So, when I'm an engineer and say I develop something really useful, you're going to tell me I can't make too much money off of it?

If you make your money legally, then no one has the right to say you're too rich.  How can you morally justify taking my money because I happened to be a shrewd investor or a gifted designer.

Or what if I'm a musician and I become incredibly popular?  How would taking my money be justified?  Some of the greatest crimes this century have been committed using the rationale "some people have too much money".

And white collar crimes like bribery, even though that is worse now, and always has been in Russia.

Originally posted by Kalevipoeg The education wasn't much worse or any. Why really should it have been. Only you would have to study "history", not history. The amazing achievements of the the Soviet Union in EVERY damn field possible. The eternal desire of peace that the USSR so ever wanted was always blocked by imperialist warmongering.

That sounds like it would get old very fast

Wow, there are too many inherent lies in that statement to count.

I am not discrediting any achievments of the Russian or Soviet culture and science, they were indeed great. But at the same time also greatly overrated in the eyes of the USSR public. US sucks too, but why get aggitated about my truthful statement? It is not like i am making the US look great and USSR not due to prejudice.

We all know whom you love and who you hate. I have never seen you rush to attack Americans with sarcastic comments, something you do whenever you can when USSR is the subject. So your claims of neutrality are a joke.

Please stop pretending to be anti-American or left-wing, and show your real face.

I agree, USSR like all great empires had its faults.It also contributed a lot to the world.India, as long as USSR existed, leaned towards it.As an Indian I guess I would favour USSR over USA [but USSR is part of history now].

USA is the greatest empire in world today.Indian-US relations are warming up.I don't support US attack on Iraq and the continued presence of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The average level of education was higher.  That is communist propoganda, a completely false statement.  The average Russian worker was an uneducated peasant as a result of communism.  Their science and technology was primitive as well (though they managed to produce some impressive weapons regardless).

I even happened to be in London in  middle of March, got me a poster from the protesters in front of Big Ben. "War criminals Bush and Blair Wanted, reward: peace" I wasn't even allowed in the museum in front of Trafalgar Sqaure, had to leave it with the "Socialist worker" group lady who were organized on the square. I even signed a bloody support signature or whatever they wanted me to sign - Mark. P right on there and was glad to, although yes, i am no socialist personally as i think of myself. Got the posters home with me, maybe i'll go, just for you, to Tallinn and stand before the Parliament building and protest solo, our protest cutlure is so passive in Estonia that i will surely get TV coverage.

This is actually interesting. I was there as well. SWP are the best organised and most active radical leftist group in the UK, IMHO. I helped them at a stand during the morning. I know where you signed the petition, you couldn't walk 10 metres without some Trotskyist trying to get your signature or sell you their paper.

No it wasn't me.

I passed there, but our stand was on the other side of the parliament. Although this was a large protest, and quite lively, compared to the one last year (more people turned up because of threats on Iran, including many Iranians), it was mostly ignored by the media, including the BBC.  

I say: Better Red than Dead. But still, for all of you to know, I'm no communist. I believe in some kind of market socialism that is more or less liberal though.

Communism and Capitalism is not two different sides of the coin if you ask me. They can co-exist perfectly, just look at China. At least I consider China to be a sub-communist proto-capitalist semi-dictatorship. They have an open market and so on and so forth.

Ok, back to the question.

If I had to choose between extreme communism or extreme capitalism, well then I would rather shoot my self in the head than having to endure the horrors and bullsh*t of these two utopic systems (that allways seem to transform in to hell, due to the human factor).

The humane and democratic ideas & values of the ideology allways seem to surrender to coruption and megalomania when money & power are at grasp (or allready achieved). Both of these systems will become cold, harsh and inhumane when practised at a grand scale, because none of them seem to work in the end. People like power, money and luxury whatever the cost. It doesn't mater if the losers of the system is the own people or some poor suckers on the other side of the planet... Because in the eyes of the Big Boss these are not real people; they are just faceless statistics & resources (or lack of it) to make profit on. Nice ey? 

The evils of communism is direct and easy to recognize, while the evils of capitalism is harder to pinpoint because of the seemingly non-physical damage it brings; "It's all economical, no people got hurt" Anonymous and therefor innocent?...yeah, right... (money makes the world go round. Corection: the ones without the money made/makes the world go around for the ones who already got the money.)

