Problem is, Communism doesn't give you a choice where it counts - at the seat of government.  Not like a democracy where votes do count. (that is, if the ballot chads are punched properly! ;-) )

Kat

-------Original Message-------
From: "Cleveland, Kyle E." <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 06/10/03 11:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mag's whip; was RE: Am I the only one online?

>
> Communism=Utopianism.  Looks good in theory, but reduces individuals to
automatons and neglects human nature.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kat [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mag's whip; was RE: Am I the only one online?


I agree: we *don't* need communism or socialism!

Mag, have you thought it through?  How much a mixture?  It can't be
half-and-half, that would be silly. This country rules by the majority and
there's no majority in communism except at the very top level.  Do you
really want a system like that?  I'd think not!

The ideal of communsim is equality for all.  But can you say that ideal
was
achieved in the USSR and China and other Communist countries? Of course
not.
They had the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' same as anywhere else.  Communism
does not protect its denizens from the inequality of wealth.

Kat

-------Original Message-------
From: "BG Greer, PhD" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 06/10/03 11:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mag's whip; was RE: Am I the only one online?

>
> Mag,

       We have the best life style in the world, and it wasn't brought
about
by government bureaucrats. Sadly, people need profits for motivation.
Corporations have brought about this easy lifestyle. Yes, the rich get
rich, but they
took the risks, we did not.

Bobby


>  don't know what the solution
> is but I think we need a combination of things.
> not just corporations, not just communism, not just socialism.
>
>
>