What are the pros and cons of state owned businesses?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's the real problem. That's why I think a revolution is needed. I think that way too many money is lost on the rich.

Bah, the rich will just hire an army (paying them more than you can, of course) and shoot down all the hippie revolutionaries .

After all, they have all the cool guns and toys... and the military is generally more conservative anyway .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I support Spiffor there too . So what's the argument.

Hence Spiffor's last post .

What attitude does that face represent? I have no idea.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
and the military is generally more conservative anyway .

That's generally because the republicans like to spend money on them. If another party wanted to spend more money on them it would change their attitudes.

[Az]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That's the real problem. That's why I think a revolution is needed. I think that way too many money is lost on the rich.

Bah, the rich will just hire an army (paying them more than you can, of course) and shoot down all the hippie revolutionaries .

After all, they have all the cool guns and toys... and the military is generally more conservative anyway .

The sad thing is, that this is true.

We can attempt this with Europe, though. We'd have much more support, and they have no military to speak of anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's generally because the republicans like to spend money on them. If another party wanted to spend more money on them it would change their attitudes.

I don't think that's it. The type of person that goes into the military is generally more conservative. They are more patriotic and love their country more. Even though they are poorer, they generally follow conservative policies (which isn't rare... poor Southerners and Midwesterners also will vote Republican).

The left is generally less patriotic, so less in tune with the type of military person.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What attitude does that face represent? I have no idea.

represents embarassment ("oops")

[Kidlicious]

If the army did attack civilians I think that that would permanently damage the reputation of the govt. It might prevent a revolution in the short run, but not the long run. If it happened during a depression I think there would be big trouble. The only reason the Chinese govt maintains power is because of their economy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We can attempt this with Europe, though. We'd have much more support, and they have no military to speak of anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the army did attack civilians I think that that would permanently damage the reputation of the govt.

Not if the civilians were engaged in a revolution. It probably would increase the reputation of the government.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That's generally because the republicans like to spend money on them. If another party wanted to spend more money on them it would change their attitudes.

I don't think that's it. The type of person that goes into the military is generally more conservative. They are more patriotic and love their country more. Even though they are poorer, they generally follow conservative policies (which isn't rare... poor Southerners and Midwesterners also will vote Republican).

The left is generally less patriotic, so less in tune with the type of military person.

I don't think liberals are unpatriotic, the left yes. Liberals tend to turn to the left though during periods where the govt isn't working.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If the army did attack civilians I think that that would permanently damage the reputation of the govt.

Not if the civilians were engaged in a revolution. It probably would increase the reputation of the government.

Is a revolution marching to the capital in mass and demanding change? If you mean taking up arms and attacking the military of course the military would attack them.

[Odin]

My idea of a communist economy would be having the essentials, such as healthcare, agriculture, insurance, etc, be state run. Luxury good industries would be ran by employee-controlled, democratic enterprises. The workers elect the board of directors and can fire them when they want to. The employees get an equal share of the profit. The employees also elect a supervisor for the thier worksite, this supervisor has the power to hire and fire employees.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think liberals are unpatriotic

Not UNpatriotic, but LESS patriotic. There is a difference.

Is a revolution marching to the capital in mass and demanding change?

No, unless you have a different definition of revolution .

[Az]

Wouldn't that create a collision of interests?

Besides, I want a system in which the entire society will decide on the future of the economy, and this won't have this. Just groups of people deciding on their individual patches of influence over the economy. It's just a bit more egalitarian capitalism, that's it.

[Az]

No, unless you have a different definition of revolution

Actually, that's how the fascists made the revolution.