Most theories, philosophies and even religions sound good as they are proposed in their pure form - but the implentation by imperfect humans often leads to less than ideal outcomes.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

Lol

Hahahaha

"How do you think the capitalist gets rich?" Surely you jest.

Capitalists, as defined by Marx, are a class of evil owners of the means of production who heartily exploit workers by stealing the gains provided by their work. So, by this definition, to which you appear to subscribe, capitalists steal from workers to get rich.

Thus, Marx turned 'profit' into a bad thing and 'Capitalist' into a pejorative. But interestingly, Samuel Gompers, a British born American labor leader once said, " The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit."

What Marx failed to acknowledge is the symbiosis which exists between workers and the Capitalist. Marx ignored, I think he quite deliberately ignored, that the Capitalist puts his wealth at risk when he employs his wealth to hire workers in his employ.

Marx seems to have forgotten money, part of the Capitalist's wealth, has both an income (wealth creating) potential and a cost (money borrowed to provide the means of production).

Marx was a political economist who was selling a Utopian scheme which he knew was eventually intuitively distasteful to workers.

This is why ownership in common does not work without the coercive power of the state. Workers, poor workers, like the 'we own it, we share the wealth' idea until they realize the stealing of the fruits of their labor continues under Socialism.

Worse, the state has other uses for profits and the workers, having no choice, end up poorer. Socialism and Marxism both inherently require control, of not only the means of production, but also of the lives, likes, and thinking of the workers.

The 'Bosses' live high, eat well, enjoy life and drive nice cars while not bothered with the need to find or risk capital. The worker's sweat is cheap capital indeed.

Oh my GAWWWWWWWWWD.

Bill Gates is smarter than you.

Just get over it and move on with your life.

someone said, 'communism is the most painful path between capitalism and capitalism'. without capitalism we would probably be digging dirt for a living and dying at a young age. oh! and serfdom not democracty, coz captalism gave us merchants who had economic power, they demanded political power. this was the befining of parliamentary democracy.

@Magnifico Smartest thing I've read in far too many pages. This thread reminds me of listening to first year politics students during their 'earnest' period.

@Geezer: "...capitalist puts his wealth at risk..." where did"his" wealth come from?

.