isn`t communism at it`s true purest form the fairest way to run a nation??????

Answer 1

And don't unicorns and magic fairies and leprachaun exist to make all our wishes come true?

Answer 2

'Not quite. You say here the "truest" form. Well, that depends.

A nation that has always run this way and knows no other or has no idea that there is a question needing asked in the first place, well, perhaps that would be in the truest form of communism and would be fairest -- but to whom or what?

Do understand, when you have "pure," you have no other quality but this, which is to say, you have created an extreme fixation, a vacuum or void, leaving no compromise or innate capacity to displace. And well, Nature abhors a vacuum.

By Natural Law, therefore, citizens of that given communism nation would but weft and warp and soon proceed to an inertia that pursues the very opposite of what communism is, which is to say, it would proceed in the directions of a market social-economical system like that of America's.

Yet -- not even this market model can in reality abide in a "purest" form any more than can a communist model.

That is the mechanics of it all.

As to the individual him- or herself, communism, which again is an extreme form of socialism, leaves no capacity for growth and freedom; likewise, the market model yields the same effect but arrives at it by means of a different order of circumstances and objectives and perceptions on what is normal.

The extremes of either of these two models collapse ultimately; both rob the inner integrities of men and women. Both are forms and functions of extreme constraint.

While communism can be said to be that of iron shackles by the market model, the market model can be said to be that of gold chains by the communistic model.

The result is the same -- static interia in both cause and effect.

But "purest" resides in the result midst the interim ranges that one observes and prefers and champions. That would be the market model, which range tends to demonstrate the best advantage for sake of growth and balancing action innate in these two opposites.

Perhaps one can say that the disadvantage of the market model is, there is of such extreme and steep angle and rate of velocity, in which case all participants burn out completely by the very attrition and friction of it all. And in the communistic model, the participants waste away from complete disuse and atrophy.

You see? extremes...

A median, however, is part of Natural Law. Therefore, we can say that the market model approximates and demonstrates the greatest chances toward sustainability, for within it manifests the dynamics of achieving balance and demonstrating an inertia of activity, which is considerably natural.

Answer 3

I always though socialism in its true form would be the fairest. Communism would be close as well, though I have some small problems with it.

Course it all assumes that people will actually do what is best for everyone.

EDIT: Communism can be just as free as any other form of government. The Soviet Union twisted true Communism into a totalitarian dictatorship. So don't base your opinions on the Soviet Union or China. They have been ruined by human fallacy.

So do some research before advertising your limited knowledge.

Answer 4

Strictly speaking: yes. In a perfect world, pure communism would be the fairest form of government and economy. The fundamental, cornerstone concept in Karl Marx's version of communism was "From each, according to his ability, and to each, according to his needs." There can be no denying this is fair. But notice I said "in a perfect world." Unfortunately, I don't think that human nature will sustain communism, since there is always a desire to control and to succede. Therefore, communism is a Utopian idea, and not practical, at least on a national, or even state level. It might work on a smaller, micro livel, like in a commune, or a small town, but that's about it.

Answer 5

Sure, a nation in its true purest form would probably be best run with a communist system. Of course this exists only theoretically not in the real world.

Answer 6

Fail. actual communism and actual democracy are both staggering, superb structures. the priority is they actually artwork in small villages without plenty wealth disparity. the real definitions: Communism: All sources is held mutually, all produce is dispensed gently. it truly is really an economic gadget. you've were given democratic communism truthfully. you're conflating it with socialism, it truly is state-owned sources. Democracy: in undemanding words political. All judgements with reference to the "state" are made mutually, with each citizen having equivalent say. it really is it. you may want to structure your economic existence inspite of the shown truth that you want. you're complicated democracy with representative democracy (a republic). Neither artwork with over a pair of hundred human beings, inspite of the indisputable fact that. larger societies have more suitable result on the global and governing has to improve into an complete-time pastime for professionals. yet neither has something to do with earnings taxes. Your definitions fail. Sorry.

Answer 7

Communism in its true form does not reward hard work or innovation. Humans have a tendency to do "good enough" when there is no hope of greater reward. Communism in its true form would create a stagnant society. That may be "good enough" for some, but not for me.

Answer 8

No. Well it is if you are lazy and or stupid and don't want to get ahead. Just in case you haven't noticed communism or socialism as you will doesn't work. Never has but there are still people that are just mad that they don't have what other people have and communism is the way to make everything fair.

Answer 9

Ask the people who live in the Soviet Union. Most of them are starving and looking for jobs. They will tell you that that's what happens with communism when the system fails. Obviously their system did fail. Not only did it fail as a form of government it also failed as a system for the people of Russia

Answer 10

No, to have true communism would mean giving a leader absolute power and that is the same thing the Neo-Cons or Corporate Royalist (which is their old name) would want. I will stick with my Liberal Democratic Republic.

Answer 11

Yes it would be fair, however I think that the nation would suffer as a whole as there would be no incentive to do "get ahead" or work harder as there would be no reward for getting ahead or working harder. The nation would eventualy fall