For me it doesn't mater if a supercriminal maim everyone who doesn't agree with him/her... or if he abuse and sh*t on the poor people/nations of the world to get rich and successful. Same caca, different nombre.

Mahalo!

It's not about the money, it's about fairness and liberty.  A person has the natural right to all the fruits of his labors.

And don't you see more productivity in capitalist societies?  I'd say that argument is totally wrong, how could someone be alienated from what provides his lifestyle?  That's one of the surest ways to make someone care intimately about something.  Haven't you ever had a side job to earn some money, even though you hated it?

No.  It's a matter of rights.  A man has the right to own the property he has earned through lawful means without fear of it being appropriated by a government that thinks it knows better than its citizens on what to do with their wealth.

How is my keeping money that I earned unethical, so long as I don't spend it on unethical things like illegal drugs and prostitutes, etc?

The right of all people to own property and keep it without fear of a government like the one you're advocating someday taking it away from them is the thrust of mine.

If someone purchased four Ferraris I would say they were an idiot who was wasting their money, but I wouldn't call them unethical.  If they earned their money or had it freely given to them by family or friends, the government or anybody else for that matter has no right to limit what they can do with it, as long as it's not used for illegal activities.  You have no right at all to tell me how I can spend my money.

And thus you become a slave of a system that can dictate to its citizens how they conduct their own lives.

It should be, but the government has no right to say it needs to be.

I'd like to ask you why you're so threatened by other people having more than you?  I find that a very shallow and materialistic stance.  I don't find people who are wealthier than me to morally inferior as you seem to think, and I don't find their wealth threatening.  I know that there are more things that add value to my life than wealth and that many people who are wealthier than me live much worse lives, and that a person with less can live a better one.  One thing that is more important than wealth is the right of a man to keep what he earns without others taking it from him using some twisted logic which makes him a criminal for being more successful than others.

not of fruits of others though. liberty is a word that can also be aplied to not having to make money for others, it means different things to different people. Fairness should begin at birth.

We are great consumers, not producers. Termites. Dont mistake Consumerism as productivity, the only way you can feed this is to access and control cheap resources, while using third world 'cheap and hungry' countries to become production lines (and potential, converts to consumerism). Perpetuating imperialism in one form or another because we cannot produce what we want at home, thats what we are good at.

Its not like western factories (if there is any left) can produce more than a 'communist' chinese factory.

ethics and rights are a very grey area. Your thinking in terms of "I" and  "me" vs everyone else and I think in terms of me and my community being two things that are completly interdependant. Hence why our veiws on 'rights' are different, though not juxtaposed.

People that get rich in america (and any other country) should also thank that country for giving them the opportunity. Its not all about "me".

In my world, you have the right to be a winner and keep the responsibilty of being a loser, nothing changes but the klipping of the wings of consumerism and its side kick.

In short wealth (or consumerism) doesnt make you happy alone, but what else does your world offer Genghis?

You're the one arguing that, not me.  Your vision of the world is based off the idea that those with more will be happier than those with less, which no true capitalist would believe.  Money is a means to certain ends (von Mieses wrote about that).

In the end, I'm glad that you'd be willing to trade wealth for your own idea of "fairness" which to me seems thinly veiled hatred of those who have more than average, because in the end countries that do decide to embark on your social justice driven policy, end up losing wealth and becoming indebted by their overblown social bureaucracies.  I'd much rather prefer my liberty, property, and prosperity thank you very much. 

And yes, I'm ecstatic I live in the United States where such ideas are not well liked and economic liberty is intact.

Communisms official ideoligy conflicts with human nature.

It’s against hierarchy and materialistic hierarchy. Hierarchy is a huge element in society. When you’re a tiny tot you will inevitably notice that your parents and older siblings have access to certain tangible goods, which you are not allowed. You also notice that daddy and mummy can order you around. You immediately make a link between power and materialism. And that material objects often contain status symbolism. Communism curtails your ability to expand your material arsenal. If the neighbour next door to you has the same amount of goods as you then who has higher status. Him/She or you? Since communist countries can’t stop their baby criticizes from experiencing this they end up implanting this link between material wealth and status. When the baby grows up to be an adult the link is still there but now you cant have any more then anyone else. Now, because the link is still apparent those communist citizens who achieve government office cant help becoming corrupt. Communism is like an apple with  a worm inside that slowly eats its way down to the core.

Indeed. That's why profit is unethical.

