Enslave the Poor Options

[Dogmeat]

It's really dawned on me that the poor, be they white, black, mexican, eskimo, french, who or whatever ..

Essentially contribute nothing to society.

They're lazy, they have bad attitudes, they aren't motivated, and generally speaking are just leeches on the rest of us who are actually attempting to be productive in life.

The problem with slavery in the past is that it targeted people by race, relegion or other politically incorrect classifications.

I propose that with the last century of what I'll call "Civil Rights Development" in mind, we re-instate slavery however we only enslave those who are jobless.

In essense, we can find everyone a job and then provide them with healthcare, etc, if they are enslaved.

It would be bad business for us to not take care of our slaves, however, the price for us taking care of them will be their slavery.

IE, they will work when, where, and how we tell them to work.

Eventually, once they've worked long and hard enough and are able to support themselves, they will be free of slavery, and than can own their own slaves.

I mean think about it ..

The poor in the ghettos, trailer parks, igloos, whatever... are poor, dejected, on drugs, etc ... they hate where they are, yet somehow, they refuse to leave.

I say we make em leave the shitholes they live in. If they won't get out on their own, we'll make them, enslave them, and force them to better themselves..

All the while contributing to the economy ... we'll have a society of productive people who aren't lazy anymore.

Sound good? I think so.

Dogmeat for President!

[The Fanatic]

The communist ideology and connotation has been corrupted by Leninism and Stalinism. While originally Marx's notion of the communism form of government as Zach has pointed out was the ultimate goal of men and parties who called themselves socialists, communists, or international worker's groups. The only problem now is that there has been quite a blending of many different economic, political, and sociological backgrounds in the formation of new "gray" states that can not be categorized quite so easily. A prime example of this is the people's republic of China which was formed out of the core beliefs of stalinism and agrarian communist principles, yet today it is dominated by a capitalist globalized economy. Culture can better explain why the principles of Marx differed from one nation to another. When Marx's principles were applied in western europe they were done so democratically because of the route and history that those states had established in determining the proper socio economic reforms needed to better the people. In places like China and Russia (Russia with it's history of reactionary totalitarian tsarist regimes and China with it's history of emperor worship, huge imperial bureaucracies, and corruption) led these nations to corruptly and in most cases incorrectly apply the concepts of Marx and Engels through massive economic reforms aimed at quickly establishing an industrial capitalist economy. Being as Capitalism was a necessary part of the economic evolution to the eventual communist utopia, these agrarian peasant economies were "forced" to displace and kill millions in order to achieve their goals. To conclude, I would argue that while originally both terms were synonymous, in that socialism was a natural precursor and step (as zach said) to the communist "utopia", these terms do not accurately represent the original ideology set forth. Today, most socialists reject the notion of the "utopia" set forth by Marx realizing that socialist principles of economic redistribution and equality can be achieved within a capitalist framework. Also, communist can no longer be described from a purely philosopical or politcal framework without mentioning the corruption that is Stalinism. So while I would argue that both system came from the same ideology they are no longer synonymous and invoke very different political, social, and economic institutions.