I do not claim to be an expert of Communism but I have read part of Marx's book and found it to be so full of contradictions and innacuracies I could not take it seriously enough to finish.

While I agree that in theory it is good for everyone to be equal but I also understand that in practise it would never work out. If you were to wipe out all debt in the world and distribute all resources equally (land, money, natural resources, etc) it would not take much time before gaps emerged due to ability, willingness to work, etc. This would then quickly lead to the same situation we have now.

Or, if you ahve to pool your resources and let sombody else decide how it is to be distributed, it will lead to conflicts as people feel disatisfied due to ability, willingness to work, etc. This would then lead to the same situation as the Baltic states are facing, after Moscow took their resources and did not distribute back to them.

At least with a capitalist economy like ours anyone can become a success if they just put the legwork in

Tiw, i know many people who work very hard and would not be called successful. There is more to it than that. What I like about a free economy is that you get fewer bludgers (people milking the system without contributing to it) and whiners (people saying that it is unfair that somebody has more than them).

I also know people who work hard and have very little to show for it but we both know you can work very hard at the wrong things, all they need to do is change their approach and I am sure their hard-work would pay-off.

wow, this is one of the best posts here, with the exeption of a few there are some real debates going on... nice, my faith in humanity has been restored (note dont look at "america is not the world" its a minefield)

Wow GAK67 talk about not making personal attacks and then the very next sentence you make a personal attack. Nice!

I am 27 and a vet from the US Marines. I just thought that Tiw's post sounded a little immature. So I was guessing that she was a young teenager. No offence intended Tiw but some of the people on this site are very young and immature.

She? I am certainly not a girl, I am a 31 year old Englishman who wanted to know something about American thinking behind communism and meant no malice.

In case you were interested, Tiw is the name of an old Anglo-Saxon god (The Vikings knew him as Tyr). He was the god of War, victory, courage, etc) and I decided to use his name (not for the war part, just the other ones

Sorry Tiw I don’t know where I came up with "she". I do like your choice of name though.

I don’t like communism because I believe that people should have the right to their own beliefs, opinions, be able to pick their leaders, say what they want to say, and be able to determine their own success in life. Communism does not work that way. Someone tells you what to do, where to be, what to believe in and how successful you will be.

I just think it is silly because of the sheer waste of it all, it is like the caste systems in some cultures (no offense intended to anyone) where someone of a low caste cannot become a doctor, even though they may be the best doctor in the history of the planet.

I do favour a monarchy and am not afraid to admit it. I also think that in some respects the current system of democracy is similar in some ways, just not as tidy. I have included a link to an article posted by Burkes Peerage on Senator Kerry of America and how he has royal ancestry, I cannot remember where the link about Bush is but I can find it if you want to see it. I am no conspiracy theorist but it is plain to see that while you can vote for who you wish to become your leader be it Prime Minister or President you are only alloweed to choose from the few people chosen for you by other people. This means if you are to have a true democracy there should be no political parties, just politicians who stand alone so you vote for the man (or woman) and not the party and would also give people of more humble origins an equal chance.

[www.burkes-peerage.com] For all those of you who do not know who Burkes Peerage are they are a highly respected genealogical research company from England who research into many people.

Tiw, how do you justify being pro-monarchy and anti-caste in the one debate. To my mind the two are inextricably linked.

I do not believe they are linked at all. With some cultures you cannot do a certain job (or even get an education from what I have heard) if you are in a suitable caste which means that you are tied into poverty, even if you come into great riches (financially) you are still treated with contempt by those in higher castes. If Britain returned to the feudal system of government the nobles would govern the land on behalf of the monarch (Queen Elizabeth, soon to be King Charles, etc), while those of more humble birth would be subject to the nobles it would not be any different to life today because we are all still subject to rule by others, civil servants have more power than politicians in any country because they decide what the politician learns and select the options for him or her to choose from. Other than this there would not be a restriction on what people can do so anyone with sufficient talent and who works hard enough could become a doctor, engineer, computer programmer, etc.

what do the royals do? besides being in the tabloids?

By Royals I assume you mean those of the Sceptered Isles I call home (Britain for those who didn't know where I meant). Because by law they are forbidden from ruling the country they can only reign so they do they best they can. They are the most famous family in the whole world (who can say the name of the Royals of Thailand, Japan, Norway, etc without research) so they can bring immense coverage to issues that need to be addressed such as Princess Diana's throwing the spotlight on Landmines, Prince's William and Harry's work in Africa and even Prince Charles own Prince's Trust to name a few. They work very hard and are not just idle rich.

Tiw, under your proposed system, anybody can follow whatever profession they want, but how do they effect change? If they don't like the direction of the way the leader is taking them, they are powerless - in a sense in a lower caste.

You are obviously a royalist from your comments, and while I agree with you that the British royal family are not idle rich, I would not like to see them rule again and take that power away from the people.

Who says we have any say in what our elected officials do now? Blair knows we do not like what he is doing (not just about Iraq) but he still does them. Who is to say that a king or monarch would be any worse? There would be no reason for them to not listen to the will of the people, especially if they want to be loved by them.

I'm sorry Tiw, but you do get to have a say. I am not sure how often Englands elections are held but every 3/4/5 years you get a say on who is going to run your country. While the system is not perfect, and as you have stated in a previous post, you only get to choose between a few options, there is always an alternative to the current leader. I also know from previous posts that you think the senior civil servants have all the power. I think you have been watching too many re-runs of 'Yes, Minister'.

I do like thaat programme but have not seen it in years (literally), where are you from Gak? I did hear that Maggie Thatcher (Now Baroness Thatcher) said it was realistic but that is beside the point.

Any government needs continuity, do you agree? If those who do the behind the scenes work are changed as often as the people who get voted into office nothing that couldn't get completed in their term of office would ever get done because the current people would not want to start something they couldn't see finished if they lost the next election or those who replce them would stop older projects and concentrate on their own agenda (finding a way to blame the termination of the old projects on the opposition).

I am from New Zealand, which in terms of television is good as we get to see a lot of both UK and US programmes. In terms of government, we are heavily based on the british system. I do agree with you that the senior civil servants need to remain relatively consistent, but I do not beleive they are completely uninfluenced by the government of the day. I don't believe you think that either as you said in an earlier post that you do not like what Blair is doing. You beleive Blair is doing it, not the senioir civil servants.

Blair is almost hated in Britain now. Did you know that his government greatly reduced the budget for the security serves (like MI5 and 6)? They then used a junior analyst to evaluate the evidence to go to war and (s)he got it wrong. They then revealed that they went to war on this persons say so. This is SO wrong. I do believe some civil servants have more say in the running of the country than the PM but I also believe that Tony is not fit for office.