If you earned your money by your labour, it is indeed your money. If you earned it by exploiting others, it is not your money.

500 billionaires in this world have as much money as three billion poorest people, half the f**king world. No one can make a billion or many millions by working, or in a fair way. Yet market fundamentalist wankers claim these rich white people people deserve this money, because they work harder or they are smarter than three billion poor people... They never talk about imperialism or power which comes with money. 

Genghis believes that Paris Hilton's dog getting 100 dollar manicure while poor kids starve in the same city is perfectly fair, just and ethical.

This is what he calls 'fairness'.

In the end, Genghis' idea of fairness, seems to be a thinly weiled hatred of poorer classes and other nations and races to me. History shows what your kind did to the humanity. Rule by the elite, exploitation, slavery, war, massacres, genocides, market failures, all the way from Ancient Babylon to Iraq today...

So ultimately, it is 500 rich people and their ass-kissers against billions of all countries.

What side are you on?

500 billionaires in this world have as much money as three billion poorest people, half the f**king world

I agree such wide a gap between the poor and rich is an injustice against humanity. However communism is not the answer.

That's if you believe the Labor theory of value, which no one other than communists truly believe.  Value is subjective.  If I buy something from someone for $5 which is it's value you to them, and sell it to another group for $10, which is its value to them, I have done nothing wrong.  Just look at it simply, would you and I be willing to pay the same for the same goods?  Probably not.  I don't know if you smoke, but if you did, cigarettes would naturally have a higher value to you than to me because I don't smoke.

Value is subjective.

Not true, in economics if you operate in a market structure that is not totally competitive (which nothing truly is), it is possible.  Look at Bill Gates, not very many other people really have the ability to do what he does, so the market for his services is a seller's market, but people are still willing to pay him lots of money because his services are more valuable to them than that amount of cash.

Isn't it also odd how so many of the three billion poorest people live in Communist or ex-communist countries, like Mozambique, Mali, and Ethiopia.

If Paris Hilton didn't steal that money from those starving people, we have no right to guillotine her and take her money like you seem to advocate.

Look at what your kind did in any country they've gotten power over.  Ask any of those killed by Cheka, NKVD, or the Cultural Revolution.

:Waits for calls to world revolution:

Since the end of the Cold War, the winning side.

Capitalism is the cancer. Socialism is the cure.

Ricardo wasn't a Communist was he? 

I don't advocate killing Paris Hilton. I advocate that she should work like anyone else, and her dog should not be treated better than poor black children. You are the one who says everyone deserves what they get, just like the Nazis did; i.e. the poor deserve death, Hilton deserves what she has.  

You told us before that you think it is good for the society that the poor starve. This way the incompetent are weeded out, and useful and successful members of the society like Paris Hilton and their dogs can live a better life. You think that this is the law of the nature, and we should not help the poor, by taking from the rich. Government should not redistribute the wealth, right? This will penaltise the whole society, right?

Well, I wonder what do you think about the disabled? Do you agree with the Nazis on this issue as well? Shall we gas them for the benefit of the society and the economy? They are weak anyway, only the fittest should survive, right? 

None of those were Communist. But all of those were colonies. Africa was destroyed by capitalism. I know of two (once) left wing states in sub-saharan Africa. Angola and Tanzania. I don't know about Angola except that it had American and its Nazi ally (South Africa)-sponsored civil war, but Tanzania had higher literacy rate and better child survival rate than Turkey in 1990. One billion people live in India, and there is only one state which has more than 80% literacy rate among women and it's Kerala, the ex-Communist state. We know how Cuba compares to Haiti. We know how the USSR compares to Russia. Or Bulgaria in 1990 to Turkey in 1990. Etc., etc.

Anyway, isn't it odd that ALL of those three billions live in post colonial capitalist states? What is your explanation for this? Are they poor because they are stupid lazy niggers? Surely not being Communist is the reason? Whole the f**king world is Capitalist now? Most African countries are more capitalist than the US...

History of mankind is history of class war. And history of mankind is long, and it isn't over yet, no matter what neocon wankers think.

Leninism is only one form of Socialism. It might have lost the cold war,  but the left is far from being defeated. Have you noticed changes in South America recently? Imperialist grip on the world is weakening. Environment is falling apart. If the all humans of the world used as much resources as an American, we would need THREE to FOUR planets today. And billions of Chinese and Indians are trying to become Americans...

