With socialism and communism isnt the goal for everyone to be equal and make the same amount of money?
95793
There is no incentive, other than total fairness.  But it does not work and never did.  Socialism is just the government owning the means of production, not like communisim which is that and running the entire economy of the nation.  It does not work, and innovation, and freedom are stifled completely.  Life isn't fair, and making it so didn't work for Russia and will not ever work.
917424
Thats kind of the basics of socialism. It sounds good on paper, but without reward for outstanding work, people figure why bother, and slack off.
1071757
You should read Karl Marx's book.  I read it in 9th grade, and was supprised by how differently it was portrayed.  The idea of communism in it's simplest is perfect.  Every one has food, clothing, and more than enough to thrive.  Communism would be the perfect government if we could find a ruler who wasn't self absorbed and greedy.  Unfortunately, that's not how most humans function.  (In enland, with the Monarch, Parliment was established to make sure that the King/ Queen wasn't abusing his/her powers, and I bet something similar would function well in a Communist community).  Communisim is only condsidered bad or evil because dictators in the past have proven to be bad or evil.
402718
Communism will never work.  Why would you bother to work hard when you get the same for your hard work as some lazy ass?  The biggest problem with communism is it doesn't take into account one simple factor:  human nature
202259
Someone who believes in the socialist ideologies put forth by the philosopher Karl Marx, though he was once quoted as saying "I am not a Marxist" which goes to show that the term really took on a life of its own historically.  The basic concept is that all members of society make roughly equal contributions and receive roughly equal benefits, as opposed to capitalism where people compete for a greater share of society's benefits.  The theory is very in-depth, and scholars still debate over what exactly is implied by the term Marxism, or if or how it differs from socialism or communism.\n\nI think socialism focuses more on social equality and pooling of resources.  Communism focuses on the economic and political constructs of a government that commands the economy and the major industries.
1148615
Communists are cool because they make every shmuck as miserable as the next schmuck :).  And by the way, communism has never reached the strides Capitalism has in terms of wealth and common good.
561959
no, because the majority of people always want more than they have and the way to get more then you have is to enlist capitalism.  For example, if you are smarter than Juan and you work harder then Juan, but you both are paid the same, you will be upset and not like the system. You want to be paid for being smarter and working harder.  That's capitalism.  Unfortunately, we don't live in a pure capitalist society and it's about who your parents were, what connections you have, who is in power, all of which skew capitalism.
584603
Because not everyone wants the same thing.  Many people want no war or poverty, but not as much as they want other things: like power or prestige or the world to be the way that they'd like it.  As long as these things are more important for some people, we will unfortunately be stuck with chaos.
220422
Because we are not communists.  We enjoy being able to work hard for our earnings, and use them as we please.\n\nPaul reminded me.\n\nwhen the pilgrims first came to this land, they tried out a mini-socialist colony: everyone worked for the common good, everything was shared, everyone go equal portions.  Do you know what happened? Nothing got done.  A few lazy folks didn't pull their share, and the entire colony suffered because of it.  It wasn't until the started making small businesses to provide goods and services for a cost, that the colony took off.  the moral of the story?  If you don't give someone a reason to work, they won't work.
1145256
Communism. Well, in Communism, everyone gets the same wage. So if the person next to me has only made one pair of shoes and I've made thirteen, how is this fair? Also, if you are making nails they'll tell you to make a certain size. But what if it's to small? You can't build a house with all small nails. \n\nIn communism though, since everyone gets the same wage, they people that need to work even though they have lost a limb get paid the same.\n\nIn Communist China, everyone shares land. It isn't your land, it's our land. So if you had a farm and I lost some of my crop, I could take some of yours. Even though we get paid the same, I may still need some of your crop for food. Also in China, you are allowed one child. If you have only one child you get tax, (or something like that) deductions and you get benefits. Everyone wants boys for their kids so that they can work on the farms. That is why many Chinese put their daughters up for adoption. \n\nSome nations that are Communist are North Korea and China.\n\nThis is all I know.\n\nfor more information go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
380324
Unfortunately we will always have inequalities...it is the way of the world....it the way capitalism works....we have different socioeconomic statuses the haves and the have nots...someone has to work to make people richer and someone has to lead to make the masses want more things to buy...we will always have poor and will always have rich...the most unfortunate part is the gap between the two classes is growing larger.
