Place for Communism

[questfortruth]

What suits the best? Both Communism and Capitalism are good things, but belong to different places:

Inside my family -- communism, love to people.
Outside (in country) -- capitalism, love to money.

 

[Stevicus]

That kid might find fellow Texans who agree.

 

[Altfish]

Somewhere in the middle is the ideal solution.

 

[wellwisher]

Communism differs from Capitalism in that the Capitalist free market offers more choices. Communism has too much top heavy control, so choices become limited and they are not your choices. There is too much top heavy skim and waste. The free market spreads out the supply for more choices.

If you went to a Super Market in a Capitalist county like the USA, the choices of items to buy are endless. Fresh produce from all over the world. There is something for all choices in food.

In a Communist country the Minster of Food may decide only certain products will be available. Everyone gets to stand in long lines hoping the powers to be grew enough food this year.

Communist leadership will never take a vote and asks the citizens what they want and then try to make it available like they do in the Free Market. This would undermine their power, making them the butler and not the overlord.

In the free market, good customer service is key, which means the owner and his employees do not mind being a good butler. This support role works out for the best, for everyone. A good Staff may also also be a wealth of knowledge and will bring in new products, if these are requested.

Picture if Big Government treated its citizen like customers in the free market, who are buying services with their tax dollars. Agencies that have poor service, will go bankrupt while those who give good service will grow. The RMV; registers of motor vehicles, is more like the top heavy Communists. They can give bad service since you have no vote or other option.

Say we made the services of the RMV, part of the private sector using Capitalist techniques; lower cost and better services. Could the current Communist model RMV, compete if customers had more choices? Thew answer is no. This is why that type of service model, can only last if it stays a top heavy monopoly.

 

[questfortruth]

Communism differs from Capitalism

What word describes family better? Communism or Capitalism?
In the family I do not want to get profit. I want to serve.

 

[questfortruth]

What word describes family better? Communism or Capitalism?
In the family I do not want to get profit. I want to serve.

 

[Revoltingest]

What word describes family better? Communism or Capitalism?
In the family I do not want to get profit. I want to serve.

Family structure still typically allows ownership
of private property. Communism isn't that.
Consider the socialist model as closer to family?

 

[questfortruth]

Family structure still typically allows ownership
of private property. Communism isn't that.
Consider the socialist model as closer to family?

In my family the profit from a member of my family is not a value. Hence, we have no capitalism in the family. We are not strangers in family. All my money is money of my brother. And all his is my money.

 

[Revoltingest]

In my family the profit from a member of my family is not a value. Hence, we have no capitalism in the family. We are not strangers in family. All my money is money of my brother. And all his is my money.

Where does the money come from?

 

[questfortruth]

Where does the money come from?

What suits the best? Both Communism and Capitalism are good things, but belong to different places:

Inside my family -- communism, love to people.
Outside (in country) -- capitalism, love to money.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Family structure still typically allows ownership
of private property

Mandatory taxes and utility bills pretty much mean that a family or individual in america seem to nominally own property, and will lose it when they are poor, even if they come to 'own' it. To accurately describe what you are talking about, means a more secure kind of ownership by a family or individual. For example, in mexico, I hear that due to 'land reform,' which no one here has ever heard of, a poor person will at least be able to have property that no one will take.

However, I think the philosophy of allowing actual individual or family ownership seems markedly different from our capitalist profit extraction model, or the communist model. In both cases, it seems that the government has a high interest in what occurs with property. It wants to regulate and generate profit with it. But if a family or individual owns property, and can chose to regulate how much money it can generate, and it cannot be taken from them, then that is a different thing altogether.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mandatory taxes and utility bills pretty much mean that a family or individual in america seem to nominally own property, and will lose it when they are poor, even if they come to 'own' it. To accurately describe what you are talking about, means a more secure kind of ownership by a family or individual. For example, in mexico, I hear that due to 'land reform,' which no one here has ever heard of, a poor person will at least be able to have property that no one will take.

Property rights are stronger in some states
than others. But ultimately, government can
take anything it wants.