Of course there have been communist countries. Try to disown them all you want, but anyone with half a brain knows that totalitarianism is the natural conclusion to any attempt at communism.

How else to impose equality, how else to decide what is "equal". Is communism as defined by Marx a pretty illusion, yes of course. But so is the Islamic heaven. There is nothing more dangerous than people who believe in illusions and try to make them real.

As for the rest. Ideas are worthy infinitely more than workers. Sorry, but that is why all the factory jobs are leaving this country.

Can you differentiate between Communism and Socialism, Soho?

Yes, can you? If so, please do so.

Communism has been proven a failure, though I have an interesting explanation as to why it will it is still inevitable in the distant future.

Socialism, however, is alive and kicking in every developed country in the world, including this one. Laissez-faire capitalism is, as a result, deader than a doornail.

No, it never will, even in the future. The idea of an economy and political structure being based on workers is a dead issue.

Now, I think what you meant that in the future we might have some sort of communal state, you are probably right, but that is completely different from what Communism is.

Capitalism never existed. It was a phrase coined by socialists with no reality that improperly defines alternative economic structures. Hence free markets, state corporatism, state communism, mercantilism, etc etc can all be called "capitalist" even though none of them have much if anything in common with one another.

Nah, communism - in its ultimate form, as described by Marx. One of Karl's biggest mistakes is abandoning an early position that described communism as evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.

Sure it has. It was more industrial capitalism early and more financial capitalism later. Perhaps, you could argue pure, laissez-faire capitalism never existed, but we came pretty close in the 1800s.

Who were these "defining" socialists? Sounds suspicious to me. And, my text (Samuelson) defines capitalism as "the use of produced goods for further production."

I do not believe that human nature has many elements. I think societies and cultures have many elements but most work against human nature. It is human nature to want food and shelter, to want a better meal and better shelter. To me saying there are many elements of human nature is no different than saying the Iraqis didn't want freedom, they want to be held as slaves. Thats bullhockey.

Socialism does indeed require you to live your life for another. If I want a new car but the "group" or the "state" or the "grand poobah in charge of economic handouts" decideds I should not have one then that is exactly what I am doing. Its not my decision, its the "groups" and therefore my life belongs to the group rather than me.

Please define what you mean by "self made man" If you are talking about someone who is born in the woods, has no contact from birth with other humans and develops axes, and house plans and automobiles and skyscrapes you are correct, there is no such thing as a self made man. On the other hand if you mean someone who by his own efforts and choices acheives success as he measures it then there millions of self made men. I once read a quote that said 'We are all self made men, its just that most of us don't want to admit it". Of course we need to cooperate but its how that cooperation manifest itself that makes the difference. I would perfer to cooperate as a free trader, not at the point of a gun which ultimately is what socialism requires.

Self interest is the only factor. However self interest does not automatically mean me me me. For example it is in my self interest to provide homes for homeless people. Why is it in my self interest? Because my religion tells me that is something I should do, therefore in order to live up to the tenets of Christianity I help with Habitat for Humanity, with my church group and others to insure housing is available for all who want it.

As far as other cultures, tell me one that would identify with the Borg rather than the Ferenghi. I know this is a Star Trek reference but there is truth in why the Borg were the enemy and the Ferenghi were necessary to the Federation.

Its not the making of wealth that is greed, its what one does with that wealth. Putting it in a hole in the ground helps no one including the creator of the wealth. Putting it to use, either by building factories or farms or whatever to create more wealth serves more people for a longer period of time than giving it away and not being able to build new wealth. Remember, the poor do not create jobs for anybody

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

Using Samuelson's definition, socialism and communism can both be capitalism. Every industrial civilization uses "produced goods for further production".

Communism is a political and social movement, with a single economic aspect (communal ownership of the means of production). In this it is distinguished from socialism which doesn't require ownership of the means of production (but can, but really calls for some control over distribution but doesn't care about the political form of the government (socialism can exist under dictatorships or democracies).

Capitalism, as it is called, usually says that there is private ownership of capital. But socialism can allow for this as well. Hence the word doesn't actually define anything. It was originally coined from Marx's obsession in Capital by marxists and it has stuck, despite not defining anything.

Again, as I pointed out wildly different economic systems with nothing in common are called capitalistic. When this occur this generally means that the word is useless.

I will define capitalism for purposes of discussion "The economic system by which both the means of production and the output of that production are owned by private interest without government intervention"

For the purposes of discussion I will define any other economic system as collectivist.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

How about if the private interest is an individual or a small elite.