Taylor wrote:
> Your suggestion was tried by the Soviet Union, and we know how well that
> turned out.
Actually his proposal is quite the opposite. What Soviet Union did was to
steal all the wealth from rich, middle and poor and concentrate it into
the
hand on one man: the dictator.
Many naives believe in pathetic communist propaganda that the wealth
was "common good" in communism. Nothing more wrong.
The owner****p relation require the ability to control your property. When
you own something in common with another person, you negotiate how to
handle the common good. If more persons are involved in common owner****p,
then the common practise is to vote delegates to negotiate and control it
for you. Therefore, the whole notion of common owner****p REQUIRE an 100%
functional democracy.
This was not the case in Soviet Union nor in ANY single communist country.
Everywhere, the leaders suppressed from the beginning the democracy,
therefore taking alone the owner****p of what they called "common
property".
In reality they were just thieves like any warlord in feudalistic
societies.
Unfortunate, many naives still believe the lies spread by the communist
regimes where they talked about "common wealth". There was no such thing
as
common wealth or wealth distribution in communism. As mater of fact, the
communism has been the most polarised society in history, even worst than
the ancient slavery systems.
--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.
Democracy Highlander
|
