Actually, as far as non-legal problems are concered (meaning health-related problems), alcohol is far worse (and far more addictive) than marijuana. The only reason why marijuana is considered such a problem is because it was made illegal. Back in the 1920's/1930's criminalizing it was a way of punishing Mexicans and black Americans. It was made illegal because of it's popularity with minorities, even after the American Doctor's Association said that it was fine.

People seem to think of drugs in very black and white terms. Perscription medication can have side effects worse than that of cocaine, but while it's fine if people take that, you're scum if you smoke a joint.

I say this completely objectively, as I have never used marijuana before in my life. Anyway, way off topic, back to the matter at hand...

Actually, you are being to prudent.  Communism calls for a dictator or oligarchy after the revolution.  The democratic-no government utopia is the dream at the end of the communist path... When all nations of the world are COmmunist.  (Never gonna happen)

from the communist manifesto:

"

Within the party at all times, and within society at large after the revolution, the role of central leadership is decisive. The working class requires a general staff that places the victory of communism above all other goals and that fights to make the party the leader of society.

After the leadership has guaranteed full and open discussion of policy, every party member and worker must develop the discipline to accept and carry out the collective decision. Even those who disagree must hold to this discipline. The effort to put party decisions into action must be united everywhere. Later we can see clearly the rightness or wrongness of decisions, and, if need be, make adjustments or scrap them. In this way, both majority and minority viewpoints will get a serious hearing.

Throughout the process of seizing, holding and expanding revolutionary power, workers need only one leading political force--the communist party. Before and during the revolution, tens of millions of workers, soldiers and students will join or support the communist party. Only a party with such a mass base can successfully lead a revolution. After the revolution, workers and their allies will not need a government separate from the party. Either such a government would be a rubber-stamp for the workers' mass party, or it would represent enemies of communism. Surely a rubber-stamp government is useless and deceptive. And workers must never again share power with class enemies. We propose that after the revolution, the party--composed of tens of millions of workers--lead society."

I'm sorry, but your theory is bull. It's cute that you actually believe that a cure could exist for something, but there isn't. There are only treatments and if there actually was a cure for even anything as much as the common cold, it could have teh potential to doom the human race.

People are designed to have their own immune system. Just like how we have muscles in our body for preforming tasks. In order to be able to do a lot with out muscles, we have to train our muscles by having them do work. As we work our strength and control increases. Have you ever seen a martial artist, athlete or anybody in a physically demanding field that improved their strength and skills by having someone else do the work for them?

If a cure is developed for anything, we will depend on that, our immune systems will fall into disuse, some uncontrollable factor will change in the common cold and teh "cure" will be useless and no one on earth will have an immune system strong enough to deal with it. 

Democratic Communism:

Democratic communism is a socio-economic system with communism as the economic basis and democracy as the governing principle. This entails that the means of production would be controlled and owned by the entire population and that political power would be in the hands of the people, whether through democracy that is representative or direct.

We often think Communism as always run like the Soviet totalitarian government, but in fact it can be a democracy, these have occurred particularly in South America (e.g. Chile), but in recent times the US has undermined and stamped them out

The US government and other western governments and Corporate business would find Democratic Communism to be a real threat and challenge as it's a stable fair system of government that works outside the capitalist system of ownership which all western governments have based their societies on, such a challenge is not easily tolerated by the wealthy of the world, it would undermine their power of ownership over us

This video is kind of related to the topic. The Worlds Rich controlling all the worlds population and resources through our own greed and fears, this will result eventually where a few will rule the many for ever

 I'm afraid you are incorrect, both on your ideas about Evolution, as its not alwyas the strongest or most skilled or even that with the best hunting strategy that survives, sometimes the smallest and weakest is best adapted for a ecological niche.

Secondly Saying Capitalism is unfair and leaving it at that, is a recipie for economic failure, for you end up with economic ineffieicencies,  market failures, backlash through collective action, etc.

I'm not touching this thread with a 20 metre pole!





I'm a Social Democrat

Yeah, cause, it's not like we haven't had cures via immunization and other medicine before. Things like polio still are some of our most crippling problems.

The truth is, modern treatments deal with the symptoms and not the cause instead of worrying about the cause. There are some things are immune systems can't do, because there are some diseases people don't get cured from. Therefore our immune systems are no use in the first place.

 If polio was a probelm now, instead of a vaccine we'd have treatments that would make the symptoms less bothersome, because it would be far more profitable that way.

Right there you just showed why your idea fails.  Who defines "accomplish something"?  From here you can say any dissent does accomplish something. 

Anyone trying to an idea that others think won't work or is stupid will also be labeled as not accomplishing anything.

Honestly, I can forgive you since your 13.  But you're  advocating a system that has killed millions, upon millions of its own people in Russia, and the most people by percentage in Cambodia.  

Basic college level economics shows that most (though not all) types of government economic actions create a deadweight economic loss to society, especially the main sorts of price controls that centrally planned economies use.  Again, you're 12, so its fine that you don't know this but to most anyone with an college education, economics has shown that communism fails in theory and history that it fails in fact.

 Socialism in the US is unpopular for several reasons. 

1. People who live here choose to, and choose to because they believe they can do better in a profit motivated system.

2. US citizens may not have the highest median income world-wide but they have the highest 2nd quartile.  This means that the 2nd quartile lives better than in any other country, while the 1st quartile is poorer in some respects they still are pretty split (see #1).

3. People above the median income (the 3rd and 4th quartiles) are the ones who run the country.  The US gov't, the States, and municipalities are very big, pretty much anyone from the top half can get a position in gov't if they wanted to.  They don't want to because of the profit motivator. The poorer half can get jobs in government pretty easily; actually Police, Military, Education, Public Health are all desparate for workers.

Revolutions (peaceful or violent) only happen when the richer half of society is still opressed by a separate political class.  In Russia and China, the only major Communist revolutionary instances, happened with considerable outside influence and world war in countries with almost no middle class.

Communism vs Capitalism. Technically it seems Capitalism works better, yet can't work without government control or trusts, monopolies, corruption, ect will arise as we saw in America in the early 1900's. That's the main problem with capitalism is sometimes competition doesn't necessarily always fuel the integrity but combines forces.

While with Communism in theory it sounds good, but has never been executed correctly do to most governments in general being pretty bad at carrying out anything.

As for what would the world be like without money? It'd probably be exactly teh same as some other form or type of thing like money would arise. It's not money that corrupts or empowers people, but the natural human state. Unavoidable.