Punkprincess said:
If you've read it "many times", then surely you already KNOW what differentiates the classes? And if you already understood, why did you repeatedly post questions asking banal questions like "what if somebody owns shares in a company? / what if somebody starts their own business?" and so …
thedarkocean said:
Very sorry! I just come here to learn. Does my post make any sense, though? In terms of deciding someone's worth in society?
Worth as a human being?No it makes no sense. All menare created equall so far as the law is concerned. Value to society of course.Equality does not mean every one contributes the same or has the same ability.Those who are of more value will be rewarded for their value.Those with little value are often cast aside.
This is not to say the CEO has more value than the work force as a whole, but yes the CEO is of more value than one day laborer.CEO's get payed the big bucks, but they also have a lot more responsibility.Anyone in any field who has gone from grunt to management can attest to the fact that it is a huge step up in respobsibility.I remember thinking in my younger days that I worked harder than management.Then I was promoted and my opinion changed.
Helter said:
I still don't get how people can constantly attribute the effects of governmental systems to the adoption of economic systems.
If you're talking to me , I don't know.Prosper does not always equate to economic stability.I wasn't asking what communist nation had a flourshing economy.I asked if as a nation on the whole did they prosper.
That said your question seems silly.Are you saying communism makes no attempt to control the industry and hence the economy of a nation? Are you saying that a aboloition of private property has no effect on an economy?That private property has no benneficial effect in an economy? What about state controlled centralized money through a national bank.I suppose there are no economic effects there either?
[Edited on Nov 19, 2002 by SammaelHain23]
joyrider said:
froggy said:
i agree they had a faulty economic system (thanks helter for that swell phrase) and would have defeated itself, but the arms race certainly sped up the process. and kept us all too busy to "go hot", that's quite an accomplishment considering the lives at stake on both sides.
i think it's debatable whether or not increased arms race pressure kept the two superpowers from going to war. it would seem to be that the increased technolgoical sabre-rattling would've been a distraction to the diplomatic process and disarmament treaties. luckily for humankind, cooler heads prevailed regardless.
[Edited on Nov 18, 2002 by joyrider]
o = #1 culture jammer