The answer is a communist party

[joe1776]

Not really, all systems have faults some have more than others.

Communism has never worked, even in the most progressive or generous of applications -- e.g. since John Smith, lol. In fact, we could argue that he implemented it the best and still had to leave it. If it's been failing since the 1500's there is no reason to entertain this stupidity -- it's a religious argument that only a crack pot would bother to defend. It's bad for productivity as your effort and merit are not going to get you further up in position. Everyone effectively gets yoked to whomever is the slowest, because the person doing badly at work still gets paid the same. Nothing better for your economy than to just suck the life out of it and destroy anyone's motivation. Also, there is the problem of losses -- when the people lose at a venture EVERYONE loses because they own it. Capitalism tends to isolate the risk takers by compartmentalizing the damage. This means risky venture takes might break their own bank, but no one else is affected. In communism, if that same thing happens everyone starves because it's communal resources and risks.

In cooperative systems, there are no losers. In competitive systems, there are winners and losers. So, long term, a competitive economic system makes no sense for humanity which is essentially a cooperative endeavor.

However, we humans have yet to invent a system of governing that hasn't been corrupt, incompetent,or both. So, capitalism has been useful in limiting the power of government with its free market. It does fine on certain products which can be shopped and compared by well-informed consumers spending their own money. It sucks otherwise.

For now, the so-called mixed economies make the most sense.

 

[Stevicus]

Looking at the economy of Nazi Germany....
Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia
....we see government having great control over the means of production.
Although its privatization was a really odd wrinkle in how this control was exercised.
From the linked article....
"One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement
the partnership between the government and business interests."
It had a crony capitalism flavor of socialism.
It's fair to call it "predominantly socialist".

And anyone who didn't go along with it was court-martialed, shot, and sent to the Russian front.

The private sector had to go along, too, or else someone like this might show up:

 

[Anthem]

We do have a Communist Party. They don't do much and I think they drive around in a Yugo.

Say no more. I am frightened.

 

[columbus]

That is strange considering Jesus would be politically a socialist progressive.

What is strange about this.
That's pretty much what I said. Jesus was no capitalist.
He wasn't a communist either. Neither ideology existed in His primitive time. But Christian morality, "Love Your Neighbor", is a lot more similar to communism than capitalism.
Tom

 

[Shad]

That is strange considering Jesus would be politically a socialist progressive.

Key difference is Jesus had a theistic basis which was the keystone of his ideology. Bread lines are shorter when you can magic fish sandwiches into existence.

 

[sun rise]

Odd....I know no libertarian who believes that people are
virtuous, or that they always act in their own best interest.
It's about giving the state less power to decide for us what
virtue is, or what our best interest is.

So you're in favor of allowing people to embiggen the "tragedy of the commons" if it's their stupid wish. Or to put it another way, allowing people to mess up other people's lives etc if they want to.

 

[sun rise]

In cooperative systems, there are no losers. In competitive systems, there are winners and losers. So, long term, a competitive economic system makes no sense for humanity which is essentially a cooperative endeavor.

However, we humans have yet to invent a system of governing that hasn't been corrupt, incompetent,or both. So, capitalism has been useful in limiting the power of government with its free market. It does fine on certain products which can be shopped and compared by well-informed consumers spending their own money. It sucks otherwise.

For now, the so-called mixed economies make the most sense.

That makes sense to me. I would state it as moving from the jungle view of economy where everyone is trying to "eat" everyone else to a more positive system that in fact embodies the best parts of the animal kingdom of sharing etc.

 

[Shad]

That's it. They need a communist party in US.

What else could turn things around for the real people (not the internet trolls)?

You might as well suggest starting a civil war. There is a significant portion of the population beyond party lines that would revolt if the CP controlled the US.

Somethings are not the governments problem but personal thus their own problem.

 

[Anthem]

You might as well suggest starting a civil war. There is a significant portion of the population beyond party lines that would revolt if the CP controlled the US.

Somethings are not the governments problem but personal thus their own problem.

A civil war is just the thing.

 

[Shad]

A civil war is just the thing.

If that is required why not just dissolve the Union instead. Fighting to maintain lines on a map is one of the greatest failings of the modern world.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you're in favor of allowing people to embiggen the "tragedy of the commons" if it's their stupid wish. Or to put it another way, allowing people to mess up other people's lives etc if they want to.

I prefer the liberty to make bone headed decisions for oneself,
rather than having government make'm all for me. Government
has a poor record....sending us off to die in needless foreign
wars, preventing assisted suicide, etc, etc.
But messing up the lives of others....we favor laws against
theft, assault, coercion, etc.

 

[Anthem]

If that is required why not just dissolve the Union instead. Fighting to maintain lines on a map is one of the greatest failings of the modern world.

That sounds a little silly compared to your "immigration policies", doesn't it?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

What is strange about this.
That's pretty much what I said. Jesus was no capitalist.
He wasn't a communist either. Neither ideology existed in His primitive time. But Christian morality, "Love Your Neighbor", is a lot more similar to communism than capitalism.
Tom

This is why I call it strange because how is "love thy neighbor" more related to communism and not progressive socialism? Jesus addressed many social issues in his time such as: "paying unto Cesar what is Cesar's, and to God, what is God's." The Love Thy Neighbor philosophy, which is an old testament reference, was a reminder using the likened "Good Samaritan" reference. When the lawyer asked Jesus "who is my neighbor?" This is what Jesus was referring to. Progressivism. Progressivism is civil rights. Progressivism is about the safe surrender of unwanted babies. Progressivism is about equality among people in society. Communism when compared to liberalism as Marx intended, was more so based on the liberal economics on capitalism (which is related to what you're saying--I guess) not social policies.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Key difference is Jesus had a theistic basis which was the keystone of his ideology. Bread lines are shorter when you can magic fish sandwiches into existence.

This is true but this was also a corner stone in progressive ideals in that time because it addressed the tax resistance in Judea. It also shows us first hand how a progressive rabbi indirectly promoted secular ideals of separation of church and state. such philosophies at least in popular history was unheard of during his time in that era.

 

[Woberts]

That someone is likely you. Let the people with families who have experienced communism firsthand speak, and you will realize you are the one who does not understand communism.

My family has experienced communism.
And as a communist myself, I likely understand communism better than anyone else in this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

My family has experienced communism.
And as a communist myself, I likely understand communism better than anyone else in this thread.

Being one might make one the least able to understand it.
The view from without is less corrupting than wearing rose
colored glasses within.

 

[Woberts]

Being one might make one the least able to understand it.
The view from without is less corrupting than wearing rose
colored glasses within.

It's not that simple when referring to an ideology as multifaceted as this communism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Having read Marx, I disagree. His theories are flawed, and his idea of where value comes from doesn't gel with reality. It was doomed to failure from the beginning, even if the impossible happened and they had virtuous leaders.

That's a peculiarly vague criticism. Surely if you have read Marx you can be more specific than that.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not that simple when referring to an ideology as multifaceted as this communism.

The emergent properties are simpler though,
eg, famine, oppression.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's not that simple when referring to an ideology as multifaceted as this communism.

Lenin was imo the most interesting as it pertains to communist ideology.

However I'll never understand why Stalinism was embraced by the Soviets as opposed to Leninism.

We know how history turned out with Stalin as with just about any communist regime out there.