Well, for the most part..........it does. The Soviets discovered that belief in a supreme power APART from one's government is the beginning of the rejection of that government as the ruling authority. Since socialism requires obedience and adherence to central directives (Social Security, Medicare, Universal Healthcare, environmental dictates, minority rights rules) in order to function, most socialists/leftists recognize the need for focus on enforcement of social order rather than hope in some devine power.

I nevertheless don't accept the government as the final authority, but merely the acting force that implements directives for the good of the society... a government that does not do this needs to be changed or destroyed. Without some external benchmark, we have no way to judge the rights or wrongs of a given government. This doesn't mean this external benchmark has to come from some supreme power, but I don't think it's inconsistent with socialism/communism... People can view certain interpretations and understandings of religion as a threat and contradictory to capitalism too... the "threat" of religion on a system is not just restricted to socialists/communists, but capitalists as well.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Are you sure it was an improvement? Explain why you think so, please?

Are you sure? It seems like we still have a lot of that going on now. In fact, are you really sure that you aren't just assuming that the problems of the modern world are inherent, and therefore were even worse back in the day, when for all you know they might not have existed at all?

Just sayin'. Think about it.

Actually, it's gravity, but love is still closer to gravity than money is.On the contrary -- the only happy people I know are the ones working for mankind. Are you really sure that more people are motivated by greed, as you claim you are (I'm not convinced)? And how do you know you won't be happy? Have you tried it? Why should you get to dictate the rules for the rest of the planet, saying that we should all be miserable and forced to work toward evil causes like Dick Cheney's world domination thing, just because you think it makes you happy to be greedy?

No offense, man, but you sound like a six-year-old girl shouting about how her big pink Barbie car is the most important thing in the world. I think you should stop promoting materialism, and you should definitely stop using war to spread it (speaking of forcing people). If you want to devote your life to materialism, that's your choice, but you're currently shooting people who don't go along with your plan and that's not okay.

Capitalism creates at least two classes -- those with capital and those without. Do you disagree?

I disagree that capitalism exclusively creates such as situation. In Socialist and Communist governments, the leadres have historically become rich while all others scrape by!

Socialism requires no more obedience in order to function than any other form of government. Less, probably, since a society where people are taken care of is less likely to have a high incidence of criminal (anti-social) behavior, so there's less need for police and authoritarian government in general.

If order has to be enforced, it isn't really social, now is it?

This is why I think that a proper, benign social society can only be brought about through democratic means. When people choose to be social, it'll work. If they don't, it can't, by definition. Peace can't be imposed, 'cause imposition isn't peaceful.

Capitalism has no monopoly on classism, that's true. I'm just saying it's not the solution to it, either. I will concede that it might be useful in eliminating class-based society. I just don't see how. Feel free to explain it to me.

You sound like the textbook-thumping, lectern-leaning student of Marxism. The only problem with your view is that it's never been the case throughout history. China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba all require(d) fascist enforcement to keep the masses from straying from the mandates of the centrally directed social system. Those societies only remain "peaceful" through the strength of government.

Socialism by its basic nature requires the productive members of society to surrender much of their gains to the less productive and needy. Without forced compliance, most of the productive would refuse to part with the fruits of their labor, just as the rich in America constantly fight and connive to avoid the fairness of progressive taxation and seizure.

Can you imagine what a mess Social Security, Medicare, or Socialized Healthcare would be if they were left up to personal freedom of choice?

A society in which peace is imposed can't be peaceful because the imposition itself is an act of violence. Prisoners are not at peace with anybody.

That's only if you accept everything that the wealthiest people tell you about capitalism and other economic systems in relation to it, all at face value. You're equating wealth with productivity, which is one of the core failings of capitalism, at least as a system of economic meritocracy. Right now, the productive people (by which I mean LABOR) are parting with the fruits of those labors.

Yes.

There are no non class based societies! When wealth is distributed evenly, then the classes become based on other things like race, region you are from, height, weight, whatever humans can use to differentiate themselves from their peers!

There is no form of government that can conquer and tame human nature. To think that the form of economy and government we have created human nature is very very naive!