662216
interesting question can we yes do we want to well thats just the problem isnt it.In order for there to be peace things must be fair and not just fair but equal.All men are not created equal as one might want to believe.some stronger some smarter some healther some with more drive to succeed and a multitude of needs to be met based on education and experiance and ability.If we take all these things into consideration meeting the needs of people becomes of primary importance and is a goal worth achieving . do super achievers have a responcibilty to under acheivers does some one who uses drugs and is lazy deserve as much as this person and what is the balance we wish to achieve in order to maintain a standard of living no one should fall under even if we must care intirely for them. If people would worrie less about what others do and only do there best with the talents given them by the gene pool they are part of then peace is very possible.simple rules of behaveuor for the well being of all people need to be established.cause no harm to others or the enviroment would be a good start and a court of justice not judgement to determine a reasonable sentence.reality is hard but fair, accidents happen but not that often and some one is usally responcible.work is for the good of all men and a position of respect to be valued by society not an employer people often place there desires above those of others and should be reconed with as a crime under do no harm .we can all share in the vast wealth of planet earth if man only respects his fellow man and doesnt take advantage of him.man needs changeing work to keep his mind active and stimulate learning which only enhances his life and those around him.your reward for great acheivment should be acknowledgement by those who benifit from your ability and shared with the world.good work should be rewarded with time off for family not huge pay checks.and more hours worked supporting those who hired you.restructure of laborand management needs to be along the lines of teaching working side by side the knowledge shared is expaned 10 fold throught the world and all benifit.you cant solve a problem by tossing money at it but creating a sence of need to fufill a need gives man the reward and satisfation of helping others.jobs with low skill levels that require simple instruction yet hard physical work should be rewarded equally as if they invented scotch tape peoplewho show a lazy streak may be great thinkers unable to concentrate on simple tasks or will ing to do them no matter there role in the community can be fufilled with community projects of shot duration with long term benifits .you build a road may be all thats need for awhile great numbers benifit from hard work on common projects.If i am rich and provide all the money to finance a deal should i be rewarded or scolded for hoarding and not sharing.baseing your worth on money is of little value its only a simple minded way of keeping score in a game set up with rules that are not equal at its inception .man is capable of peace but i dont think willing he is to greedy in his nature still and may be for 100"s of years to come.
809059
That depends on your definition of communism.If it has anything to do with what happened in the soviet union and china then i'd say :bad.If you want to keep an open mind and believe that all people should be paid the same and a generous amount then :good.Communism can be whatever we want it to be we can take the old ideals that were good about it and leave the bad behind.Or start over from scratch.There's no law that says we can't.To those who would have a knee jerk reaction to the mere mention of communism and dismiss it altogether I would ask you;what do you know about it other than what other people have told you to believe?Are you ready to think for yourself and actually read the manifesto and really try to understand what Marx was trying to accomplish?Are you open to the idea of social democracy?After intense scrutiny of Marx's work I've come to \nthe conclusion that what he really wanted was a system of social credit.Unfortunately some very bad people took his ideas and distorted them until they were unrecognizable and called it communism anyways and it got bad rap.In a democracy I think it's important to think creatively and critically about the choices we make politically and consider all the options if we are to have a sane and fair system of government.Communism is a viable option if we do it right.
760703
Communism had no middle class and capitalists because all are treated equal.  Only the leaders are enjoying and most of the people are simply workers and laborers receiving only basic items for a living.
645352
No. Nationalism itself will get outdated when humans become responsible and honest. After all when it comes to making money, how many people are concerned about nationalism? Money is the only religion that has no division of races, nations or even notions! Even religion and its development needs helluva lot of money. Communism was born for equitable distribution of money - to make the poor rich and rich the poor (equitable!!). Unfortunately, they did not have a proper capitalistic calculator and results were terrible - everyone except the accountants(members of the politbureau) became poor! Do you think people from those communist countries die for nationalism?? They are trying to run away to find jobs and money - so much for nationalism. So where is the question of good nationalism?
75557
Socialism is where the means of productions are owned by the society, hence the state and under the hegemony of the proletariat or the working class. It is for ending the exploitations of capitalism by the capitalists over the working people and bringing the working people up for the communist society. Communism is the next stage of socialism where the society will be classless and free of any sort of exploitation. It is more of kind of ultimate goal of the real human society which should be achievable after sufficient span of time, struggle, experiment and effort.
440233
Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. In the latter case, the issue of who controls the state is crucial. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]\n\nHistorically, the ideology of socialism arose with the rise of organized labor, and the socialist political movement has found most of its support among the urban working class and, to a lesser extent, the peasantry. This has led to socialism being strongly associated with the working class and often identifying itself with the interests of workers and the "common people". In many parts of the world, the two are still strongly associated with one another; in other parts, they have become two distinct movements.\n\nPure socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system that serves the interests of the wealthy and exploits the majority of the population. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would reward hard work, guarantee a certain basic standard of living, and extend economic and cultural opportunities to all.[3]\n\nSocialist theory is diverse, and there is no single body of thought that is universally shared by all socialists. Rather, different socialist ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions by different paths. There are some common themes, however. One such theme is the idea that humans are inherently social beings that require social interaction and the companionship of others in order to survive and develop both physically and mentally[4]. Individuals cannot maintain their humanity if they are separated from the rest of society for too long. Thus, socialists believe that the individual and society are inseparable, and they reject individualistic schools of thought which assert that society is the voluntary creation of individuals who chose to interact with each other.[5]\n\nMarxism is an ideology which has had a powerful influence on socialist thought. For over 50 years, from the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the 1970s, the majority of socialists were Marxists of one kind or another. This has not been the case for several decades, but Marxist ideas - particularly notions of class struggle - are common themes across a broad range of modern socialist groups. Marxism itself continues to be a strong current in the broader socialist movement.\n\nMany Marxists, past and present, use the term socialism to refer to the form of society that is supposed to replace capitalism and later develop into communism.\n\nWithin the socialist movement, there are several different ideas on how to create a socialist society and economic system, and what form this society will take. As a result, the movement has split into several different and sometimes opposing branches, which are discussed further below.