The GREAT DEBATE of should U.S OF A bring back troops from Afghanistan

?

What happened comrade?

That is... ouch.
And it makes about as much sense as if someone started out believing in Democracy.

Our current economis model is Capitalist. The opposite of Communist. Go figure that it wouldn't fit. [not in a demeaning tone, a sarastic one.]
Ahh... '...when others say "why?", you ask "why not?".'
People are just... wary [not afraid so much] to take the steps to it. Its not unattainable from what I can see, just difficult. And every breathing moment we [humanity] moves futher and further away from it, putting it out of reach by our own devices. There will never be a time when it is unattainable, but there will never be a time when it will be so easy to obtain as now.
Btw: How old are you? [I don't mean to be rude. If you don't want to say I understand].

All true.
Its a good thing, then, that I thought the situation over before deciding to support Communism.
To be honest, Communism as I support it isn't exactly the same as Marx did, but it borrows heavily. Not so much on what he thought would be as to what he thought should be. I would never really claim to support it exactly as the path that he thought it would travel.

True, people are tied more to services than to products now, but that is a product of the system under which we live. The necessity for a massive [staggering, as a matter of fact] number of fields are products of the system. Waitresses, telemarketers, salespeople, amusement parks, and other services that aren't NEEDED, but are a part of the system in place.
There are some obviously indispecible parts like educators, engineers and such that would need to exist in a Communism, but alot is... expendable and only a part of the system and tied to the system as it is.
Think of the law field [which I THINK you said that you would be going into, but I won't swear to it]. Think of all that you have learned. Now think how much of that would be erased, obsolete, and totally unnecessary and non-existent under a Communist system. The whole concept of plaintiffs and buisness attorneys would be virtually disintegrated. Quite a few of the laws in place, particularly in respects to property, would become wasted paper. This reminds me of how the US has over 4,000 pages of laws [or a single law, I didn't check which one] on the sale of cabbage.

Step back for a moment and evaluate what you want to do. You want to destroy the current world order so that you can remake according to the vision of a man who lived in the 19th century.

You want to do away with society as it is and create a 'society as it should be' without even so much as considering that society as it is is 'society as it should be'. Economists haven't really ever come down in Marx's favor, but today it's not even seriously considered or discussed. The reason is that what Marx wanted isn't necessary or relevant anymore. His predictions about what would happen to industrial society were wrong. Flatly, plainly wrong. His ideas about the way society worked, why it was the way it was, are again, simply wrong. We don't have a 'landless laboring underclass' anymore. People don't have to work in order to live. Everyone gets a basic education. And this is all taking place in the same capitalist system that Marx had said would destroy itself.

There's something I just realized even though it's not entirely relevant. Even though I know what you sound like, when I read you posts I imagine that you have a slight British accent. Makes you seem smarter than your real-life midwestern accent.

I can fake a British accent well enough, and I have on a number of occasions in debate.

Though my current accent is very important in regional debate, because I lack the long drawl of those ingrate bumpkins, and they see my kind as impudent city-folk. Straw hats are ridiculously easy to manipulate because of it, though my fellow urbanites are fooled easily enough by appearance to disarm their resistance to fast-talkers like myself.

I get the feeling that you kind of read my post, but skimmed.

I specifically stated that I don't support his predictions so much as what he thought was a preferable outcome.

Any man can predict and be wrong. I support the idea of the system that he wanted. Part of it anyways.

And 'destruction of system' implys that I want to force it on people. I don't. If they don't choose it, that is their choice. And please don't bring up the 'people don't want it'. You don't speak for everyone. While not many may or they simply don't want it enough to move towards it, that does not mean that people don't want it.

The core idea [or product, depending on your view] of it appeals to me as much as how it seeks to accomplish it. I want stability. Capitalism is reletively stable, but I don't like the uncertainty. The recent economic downturns have not served to deter me in this idea in any way, rather, it strengthens my belief that stability is good. There are others that would desire stability too. Recognize that Communism appealed to countries that were in bad shape and that every time there has been a downturn in a Capitalist country, there has been a rise in Communist or Socialist sentiment. Yes, there hasn't been much time since the West stopped oppressing Communist and Socialist thinkers and sympathizers for a pattern to emerge as fully as an average person would recognize, but it is there. By the very nature of the ideology it is inevitable.

Parhaps in the future, I will support more moderate measures and settle for them. Federal Acts that help to provide safetynets, guarentee social security-like programs, etc. rather than outright Communism. But it will always fall in line with a Socialist or Communist ideal.

And remember that while basic education is provided in some countries, others don't do that. China, Japan, Korea. These countries do not and they turn out some of the most accomplished students.

Also, if you actually read my post, you would have seen that I put 'educators' under the necessities of a Communism.

Also, as last that I checked, you are not a leader of economics, nor even recognized in the field. While they may not publish the works or discussions [good likeness too, considering how people jump at the word 'Red'] does not mean that they do not take place. It is a valid economic theory, just like many others. The Capitalist system is the dominate system at the moment, so it follows that the others seem outdated or wrong. It does not mean that they cannot be right. Marx's predications may have been wrong, but that does not mean that his ideas of a Communist society are impossible nor wrong. For one, saying that the Communist idea is invalid because it is not in use is like saying all of the systems that preceeded Capitalism are invalid and always have been. For another, the Communist system has never been in use nor has it ever seen any large-scale applications that could, for certain, invalidate it.

Well I am busy at the moment and can't respond in full but I know Japan provides public education up until at least high school.

So I was wrong on that... I have to check that.
Take your time. I'm interested in what you have to say.

Also: where did Pedro go? I was waiting for his response.

For a second, I thought I wrote this. Seems you're half-way towards my line of thinking.

But you didn't.
I did.

I'm so proud of your progress.

He's on Ler's stream, where I'm at.