In short, your world is unsustainable. It has already started falling apart. The symptoms are there from Katrina to Iraq. Your end is coming as well. Maybe the future will be socialist, maybe it won't be. But sure as hell it won't be capitalist. 

You all have been saying that ever since Marx's time, and it still hasn't happened, and capitalism has laid you low.  Even in the already poor countries that are becoming leftist, it's no problem, the power of the capitalist states is not worth crushing little bugs like Morales, they'll just run their economies into the ground like they always do.  Leftism is a weak-minded system that just can't buckle up and it will always be crushed by capitalism in the end.

Your revolution is already a century late, Beylerbeyi.  When are you just going to admit that this planet always has and always will belong to us?

The context you're talking about in, the relationship between workers and industrialists, is.

Yes.  Keep in mind, Paris Hilton's father is the one that made the money, he is the fit one, he's just giving to his daughter, which is his right.

And yes, the weak do need to be left by the wayside, lest they drag down others.

Like in a herd of animals, if the weak are not eliminated, they penalize the whole herd.  What goes for animals, goes just as much for humans.

All three were.  Mali was under President Keita,  Mozambique was under FRELIMO, and Ethiopia was under the "Derg".

Hahaha. I didn't know that you had a sense of humour. 

Well, our species is 200 thousand years old. Class based society came around 10 thousand years ago, with agriculture, and cities.

So, we lived under Communism for 190 thousand years, no elite, no state, no private property. From 8000 BC to AD 1800s we were oppressed by Kings and Priests. For the last 200 years or so, we are ruled by the Capitalists, the Bourgeoisie, people who have money, who replaced the Kings and Priests.

Only a Capitalist, typically myopic, would call a rule of mere 200 years (and a tightly contested 200 years) 'the planet always has belonged to us'...

Of course, we know that you are an enemy of the people, so maybe you mean that you would have sided with the elite no matter when you lived.

Even in that case the world hadn't belonged to you, 95% of the time. 

Why not gas the disabled then? And the Jews? In animals groups get selected as well, not just individuals. If the Jews cannot defend themselves, they are not fit to live, are they? Just gas them and get their wealth for the rest of your society, like you used to do.

Well, capitalism wasn't very successful in remedying it, was it?

Russia and China are both capitalist countries. When Russia was Communist no one was poor there. They had the world's second highest GDP, and their pro-capita GDP with PPP was in excess of its value today, 15 years after, they still haven't caught up. 

China is a different matter, it was vast, and very poor, and at the mercy of imperialists.  

And North Korea is a poor, isolated state, ran by incompetent dictators.

By contrast, look at South America. Argentina used to be one of the richest countries at the beginning of the 20th century, in the top 5. Their economy was destroyed by IMF and capitalism. Examples are countless.

As I wrote above, all the world's poor live in Capitalist countries or countries which used to be colonies of the West.

I think too many of my fellow socialists still have a dogmatic ahearence to Marx, whose theories I consider to be western-centric, utopian, and teleological.

I reject utopianism since utopian movements often try to go against human natute (such as Marx thinking the state would whither away, and the Leninists wanting to engineer the "perfect society") and when they gain power nearly always lead to totalitarian regimes because the utopians become forced to silence dissent from those who dissagree with the utopians' version of the perfect society.

Marx's theory of history, as I stated above, I consider western-centric and teleological. Western-centric because his "savagery-slavery-feudalism-captalism" intepretation of history is just the economic history of Europe, nothing more. Teleological because he thought there would be an end of history where the state and religion would whither away. Both concepts conflict with my theory of history, which borrows heavily from Arnold Toynbee (A Study of History) and Samuel Huntington (The Clash of Civilizations). Class conflict is the result of a rupture in the fabric of society that develops in a disintergrating civilization, the creative minority that provided the leadership and dynamism of a growing civilization degenerates into a parasitic dominant minority that rules the rest, but does not lead. To me, the purpose of socialism is not to fulfill history, like Marx though, but to fight history by repairing the tear in the West's social fabric, stopping the West's disintergration. The problem with many socialists is that they wish to distroy an elite class that is considered parasitical and evil by definition. This is impossible, there will always be elites and heirarchies, there will be people who are natural leaders, movers, and shakers (what Thomas Jefferson and, IIRC, Alexander Hamilton called the "natural aristocracy" and Toynbee called the Creative Minority), and natural folowers. What must be done is that heirarchies must be meritocratic and non-exploitive, and therfore be prevented from degenerating into an exploitive and plutocratic regime of a parasitic dominant minority.

