So much has been said against these economic systems, but most of it was said during the Cold War. Still, it lingers. These economic models are shunned simply because people have been taught so by those who do not wish any change to occur.
These economic models seem beneficial to all of humanity. To allow every man a job, a house food, clothes and an education. An escape from the fears of poverty, deception, theft and the myriad of other problems that plague the capitalist free market.
I see no evil in this system, only progress.

All of the major communist or socialist countries have either collapsed or are very weak. The USSR, for example. China is communist and enjoys much military might, but the Chineese people suffer.
Conclusion: Communism and socialism are idealistic ideas with little success that do more harm than good.

Before concluding opnions on goverment, think about where it has been tried before.

You serve to illustrait my point. All this is Cold War propaganda.
And to tell the whole story, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of CHina originated in countries that were extremely poor just at the turn of the pervious century.
Joseph Stalin and Mao industrialized those countries and thus provided a better quality of life for the citizens than would have been avalable now had those countries maintained the capitalist model. Communism has already done many good things for humanity. But comparing the entire world to the affluent Americas, which were created and industrialized by Britain before they broke off, will always yield a dissapointment.

What happend to the USSR? Oh yeah, it COLLAPSED. That has always happend to communist countries, which lack strength. Overdistribution of wealth DESTROYS a countrys economy. Something in commen between Stalin and Mao- they both commited mass murder. Is that something you want a goverment to do?

And Britan did not industrialize America, the US was a farm country for MANY years after the revolution.

They did what was needed to ensure the survival of their nations and the Greater Good of the people. Without Stalin's industrialization, the Nazis would have conquered the Soviet Union and kille many millions of Slavs and Jews.
The distributuion of wealth is needed to provide a suitable life for the people. It does not make a country weak.

You're promoting genocide. Geez, who do you think you are? Do you honestly think you have the right to murder anyone of a certain race? Anyone who disagrees with you? I'm not going to continue an argument with a murderous psycho.

You have a right to protect the Many. If Stalin had hesitated the Nazis would have killed so many more. It was not a good descision, but it was needed. The Greater Good is what must be promoted.

I never mentioned murdering a race. I mentioned a historical fact, that Hitler wanted to kill all degenerate races.
I deplore violence and murder, but if it must be done to preserve the greater good then it is needed.

I find it strange that these systems advocate freedom and equality but every one has turned into pure statism. Everytime I hear the *ideas* that socialism and communism espouse, I'm all for them, but whenever I hear or see how they're supposed to be implemented in practice, I shrink back.

Still, I wish I knew more about these political ideas. It's something I want to get to if I ever get to homeschool myself and have the time (I sure as hell better get to.) See, laissez-faire in action! lol

Where do you get such ideas. What China is today is because of PRC government, stop talking things right out of your mind.

Do you have any idea how it collapsed or you gobble everything your Americanised news tells you? Soviet collapsed because of militancy, extermisism and FMD induced starvations. Al Qaeda, Chechens, Kazkh militia were trained and armed by CIA to bring down Soviet. NATO was primarily made for this reason too. FMD virus transmitted in agricultural lands helps in destorying crops and killing off 20 million Soviets which gave bad PR propaganda for USSR.

Do you mean to you Mao Zedong committed mass murder? Would you trim down your nonsense without proofs? Mao Zendong saved a nation of 1 billion from nuclear genocide by a warhead country.

Stop talking morality if you can't maintain the standards. Do you think the Nuclear holocaust was right. Do you think Napalming and Agent Orange in 4 million Vietnamese is right? Do you think spreading bacillus Anthrax in a million North Koreans is right.

And stop using insults in a debate if you do not wish to be insulted. If you don't have brains to debate without a sewer mouthing, leave the debate and do whatever else you do.

By the way socialism and communism are different things, one is a government system and the other is a market system. Russia was and is never a communist, FYI it collapsed halfway, China is the only communist country in the world. It is is because communism me or my sister am not born like the kids below but normal, healthy and strong. (Effect of Agent Orange and Dioxin in Vietnam)

Yes, I agree violence is bad. But look at the world today. More than 1/2 of the entirity of humanity live in poverty controlling about 1-2% of the global wealth. That is 3 billion people living in poor 3rd world nations, with unstable govenrments a ilness. Especially in places like Africa, where genocides are a continental pasttime, people are dying in ways you cannot imagine. Violence is present now, if there is a way to remove violence from the future of mankind is it not worth exploring?
And the reason they seem statist is because they are. You need a government or some sort of executive power to overlook the distribution of resources. Communist theory says that after the government creates the new society it would wither away to create an anarcho-communist society. But first, there must be a government to secure the rigths of the people from those who would opress them.
(The site I got this statistic from)
Report documents extreme levels of global wealth inequality

Global wealth inequality occurs because there are the haves who will exploit the have-not to gather more wealth. After that the have-nots get frustrated and turn towards violence and militancy as a cathasis. The aim of a capitalist system is maximum profit-minimum cost which translates to lower wages for labours in third world countries bringing down the purchasing power of these labourers to pruchase the same goods they made. The lower wages puts up their cost of living higher than that of developed countries. In African and Asian 3rd world countries, labourers working in industries spend 95% of their earning on just basic food.

Socialist system is designed for the people which gives a fair system where everyone gets what they deserves based on their need and capability rather than using tricks to exploit.

Neither system is perfect but lobbying for one single system is idiocy. There are more higher educated graduates in China than in US and the IQ level of Chinese are signicantly higher than US by 10 points in national average and Shanghai records an IQ of 116 average and ever 3rd person a genius by US standards. The Chinese market controlled economy improved the lifestyle of the people and Mao Zedong's policies triggered China into a military and economic superpower, a long was for a country in the brink of economic collapse in 1913 when Manchu Dynasty fell and British occupied Manchuria by massacre of a million locals and US was trading opium in south China.

Indeed. If this could be extended to all mankind..... it would be a renaissance for all of humanity.

Fair?

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I see these two statements as mutually exclusive, at least in practice. Unless you force everybody to work at gunpoint there are going to be those who do not work, but do eat--because you have given them food. And, of course, those who are given more in food than they have produced in value. Yeah, you could do that, if that is what you want... OR how about a system in which everyone is given food according to how much work they have done? I'm not sure that Capitalism is such a system. I don't think it is. But I'm sure that it's far, far nearer the mark than any kind of statism or collectivism.