Quote Originally Posted by RenoDorvay View Post
I would say Facebook giving certain countries and areas "free" internet via special balloons as a positive, even if there are ulterior motives the outcome of this is generally positive. Google provides utilities like Google Maps for free even though we pay for them it in other ways it is highly sophisticated software that we do not get charged to use, think about how expensive GPS units were years ago, hundreds of dollars to get a unit that could do what Maps does on your phone for free. I know that's a poor example but it's all I can think of off-hand and I love Maps lol.



Communism is neutral. People only feel that it is immoral because the idea of restructuring the economy and introducing a new way of handling economic matters is jarring to a lot of people. There's this idea that communism means every person will literally have to give a poor person money or possessions but the reality is that it's more a spectrum with banana fascist republics pretending to be communism (where you really do have to give people, the government officials, your money) on one end and "capitalist communist" states like China (where I'm sure poor people do get screwed but the middle class do okay) on the other end. You can still be a millionaire and live a good life in China, but you can also be terribly poor and have a terrible life.

It's also worth noting that the versions of communism we do see active in the world are region specific versions and they don't necessarily follow the lay-out that Marx wrote, I don't think Marx would have approved of the corruption that we see in communist countries. Communism is not a very good political system and it does not succeed in practice because the economy that Karl Marx lived through and envisioned for the future did not anticipate our global economy and life-style changes, it is a flawed system but not an immoral one because its central tenet is equality for the "proletariat" because when it was written laborers had it tough, a lot tougher than laborers do in western countries now.

Anarchism is even more neutral than communism as it is at its core just about decentralised government, there is still "government" it's just more like a loose association of different fluid bodies, groups and territories all of whom control their own rules and regulations independently of each other. It would be messy but messy isn't necessarily immoral, it's just messy.
The idea that an anarchy system literally means no rules and no authority is an idea perpetuated by conservatives, I do not support anarchism but I do think it is misrepresented.

In regards to your second point I come from Australia where we have socialised (about 70% socialised imo because we don't get dental or optical cover - you need private for that) health care and our country does fine, it's not very expensive and health care professionals still make money. The same can be said for Canada and other countries.

"Socialism" has been turned into this scary word that conservatives like to haul around trying to spook people with during election cycles but the truth is that modern "socialism" just means strengthening the safety net and enforcing regulations and fixing tax loop holes.
A. I'm not talking about communism from it's corrupt perspective although that is still highly relevant. I dispute the very core of marxist theory. The idea that punishing hard work can be considered moral is highly delusion. Furthermore even theoretical marxism fails to work economically in principle. It's effective at the redistribution of wealth but fails entirely at it's production. Which is why it's failed multiple times.

B. Australia's government expenditure on health in 2016-17 was $71.4 billion and it's socialisation is insignificant to the likes of Canada. Which by the way has waiting times so unreliable and long it would be a human rights violation if it weren't government owned and run.

C. Being a (libertarian) conservative myself you clearly don't understand the argument being made here. Socialism is an ideology which supports more government power and control (otherwise known as big government). People are afraid of socialism because it is associated with more taxation, social and economic regulation. Ultimately leading to an inefficient and slow economy. Historically speaking socialist states have always failed. Not one has ever lead to wealth and prosperity. The left and the media were praising Venezuela when it initially went socialist, well look how that turned out.