The best way to rid our selves of a parasitic dominant minority and force our elites to revert back to a crative minority is economic democracy and the abolishment of the corporation and the associated stock market. All businesses over 20 people should be co-ops. Large co-ops would have the employees elect several of thier own to sit on the company's board of directors. the elected directors then hire CEOs and the like who manage the company. Capital would come from investment banks run by governments (national, supranational, and provincial) and the UN.

If you think caveman times and the hand to mouth existence of prehistory was utopia, you are truly mad.

In a society where physical ability is so irrelevant compared to mental ability, how can someone in a wheelchair really be considered "unfit".  Look at Stephen Hawking.

I'm surprised you don't want to do that given how much you hate Israel.  Don't you wish Hitler had gotten the other third?

So North Koreans and Cubans aren't poor?  Don't bother responding.  I know what you're going to say "they were de facto colonies".  Go ahead and twist the facts to fit the conclusion.

I think the major thing lacking in many systems is protection against corruption, greed, and plain old human nature. This is where democracy scores big points. It is the first real attempt to limit this, by allowing the people to dispose of governments that are showing these signs. However democracy itself has its flaws, it assumes people are intellegent, it makes the mistake of treating unpopular and bad governance as the same thing, it never allows for long term planning, it is not very difficult to corrupt or trick.

I consider a democracy to be a starting point for a good government system, it still needs more work. Whether a government should be communism or capitalist I take the opinion that it shouldn't be either. It must contain elements of both. Pure Capitialism is too uncontrolled, pure Communism is too controlled, both are corruptable. We need a new option

Now really what do you suggest? i look up instead of at a wealthy man, do you kiss arse?
 

Our govern. just payed off its debt, may even lower taxes again this year, yet still has a proper universal public health system. You guys cant say any of that, but you do have cheap petrol and aircraft carriers.

In fact, all countries have mixed economy. US is not as capitalist as you'd think, and many communist countries were not that communist.

During the cold war, if you were in Soviet sphere your economy would be called socialist, if you were in American sphere, you were capitalist. It was a political label. Very different economies, from Hungarian to Soviet were called socialist, and from Singaporean to Swedish were called capitalist.

If you actually looked at the economies themselves, you'd see that Sweden and Finland were more socialist than some countries in the Soviet sphere, with government domination of all important sectors, full scale social security, and very just distribution on income. In any case, they were self declared social democrats, which, as many people forget nowadays due to liberals taking over the title, is a branch of Marxism. 

No wonder market fundamentalists like Genghis call those countries 'socialist', and try to downplay their success.

Same thing with Japan. It has one of the world's lowest GINI indexes, better than most ex-communist states. Its economy was nothing remotely like the neoliberal. Yet they try to sell it to us as a capitalist/free-market success story.

Yes. We have the imperialists and the colonised. Imperialists are rich because of imperialism, not because of capitalism. Colonised countries are poor, because they were colonised, whether they were capitalist or communist.

Capitalists compare USA to Cuba and say capitalism is better than communism. All I say is compare Cuba to Haiti, or Soviet Russia to Capitalist Russia.

I agree with you actually. I wouldn't call myself an Orhodox Marxist. Only when faced with fascists like Genghis I feel the need to defend Leninism. I agree that the teleology in Marx's teachings is crap, something left over from 19th century German romantic philosophy crap.

I don't know how socialist you are, though, because socialism is more than economy. Socialism is not intended to heal the West or anything remotely similar. No socialist ever claimed that. Toynbee and Huntington are not socialists. They are right wing.

Huntington is a dumb idealist who thinks the world system is based on culture. In fact it is based on economy, based on imperialistic lines of North/South. Culture is just soft power, which follows hard economical power.

It is also wrong to believe that people died in socialist countries because they didn't fit in someone utopian ideal. Philosophical idealists think that way, not materialists.

I am not saying that at all. I am just making fun of your lack of perspective. That 190000 year state of prehistoic anarchy, was not glorious indeed, but it wasn't capitalist either. Nor was the period between 8000 BC - 1800 AD. So your world is 200 years old. But you go claiming 'all your base belong to us'...

So they are to escape gassing because they have potential to be useful, rather than they are human beings. Then what about the mentally disabled, herr Genghis? It's ok gas those, right?

