First off, communism describes both state and economic function while capitalism only describes economic function so you needed a razzing.

democracy can't exist in a system dominated by money

This is at least a categorically consistent statement... but still wrong. The ability for a genuine democracy to operate runs downriver from its economic function. And I'm stressing "genuine" as a qualifier, not trying to slip it in unnoticed. See democracy in african "countries" versus the lifecycle of American democracy.

Now the thing that disgusts me about your attitude, is the assumption of democracy as both a goal and a lost cause, and how we must all turn to hippy dippy economic floof promises that progress one way or another into underclass starvation and slaughter.

Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend. It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy) and the United States of America, and the iterations of empires that happened in their growth and in their wake (coming soon in our case, one would imagine).

It's just gonna crumble into a "dictatorship" (Empire), crumble further, and spring up in some new form. All that matters is the money when that happens. It must be based on a commodity, the rest will form itself around that, laying in wait for the next Big Dupe to keep the cycle of entropy going.

I don't like talking about a preferred system like it is a football team. To be honest, if YOU were King of the World and could implement whatever system you wanted, but the bean counters in a utopia of your design were competently game-locked, the rest would fall into place without your consent in function and, save for the event of my total failure, I would be left exactly where I am now laboring for basic needs and bitching about Worst Thing.

First off, communism describes both state and economic function while capitalism only describes economic function so you needed a razzing.

democracy can't exist in a system dominated by money

This is at least a categorically consistent statement... but still wrong. The ability for a genuine democracy to operate runs downriver from its economic function. And I'm stressing "genuine" as a qualifier, not trying to slip it in unnoticed. See democracy in african "countries" versus the lifecycle of American democracy.

Now the thing that disgusts me about your attitude, is the assumption of democracy as both a goal and a lost cause, and how we must all turn to hippy dippy promises that progress one way or another into underclass starvation and slaughter.

Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend. It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy) and the United States of America, and the iterations of empires that happened in their growth and in their wake (coming soon in our case, one would imagine).

It's just gonna crumble into a "dictatorship" (Empire), crumble further, and spring up in some new form. All that matters is the money when that happens. It must be based on a commodity, the rest will form itself around that, laying in wait for the next Big Dupe to keep the cycle of entropy going.

I don't like talking about a preferred system like it is a football team. To be honest, if YOU were King of the World and could implement whatever system you wanted, but the bean counters in a utopia of your design were competently game-locked, the rest would fall into place without your consent in function and, save for the event of my total failure, I would be left exactly where I am now laboring for basic needs and bitching about Worst Thing.

First off, communism describes both state and economic function while capitalism only describes economic function so you needed a razzing.

democracy can't exist in a system dominated by money This is at least a categorically consistent statement... but still wrong. The ability for a genuine democracy to operate runs downriver from its economic function. And I'm stressing "genuine" as a qualifier, not trying to slip it in unnoticed. See democracy in african "countries" versus the lifecycle of American democracy.

Now the thing that disgusts me about your attitude, is the assumption of democracy as both a goal and a lost cause, and how we must all turn to hippy dippy promises that progress one way or another into underclass starvation and slaughter.

Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend. It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy) and the United States of America, and the iterations of empires that happened in their growth and in their wake (coming soon in our case, one would imagine).

It's just gonna crumble into a "dictatorship" (Empire), crumble further, and spring up in some new form. All that matters is the money when that happens. It must be based on a commodity, the rest will form itself around that, laying in wait for the next Big Dupe to keep the cycle of entropy going.

I don't like talking about a preferred system like it is a football team. To be honest, if YOU were King of the World and could implement whatever system you wanted, but the bean counters in a utopia of your design were competently game-locked, the rest would fall into place without your consent in function and, save for the event of my total failure, I would be left exactly where I am now laboring for basic needs and bitching about Worst Thing.

First off, communism describes both state and economic function while capitalism only describes economic function so you needed a razzing.

democracy can't exist in a system dominated by money This is at least a categorically consistent statement... but still wrong. The ability for a genuine democracy to operate runs downriver from its economic function. And I'm stressing "genuine" as a qualifier, not trying to slip it in unnoticed. See democracy in african "countries" versus the lifecycle of American democracy.

Now the thing that disgusts me about your attitude, is the assumption of democracy as both a goal and a lost cause, and how we must all turn to hippy dippy promises that progress one way or another into underclass starvation and slaughter.

Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend. It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy) and the United States of America, and the iterations of empires that happened in their growth and in their wake (coming soon in our case, one would imagine).

It's just gonna crumble into a "dictatorship" (Empire), crumble further, and spring up in some new form. Talking about your preferred system like it is a football team. To be honest, if YOU were King of the World and could implement whatever system you wanted, but the bean counters in a utopia of your design were competently game-locked, the rest would fall into place without your consent in function and, save for the event of my total failure, I would be left exactly where I am now laboring for basic needs and bitching about Worst Thing.