Reply #72: Please

[manic expression]

show me how socialism in Cuba, El Salvador, Venezuela and Chile have went to benefit the few. They haven't.

On to your essay....

The best lands may be put to use, but for whom? If they are put to use for the few and BY the people, it is being minimised, for the capital gained by its production simply goes to the wealthy, exploiting the people further. This is why land must be given to all people in relation to their need, for society benefits.

A farmer may rent a tractor, but it may only help to hurt him. Do you think the sharecroppers appreciated your model? No, because they were raped by those who virtually owned them. A farmer may use a tractor, but it may belong to someone else - a corporation. How does this help the individual? It does not. Such man-made products should be provided to the people who need them, through use of other capital, to allow for parity. A community that is put in the hands of the owners of capital is a community that is exploited, a community that has what it needs and deserves is a community that has justice.

Even Argentina, which mechanized as a result of ideal situations, was not able to significantly improve its people's education for about half a century, in spite of so much capitalist "prosperity". Cuba, on the other hand, did the same in a matter of years. Which do you think is better for society and for the people?

It is only right that a government build a railroad from the farms to the city centers/ports of a country. However, a government should not put profit in front of people (as conservatives love to do), and should improve healthcare, education, literacy, housing and other conditions before trying to produce as much as possible. Such improvements will help the people and contribute to society, not to the pockets of business. If one takes the mentality of making profit over people, one will see that it will only lead to a lack of real gain and misuse of capital. It can also lead to neo-colonialism, as countries will develop for other companies and markets instead of for their people. Furthermore, one must only look at Argentina's dire prospects over the last few years to see the reality of capitalist policies in the best case scenario.

Wow. Getting just enough to get out of total slavery...in the long run? Great plan. Meanwhile, in the real world, the public would recieve very little, while the capitalist recieves what he always does: money, through exploiting his workers. And even the workers do get some small improvements, they will stay under the thumb of the person they work for. A system that requires a lot of time and work and effort to give workers a bit of freedom and opportunity is not only flawed but wrong. Even if workers, like in Argentina, begin to amass enough wealth and make a domestic market, this does not go directly to them and continues to make the rich get richer and the poor stay the same. Also, such a system leaves its people out in the cold if there is ever a problem with the economy, as there inevitably is (see Argentina). Meanwhile, there is no literacy, education, healthcare, decent housing and other things that there should be.

In most economies, there is limited fields where one can actually work, and so the people are then chained to working for terrible people in terrible conditions. Fair policies which improve the lives of the people can bring about true and needed change.

The thing that makes me chuckle is that this is the ideal situation, and even then it is very much negative for the people.

Feel free to inject some reason, logic, understanding, perspective and even the slightest idea of justice and equality into your little summary.

This competitive market only goes to help the few, when a system should go to helping all.