Even though I don't like Genghis socio-economic theories at all, comparing them to nazism goes much too far.

Genghis' social-Darwinism is one thing, but nazi eugenetics are something completely different. Genghis' social Darwinism can be summarized as "let nature do its work, then the bad elements will die out". I do not at all agree with that, but the nazi "let's kill all the bad elements" is something completely different. Genghis says that when you leave the market/nature do its things, the bad/lazy/improductive will die out, which is not the same as labelling a group bad and then killing them. Nazism says people are inferior 'a priori', while Genghis says the people who are poor probably were 'inferor'. "True" social Darwinist, like Genghis, disaprove of nazism and eugenetics, because interfering with who survives and who doesn't runs against the most fundamental belief of Social Darwinism.

I don't agree with Genghis' social Darwinism, because in order to make sense one should assume that the preconditions of all people are the same, which is obviously not true, many people have gotten an advantage or disadvantage already upon birth. But nonetheless that doesn't mean it can be considered nazist.

"In fact, all countries have mixed economy. US is not as capitalist as you'd think, and many communist countries were not that communist.

During the cold war, if you were in Soviet sphere your economy would be called socialist, if you were in American sphere, you were capitalist. It was a political label. Very different economies, from Hungarian to Soviet were called socialist, and from Singaporean to Swedish were called capitalist.

If you actually looked at the economies themselves, you'd see that Sweden and Finland were more socialist than some countries in the Soviet sphere, with government domination of all important sectors, full scale social security, and very just distribution on income. In any case, they were self declared social democrats, which, as many people forget nowadays due to liberals taking over the title, is a branch of Marxism. 

No wonder market fundamentalists like Genghis call those countries 'socialist', and try to downplay their success.

Same thing with Japan. It has one of the world's lowest GINI indexes, better than most ex-communist states. Its economy was nothing remotely like the neoliberal. Yet they try to sell it to us as a capitalist/free-market success story."

Well yes, if you look at it, Scandinavia and Finland where the person was most important as is now, were much more communist than the USSR with its satellite states in Europe. These were just areas where the Russians could work their imperial politics. If i had to choose between USA or Sweden to live in, i would answer Sweden before hearing the options.

The USSR just operated on romantic ideological ideals that had no relation to effective economic behavior, the examples lie across Eastern-Europe. But i still wonder why communism dies out already after the revolution, are communists all so radical that they lose the sane way, i can't get it, its so damn crazy.

I don't think we need your apologies for Genghis. He's justifying his stand by referring to economics, and the benefit of the whole society. So I asked him a question about killing disabled people for the benefit of the society, which was exactly what the Nazis did. They didn't kill only the Jews, they also killed disabled Germans, and socialists (another thing Genghis advocates- for Nicaragua and Vietnam) and for exactly the same purpose Genghis puts forward. 

Anyway, he replied physical disabilities aren't that important. So he thinks that is a fair question.

Now I ask him what about the mentally disabled.

The point is, Genghis is a fascist. He is indeed a social darwinist, but so were the Nazis. Unfortunately liberals can't recognise a fascist unless they wear uniform and invade their country.

yes those with relative more would be happier. Its a capitalist arguement, that you use agianst marxist. I would  really like to see that being refuted, rather than just dismissed.

What I am saying is that happiness and wealth are not the same thing, and more importantly, someone else's wealth doesn't affect my happiness.  I don't find other's wealth threatening.

 i look up instead of at a wealthy man, do you kiss arse?

I suggest you quit labelling people based on their wealth.

Hmm, the nordic counties and australia which have there own types of 'mixed economy' are not doin so bad.

Not doing bad and not doing your best are two different things.  Also observe how more capitalistic countries such as the USA, Japan, and Ireland have higher GDP-PPP per capita.

Capitalists compare USA to Cuba and say capitalism is better than communism. All I say is compare Cuba to Haiti, or Soviet Russia to Capitalist Russia.

We can also look at North Korea and South Korea, China before and after Mao.  Or you can compare Cuba to Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, or Trinidad and Tobago.  Communists can only justify their systems by comparing them to the poorest capitalist countries whose poverty owes most to political instability and corruption which can occur in any system.

There were not the failures of centrally planned economies you try to advocate.  Throughout that time period the market was allowed to exist.  There has always been a market, since the first production of surpluses of goods.

Then what about the mentally disabled, herr Genghis? It's ok gas those, right?

