems capitalism is the best, even if it has many flaws, but the person who works will always be rewarded.

No, we aren't. Capitalist doesn't mean a lack of government or infrastructure. That is anarchy. In fact, capitalism, communism and socialism have little to nothing to do with basic infrastructure. These systems are methods in

oops. ;~D All government and economic systems are ways of dealing with the means of production and distribution. They basically answer the questions, how will things be produced and by whom; and, how will things be distributed, and by whom. Infrastructure isn't part part of a government system, but not part of an economic one.. and Capitalism isn't Anarchy, so examples for one don't work for the other.

Wow, for all the disagreement I think I can finally 99% agree with your definition of government. Just add what things will be produced or services provided for clarity but that can more or less fit into the definition. Maybe if we went back and looked at why we had government in the first place it would be a lot better. We form government to agree on what is the best way to go about handling social interaction. We appoint or compensate people to do certain tasks and vote on things that will effect the majority of people. If we were totally capitalist the government should only play a few critical roles at the national level. That would be establishing basic currency, laws dealing with certain crimes, a small military, and laws concerning exchange between states and it controls and other nations. It might step in occasionally to lay out transportation routes so I-45 doesn't end in one corner of a state and start 40 miles south of it in the next, basically settling disputes between states. That's pretty much it. Things like school, roads, libraries, parks, etc. would all be funded by the state or locality. National funding would be extremely limited, possibly things like NASA, Secret Service, and interstate matters, but they would be much less than now. As society advanced we needed more standards between states, like requirements to drive legally in all states and fairly reasonable standards for education so that people could continue where they left off if they move. But national funding for schools, state roads, etc. started a form of socialism. It then moved on to welfare social, security etc, health care, etc. These are very socialist systems. If we were truly capitalist would we have huge government contracts, debt and spending problems, tax arguments, bipartisan government, and national funding for all sorts of services or it would have been left to the states and each state rep would represent it's needs rather than a social agenda for it's party and trying to get more money for their state?

Yes, there are living and working situations here in the US that are based on communist and socialist models too. I'm all for their freedom to live that way. There is no reason why people living in capitalist nations shouldn't have the freedom to form their own communal living or working opportunities. As long as the members are free to join and leave as they wish. However, the opposite can't be true in a communist or socialist nation. By definition, the government can't allow groups of people to live in a capitalist subculture within their borders.

Except that is exactly what has begun to happen in China all the best urban

In a basic way, but not really. Yes, certain people are allowed a lot of Capitalistic freedoms, but it's more of a caste system than actual Capitalism. The government gets to decide who gets to be the capitalists and who can't, and only in specific cities. If the government allowed anyone to set up their own capitalistic communities, then you would have a point.

The communes of the 60s were an interesting situation. Here you had people who owned land, and were willing to open it up to anyone who wanted to live there. There were some wildly successful ones, like The Hog Farm (which is still in existence today). But most ended up either just closing down, or closed by the state due to health issues. Most of the "hippies" were part timers anyway. They got into the music, the free love and protest of it all, but never made it a lifestyle. But as mush as many of them protested against capitalism, it did provide them with the freedom and assets to live their socialist ideal.

And yet there were Nazis who continued to fight for their cause after WWII. There are still people in former "Iron Curtain" countries who long for a return to communism. Castro has his supporters (both in Cuba and in the US). Heck, even a lot of Black slaves chose to stay on the plantations after they were freed. There is a sense of security in a totalitarian system. One that many in free countries seem attracted to.

Socialism is merely the gateway to communism.

Omarfw, actually you are completely free to do just that. You don't have to have a house or job. I know plenty of people who don't. Some of them are homeless by choice. Others have multiple streams of income that provide them with enough money that they don't need (or want) a job. In other words, you feel like you have no freedom because you think you have to have a job.