Did the guy on the left even read Kingdom Come? Your description of it is absolutely terrible.
Edit: As an addendum to Theuromancer's post, the difference in a commune and and communist society is that one is a choice on lifestyle why the other is compulsory in nature, respectively. In the ladder, one is held at gunpoint to stay at their position in society and not try to be more than a farmer. In the former, people are making a choice to forego anything beyond mere subsistence.
Edit2: Karl Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". These all seems very nice, but the reality is that people who can do more should be able to reap the benefits of their work and have self ownership, something that is denied in a Communist/Socialist system. Theuromancer pointed out the right to own their property, but the more important right is self ownership, something you do not have completely, even in America as it stands now. This idea could never work because it's counter intuitive to human nature. The only way people are equal in Socialized societies is through shared suffering, and even then there is a large disparity in financial equality through all sectors of society. In Russia, the leaders were busy making war (known as the welfare of the state) while the peasants were busy farming and dying on the frontlines of war. There never was any equality there, there was the greatest inequality of all, others had the right to choose how others lived and died.
China is making great strides to become capitalist, that is why they are currently the second wealthiest nation in the world. They have slackened business regulation and not nationalized any industry. A mere 2 years after Chairman Mao died, they made it so people could own land (albeit after jumping through hoops). The owners were still expected to give food to the government, but they were given the ability to sell any extra at the market for their own price. By 1990, the quality of life in China had increased five fold. And it's increased twenty five fold today, for the majority of it's people.
I don't know why people persist with this line of thought. "Pure Communism" has universally always turned into a communist dictatorship historically. It won't work because that will always happen. Thomas Sowell called it the vision of the anointed. This is what happens, even in the US government. Basically, the intelligentsia of a given society see themselves as smarter and more correct. So, they will come up with programs that they think will be better for everyone and damn all the evidence to the contrary. Another problem with it is that a collective few can't dictate what is more important for individual people. It all works under the flawed idea that if you take care of the basic things people need then everything else will fall into place, which is wrong. People, no matter how noble they are, are always going to have wants and desires beyond basic needs. Also, as proven again and again in socialist systems, if people have the opportunity to get money with no personal work involved, they do. That is why a capitalist society where everyone is expected to work hard and get paid the market value of their work always breeds growth where there is none, and greater growth where growth exists.Primus1985 said:Actual pure communism in its truest form, not the in name only form that China has, is not a bad thing. Ideally its supposed to be everyone in the collective working and sharing for the benefit of all the people. However in practice it hasnt gone over very well. The reason is simply the old adage "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" or to quote Dr. McCoy from Star Trek "If you give anyone that much power they cant help playing God" Communist states in the 20th usually centered around one figure in government, and once they got that power and realized what they could do with that power...Well you can fill in the blanks. Now if you could combine pure communism with the system of Checks and Balances the US has, I think it could work.
Edit: As an addendum to Theuromancer's post, the difference in a commune and and communist society is that one is a choice on lifestyle why the other is compulsory in nature, respectively. In the ladder, one is held at gunpoint to stay at their position in society and not try to be more than a farmer. In the former, people are making a choice to forego anything beyond mere subsistence.
Edit2: Karl Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". These all seems very nice, but the reality is that people who can do more should be able to reap the benefits of their work and have self ownership, something that is denied in a Communist/Socialist system. Theuromancer pointed out the right to own their property, but the more important right is self ownership, something you do not have completely, even in America as it stands now. This idea could never work because it's counter intuitive to human nature. The only way people are equal in Socialized societies is through shared suffering, and even then there is a large disparity in financial equality through all sectors of society. In Russia, the leaders were busy making war (known as the welfare of the state) while the peasants were busy farming and dying on the frontlines of war. There never was any equality there, there was the greatest inequality of all, others had the right to choose how others lived and died.
China is making great strides to become capitalist, that is why they are currently the second wealthiest nation in the world. They have slackened business regulation and not nationalized any industry. A mere 2 years after Chairman Mao died, they made it so people could own land (albeit after jumping through hoops). The owners were still expected to give food to the government, but they were given the ability to sell any extra at the market for their own price. By 1990, the quality of life in China had increased five fold. And it's increased twenty five fold today, for the majority of it's people.