digibutter.nerr

[Lord Bob]

Frozen, vdo, stay on topic please.

Going back to my original post on the opposites thing, look at Lenin's regime. He instituted the New Economic Policy, which promoted capitalist activity, to save the Russian economy. To get from socialism to communism, some capitalism has to step in. In fact, the government's power was supposed to dissolve from Socialism to Communism. Does this not mean that Capitalism has to be involved somewhere along that line?

[BAMFing ARCHER]

The general route, as I have told you via MSN is Capitalism - Socialism - Communism.

For Capitalism - Socialism, it's generally done through a revolution of sorts. The problem that it can never really get past this is because of human nature: No leader of any revolution would want to give up the power he has obtained, and power eventually corrupts.

Let us say a society miraculously makes it past that problem.

For Socialism - Communism, there are two ways I see it happening.

1) A revolution from the current socialist government, where the revolutionaries abolish the government and set up a society where communism would work.

2) The socialist government would have to guide the people towards communism. This method would take a while, lasting until the youngest person that was alive at that time, until they were dead, and in their grave.

In general, Capitalism is where you'd start off. You'd move from the mountain of capitalism, to the hill of socialism, finally to the plains of communism, if you want me to put it that way.

[prince kamoro]

What basically happens is that there is capitalism, then the working class gets mad that the rich people are getting all the money. They revolt, and form a government that evenly redistributes the wealth, making socialism. After that, the government dies away, leaving a classless society, forming communism.