Sort:  

Righton, though it seems strange as it is certainly a well meaning system, especially in contrast to Capitalism. Communism implies caring for all while Capitalism is basically the fittest rule.

Communism implies caring for all

Capitalism feeds people and Communism killed dozens of million people within less than a century. I'd say Communism implies murdering everyone who doen't consent. That's why I personally rather take my chances in the arena survival.

If you believe Communism has killed more people than Capitalism then I'd suggest some alternate reading.

Capitalism has been behind almost all atrocities, including the communising of the Soviet Union and China.

Capitalism has been behind the replacement of almost every legitimate government on every continent with illegitimate factions, sustained with the objective of undermining any force which competes with US political and world domination objectives. These include Asia and particularly East Asia, Africa, South America, the Middle East and even Europe.

I am no communist but I certainly abhor the way in which Capitalists have applied the maxim "All for us and nothing for anyone else" meaning their cosy group rather than capitalists at large.

Both systems have been grossly misused but Capitalism's misuse has been more carefully secreted from the public eye as the sheeple have been manipulated via the most powerful of all weapons the world has ever seen, being modern media, in the form of radio, television the Internet and social media.

Both systems have been misused by the same entities which manipulate governments and world powers, primarily through debt slavery.

Here are some sources of note

Capitalism has been behind almost all atrocities, including the communising of the Soviet Union and China.

So, it is Capitalisms fault that they allowed Communsits to run into their own knife? Not so sure about that.

I am currently translating the book Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks as a little project here on steemit and I do have to say, I am absolutely shocked about the theoretic background of collectivism. The political left is nothing but insane and they follow an insane set of rules and "truths" and constantly try to force it on others.

Even if you're not interested in changing your mind about the political left, I recommend you to read the book, because it is A) comprehensive and B) at least at the end you know the objections against Communism and collectivism in general.

You can find it as PDF here and I believe there is also an audio book on YouTube.

Feel free to engage in a discussion about it with me;-)

You send me some pertinent commentary of your own on the sources I referred you to and I will consider reading the book.

You might say that I extol the precepts taught by the Master, wherever they are to be found.

I still favour capitalism over most leftist thinking but not the way it has been applied. The essence of Capitalism needs to be tempered with compassion and understanding and a greater commitment to service.

A man considered to be the greatest Industrialist and possibly Capitalist is Andrew Carnegie said some relevant things :

The day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was free for him to administer during life, will pass away unwept, unhonored, and unsung, no matter to what uses he leave the dross which he cannot take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then be: The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced. Such, in my opinion, is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor.
Andrew Carnegie

The man of wealth [should] consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer to produce the most beneficial results for the community - the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than that they would or could do for themselves.
Andrew Carnegie

Sadly his example and exhortations fell on deaf ears and blind eyes.

Thanks for the reply. Carnegie surely wasn't wrong. But Communists wouldn't even allow him to use his talent and amass a fortune, even is he would give it away at the end. That's the tragedy.

Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of capitalism as well. But what choice do we have? All collectivism always ends in misery for everyone. With freedom and capitalism on the other hand, you and everyone else can adapt.

And one more thing: If I had to chose between freedom and democracy, I would always chose freedom. Because in a democracy, it can happen that you are on the minority side your whole life. With freedom on the other hand, you are the one who decides for yourself. That's why I think democracy is important, but freedom is essential.

Political ideologies are not the point here, although part of the cause is politics. The issue is that people in Cape Town (and elsewhere in the world) are very interested in living for now without a care for the future. They live under the assumption that the government will provide - which is inherently incorrect. People forget that they have a responsibility to provide for themselves and their family and put aside some for the future. This has not been done by many people and certainly their elected officials.
It is a sad outcome for the lovely people of Africa; however, we can expect this and similar crises to occur in many cities around the world.
Now the government and people will have to pay an organisation, sic Coca-Cola, that has invested significantly to extract resources, process them and set up logistics for delivery. The people and government could have done the same - but chose not to do this in favour of less productive programs of expenditure.