What is Communism?
Communism works the day people dare to open their minds, hearts and everything there is to open, and lay down all kinds of judgment. As the world is now, communism will never work, and the beginning of world wide communism would have to be fitted to every area, but in time they all would work for a common goal and the science will move a lot faster than it does today. Communism offers rich leaders and all poor people; it is a failed ideology. In Communism, people would work because they would know the necessity of their and work, if they refused to work they would not benefit from the labor of others. The closest thing a Communism would have to a government would be councils elected by the people, councils which would be kept under control by the people; they would have no real power or authority. Some people hate the rich and some cops hate rich people and they want communism. Communism would work in its purest form if people were mere machines. Communism can’t work because people have different talents and skills, thus people can’t all be equal, or classless. Communism strips the power of the people; there is no freedom as all the media is censored, which in turn limits freedom of expression. What people need to understand is that there is idealistic communism, and then there is the reality: corrupt dictatorships posing as communism, which is in fact the opposite of the idealistic people’s rule. According the definition of communism by the man who coined the phrase, communism *is* stateless and classless. Most of people outside really scared of communism will go into the people mind and try to get rid of it.
CAPITALISM AND COMPASSION: a test of Milbrath
Summary – From his observations of environmentalists Milbrath extracts the generalization that there is something inimical between capitalism and compassion. Clearly, Milbrath believes that capitalism and altruistic compassion are fundamentally at odds with one-another. If capitalism and altruistic compassion are opposed, then it should follow that those who feel at home with capitalism and support it will be less altruistic and compassionate. In the subsequent 1983 State election voters had a 3-way choice — between a Leftist party and two conservative parties. There could be no doubt that a vote for the National party was a vote for capitalism. Conservatives who were less confident in the virtue of capitalism could vote for the Liberal party. The differential degree of altruism shown by the supporters of the three main parties in this election should therefore provide a fairly finely-tuned test of Milbrath’s hypothesis. If Milbrath is right, the National party voters should show especially low scores on the compassionate altruism scale and especially high scores on the `AO’ scale. RESULTS. The contrast of chief interest was thought to lie between the National party voters and the Labor party voters. National voters were significantly more ambitious and Labor voters were significantly more compassionate. Voters for the other conservative party showed mean scores on altruism almost identical to those of Labor voters and mean scores on achievement orientation almost identical to National voters. Many quite compassionate people vote in Queensland for a fanatical champion of capitalism.
compassionate capitalism Archives
That’s a small number, nearly insignificant, but if every company dedicated just 1% of its revenues and time to the community around it, the difference would be monumental. A business is not an island; it’s the product of the community it was formed in, and its enduring success is dependent on that same community. This idea is at odds with the way many companies do business. It’s accepted that many corporations are more concerned with profits than with the community or environment surrounding it. That’s enough to fix up a local park, keep a food pantry stocked for months, or divide between a few local charities. This practice doesn’t just take the cooperation of a few huge corporations; it takes small businesses, too. If enough small businesses joined together, donating a fraction of their revenue and some of their time, they could help prevent children from going hungry by sponsoring community gardens. They could clean up their neighborhoods and make their towns and cities a cleaner, safer place to live, or support a local animal shelter, or host workshops to teach career skills to local students or unemployed community members. They sound like such small things, but when all of these small things add up, they become an unstoppable movement of compassion and gratitude. There are also tangible benefits for businesses, such as an improved business profile as members of the community associate the business with its involvement. You may be just one person, or the leader of a small business. Even a small percentage can have a lasting positive effect on your surrounding area.
Capitalism and compassion: Can they coexist? – SD Monitor News
In a free market, the bottom line is simply, the bottom line. Capitalism has become largely about self-interest, consumerism, sleight of hand and the bottom line. A person may be able to provide financially, but not emotionally – because the two systems are often disjointed. In a system that is profit driven, the raw material for intimacy and connection is rarely cultivated or valued. Fact is, business is personal, and sterilizing the brutal impacts of self-interested economics through such phraseology does not shelter us. Poverty has an impact on both physical and mental health. As the middle class founders and people blame themselves for their fiscal woes, which in turn may be associated with higher levels of stress, as well as depression, anxiety and maladaptive coping, the impacts of a system based solely on a bottom line which benefits a few appear to be bad for the mental health of many. Our economic and incentivization systems are a set-up for failure and disappointment for those who are the most vulnerable to experience the worst outcomes. The free market system has become the bellwether of myriad systems in our culture – educational, commercial, media, medical and spiritual. It becomes difficult to teach children empathy and emotional regulation when the system into which they are being acculturated does not value these qualities. Because the system does not equitably provide opportunity across all socioeconomic strata. As the cultural, economic and political needles move, so too does mental health.