The command economy and the market economy do not exist in their pure forms in any country.
Communism, socialism, anarchism, libertarianism, etc. are socio-political ideas. Some of them might put more emphasis on equality and others might put emphasis on absolute freedom. Equality and freedom are two different concepts, but nobody seeks one without the other.
These ideas do not necessarily determine how their economies are managed.
Spare the lecture, spammer.
I’m not the one, mindlessly and endlessly, arguing for communism, here.
@Yutaka- I gave you a rose because you didn’t cut and paste. We got to hear your own opinion for a change 
She looked sunk at the end of last year.
English.
I look forward to future discussions of female power with you.
“I believe women are more likely to dream of a world where everyone eats, sleeps safely at night, is educated if they choose, and there is no punishment, no pollution…”
This may be, but I have never seen any evidence of this. Just looking at female political leaders for example, I can’t really see any difference between them and male political leaders.
“…I can’t really see any difference between them and male political leaders.”
Yes, there is very little difference.
I believe this may be because of male identification. Women see that men hold power in the external world and emulate them by adopting the traits they see; insensitivity, not caring about the environment, the use of deception to gain an upper hand, not crying…
While men control the surface, women tend to know the interior. It is in the internal lands of our minds, where there is depth.
I laughed at “not crying”.
Why the crap would any woman (unless they’re nazi-feminist or what-not) want to emulate a MAN? If I entered politics, I wouldn’t give a rat’s bum about “emulating” men.
And you shouldn’t have to either. Our prime minister doesn’t act like a man and I can’t imagine anyone who would expect a woman in politics to do that either.
Women, contrary to Xuanfu’s beliefs, aren’t necessarily soft and they don’t necessarily have that weakness as politicians if we were to assume that softness is a weakness in politics. The fact a woman doesn’t act soft doesn’t make her a “tractor lesbian” as we call it here, i.e. a lesbian who acts like a man. She can still be a perfectly normal woman.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that a woman can be not soft and still not act like a man or anything else.
Softness, kindness, empathy, endurance, loyalty…these are all human traits.
Though there are a lot of good men in this world, women more consistently embody these qualities.
Remember, in the United States, women didn’t get the right to vote until August 18, 1920 and in Canada it was around that same period.
If women truly held power or let’s say (as in some fantasy novels) that there were no men, would women think to invent bulldozers capable of ravaging the land or guns to kill animals?
For some reason, men come up with these inventions all the time. Many men are more than willing to use force to “get their needs met.”
For whatever reason, the vast majority of inventions have been by men. It makes little sense to point to the bad inventions to back up your argument here.
You make me wonder sometimes.
“Softness, kindness, empathy, endurance, loyalty…these are all human traits.”
This is the problem. You generalize and simplify humans. Human beings are capable of a much larger set of behavioural attributes than those. Your view of human behaviour is very romantic indeed and you seem to think that there’s something inherently wrong with anyone whose behaviour doesn’t conform to your definition of a “human behaviour”. There’s nothing wrong with them. They’re just being human. Same goes for people whose behavioural patterns conform to your ideal, of course. But I don’t buy that those people are always just kind and fair. Disregarding behaviour, very few of us are actually sick. I gather that you may be religious. If we humans were so perfect, would we need religion to teach us how to behave? Would we need laws and a judicial system?
“Remember, in the United States, women didn’t get the right to vote until August 18, 1920 and in Canada it was around that same period.”
I don’t worry that you’ll ever let us forget.
“If women truly held power or let’s say (as in some fantasy novels) that there were no men, would women think to invent bulldozers that ravage the land or guns to kill animals?”
Do you live in a building? Chances are heavy equipment was used to flatten the land for the building to stand on. Also, human beings are carnivores (at least we eat meat, I’m not all that sure about how to use the scientific terminology here) and if you have a problem with that then take it up with Darwin. It’s two million years of evolution and you’re not going to change that anytime soon.
About the fantasy novels though, the writers of those may qualify as sick. I’m not a doctor but there’s my shot at making a diagnosis.
I don’t think Darwin should be held responsible for how human evolution took place.
The guy’s dead. He won’t mind.