I'll make this perfectly clear, it is a mistake to impede natural selection.  Gassing anyone is artificial selection.  I don't support gassing the mentally-handicapped, but on the same note, they deserve no help from society.

I don't agree with Genghis' social Darwinism, because in order to make sense one should assume that the preconditions of all people are the same, which is obviously not true, many people have gotten an advantage or disadvantage already upon birth.

That is true, and for that reason it is why I support things which aid the disadvantaged who have potential such as college grants.  What I support is allowing people a more or less equal starting point with an assurance of meritocratic promotion.  Keeping the incompetent from failing is not what I support.

Now I ask him what about the mentally disabled.

I'm not going to gas them, but I'm not going to waste money on them either, that could be better spent helping people get educations for the future benefit of society, or could just be left in the economy with lower taxes.  Any revenue spent the government should be considered an investment by society, and not an entitlement by individuals.  Government's should only invest money in those who will be useful, assist those who are useful, or to reward those who were formerly very useful good citizens like the elderly.

Genghis your belief that the way America operates close to how nature operates is very mistaken.

I never said that, I said capitalism in principle operates that way.

your claim that America will continue on ruling "the Planet"

Again, I'm talking about capitalism.

America has too many problems in her home to be even thinking about "ruling the planet" at this time.

We got gangs

We had the mafia and robber barons too. That argument that gangs prevent world power is nonsensical.

 we got ethinic "mini-states" that hate other "mini-states"

We've had that much worse in the past, think turn of the century.

 we got a horribly failing "social security" system

European countries have that even worse.

we got blacks in ghettos going nowhere

Yes, not like in the 1930's and 1960's when Blacks were incredibly successful.

Lets not even mention China's growing influency

They have far greater internal problems than we do.  Pollution, corruption, workers riots, etc.

the fact that the rest of the world hates us so much now.

The same thing happened in Vietnam, the rest of the world will bitch and moan but not do anything and forget about when we leave Iraq.  The mob is stupid and has a short memory.

In priniciple communism was also perfect but in practice is where it failed and thats where capitalism is soon going to fail as well . The planet cannot support capitalism.

I never said they prevent world power since we ARE already a world power but they sure do make some neighborhoods of LA and what else seem like Bogota and Fallujah.

ehh yes and no, before it was more isolated now its all over the U.S.

Nope they don't because Europeans pay heavier taxes than us and at least the medical coverage for most are covered. The pensions for people like me and you provided we lead a middle class life, will go up in smoke unless you have a great porfolio or if half of your check goes into you 401k plan. What Europeans have a problem with is their aging population and lower birthrate and you can't blame them at that because they are thinking more ahead than we are.

Blacks weren't that much successful but i dont think they also visited the jails as much as they do today. This incidence among young black men today is high as ever and its growing even more. A healthy nation to me doesn't have a whole class of "untouchables" living in ghettos with no prospect of any future. If its so then they might as well go live in India.

Far greater? Not really. Greater? Maybe for the moment?.

We are the single most polluting country in the world  so they got nothing on us as far as that is concerned. Think beyond your green lawn.

Nope they don't because Europeans pay heavier taxes than us and at least the medical coverage for most are covered. The pensions for people like me and you provided we lead a middle class life, will go up in smoke unless you have a great porfolio or if half of your check goes into you 401k plan. What Europeans have a problem with is their aging population and lower birthrate and you can't blame them at that because they are thinking more ahead than we are.

Look at Germany, a quarter of their budget goes to paying off debts that were accrued to pay for their social system, which is slowing down their economic growth.  They've also been moving in a more liberal direction to get their house in order.

Far greater? Not really. Greater? Maybe for the moment?.

Have you read anything coming out of there? 

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4462719 - Here's a good Economist article about rising riots in China.

Here's a good excerpt from it:

According to Mr Zhou, there were some 74,000 protests last year, involving more than 3.7m people; up from 10,000 in 1994 and 58,000 in 2003. Sun Liping, a Chinese academic, has calculated that demonstrations involving more than 100 people occurred in 337 cities and 1,955 counties in the first 10 months of last year. This amounted to between 120 and 250 such protests daily in urban areas, and 90 to 160 in villages. These figures are likely to be conservative.

China however is not the point.  The point is you're making it that the United States is overflowing with unsolveable problems and then you brush over the idea that any country but the United States has equally or even more challenging problems.