Since when? Neo-cons do not believe that other democracies should be enslaved. We want to give people options....communists want to take options away.

How so? No neo-con will say we are perfect...just better than everything else. The two terms are not the same thing.

Despots rarely if ever surrender their power volunarily.

The differences are not just economic.

If we are giving the masses a choice, it is not totalitarianism by definition.

That isnt what communists propose though. So how can you call yourself a communist?

Communists invariably want limits put on what the masses can do. They justify this by saying that the masses will be "manipulated" into surrendering their power otherwise.

In a Capitalist democracy, the poor have exact the same voice as the rich...with one difference. By definition, there will always be more poor than rich. So the poor will ALWAYS have more political power in a democracy, because there are more of them. More votes.

So Capitalists only have as much power as the poor allow.

If nearly all people agree, then what are you afraid of? Why not let them keep the options they have now?

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Man is born destitute of everything, naked as the beasts of the forest. At birth man is not yet a man. To become one he must provide himself with the things that make man a man. In other words, with that which distinguishes man from animal. And that is because man is almost entirely an animal like all others, to such a degree that one often wonders if it was worth the effort to become a man. Now what is necessary to become a man is within the limits of poverty; rather, it is poverty itself, nothing more and nothing less. Beyond this limit begins wealth, which is to say, the superflous. But poverty is man's normal condition, because wealth, which is superflous, does not make him more a man than poverty does. To be rich then would be an abnormal condition for man. Abnormal, hence inhuman.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

Wealth is not superfluous. At worst, it increases the quality of life. At best, it increases the chances of survival and reproduction.

No, because "wealth" exists in every species. Lions compete for teh privillage of leading the Pride. Wolves compete for the privillage of leading the pack as the Alpha Male.

The benefits are obvious. Better/more mating partners. Better food. Better living conditions. Humans have analogs to all those things, and you can see them in our nearest relatives, the Great Apes.

Wealth and desiring wealth are not abnormal at all...they are 100% natural.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Yes it is, it consists in attributing an expressive function to everything that is superfluous, the superfluous isnt expressive otherwise it wouldnt be superfluous. The Chinese, judging from what one could see on the streets, possessed the necessary but not the superfluous. They are poor. No one could doubt that their humanity is complete, but it lacks something that could be obtained through wealth, that is, the superfluous. Before their revolution there were poor Chinese who had barely enough and rich Chinese who lived off the superfluous. The former were degraded and the latter were inhuman. As soon as the rich and their superfluity disappeared, the poor suddenly became human again, although they still had only barely enough.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

"In a Capitalist democracy, the poor have exact the same voice as the rich...with one difference. By definition, there will always be more poor than rich. So the poor will ALWAYS have more political power in a democracy, because there are more of them. More votes.

So Capitalists only have as much power as the poor allow."

I don't believe you have even tried to deny the following concept:-

1) There are 2 people, person A and person B
2) Person A is rich, Person B is poor
3) In a capitalist society, a person with wealth has more options avaliable to him/her because the options of certain services, certain goods and certain lifestyles cost money
4) More options means that person has more freedom, the freedom of choice.
5) Therefore person A has more freedom than person B

"communists want to take options away"

Only the option to trample over your fellow man

"That isnt what communists propose though. So how can you call yourself a communist?"

Have you actually read any marxist texts?

I have read the words of actual communists. The text is only relevant if people actually follow it. So far, I have not seen any self-proclaimed communists that have.

Unfortunately, their definition of "trample" is so absurdly broad that it could encompass every action.

Person A has 1 vote. Person B has one vote. More people are like person A than person B. Therefore, Person A has more control over laws than person B.

No amount of wealth can give person B more political power. He has only one vote.

That is true in any society though. Even communist ones. There is no way to ensure everyone is exactly equal. Therefore, there will always be rich and poor. All communism changes is the medium of barter.

Who decides what is superfluous?

And yet even the poor in America live better than the average Chinese citizen. so which system is truely more desirable?

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

"Person A has 1 vote. Person B has one vote. More people are like person A than person B. Therefore, Person A has more control over laws than person B.

No amount of wealth can give person B more political power. He has only one vote."

What?! there are more rich people than poor people? Person A is the rich man.

Assuming that you just got mixed up on that point, I still disagree. Not only does a rich person have more personal freedom (which according to you doesn't count), but the rich do have more control over the laws. What proportion of public representatives are from a poor background? Also, surely you don't deny that the media plays a big part in the outcome of an election? And who owns the media? The Rich people.

"And yet even the poor in America live better than the average Chinese citizen. so which system is truely more desirable?"

Please note that China is more like a corporate police state, it's communist in name only.