Communism, on a small scale is not a bad thing. A farmer shares his crop with the rest of the town, as long as members of the rest of the town share with him the products they create. The smith keeps his plow sharp, the glass blower fixes his broken window, the mechanic tunes up the tractor, the carpenter builds a new dresser for the kids, the dairy farmer provides milk, etc and so on. All members of a commune share everything. In fact, specialties such as carpenters and smiths don't really exist, as everyone can do just about everyone else's job. It's like living in a commune... after all, commune is the root word for communism, and even community.
Socialism is pretty similar to Communism. Property is not owned in socialism, so everything belongs to everyone. When Marx came along, he changed a few things. He suggested that people be paid based on the amount of work they did. The more work, the more you were paid. This can be acceptable by quite a few people. For example, my brother-in-law works his ass off, and he's a multi-millionaire. I'm lazy, and prefer just to do my eight hours and go home. For this, I make between 80 and 100 thousand dollars a year... pretty much a fraction of what my brother-in-law earns.
But, I am more highly intelligent than my sister and brother-in-law combined... so if suddenly I wanted to say that people should be paid by their intelligence, then our incomes would reverse. Personally, I'm not really that much of a materialist, and I couldn't care less that I make less than he does. My income keeps me happy.
Marx described socialism as a mid-way point between communism and capitalism... but that's Marx' Socialism, which is different than National Socialism, which, in one ugly example in history, brought about fascism.
As I will point out a little later, socialism and fascism do not necessarily have to go hand in hand. That's just something that Hitler brought about in the 1930's to 1940's.
Capitalism is a system based on creating as much profit as possible while doing as little work as possible. Think about it, if you make a product using cheaper materials, and get away with selling that product for a little more expensive than your competitor, and actually make money, then you are doing less work, and making more money. So, capitalism can only survive if there is competition.
Once again, I'll bring my brother-in-law into the picture. He is a painter. His company paint track housing projects. He competes against other painters to get a job. He is able to get more jobs by working his ass off, and by saying he'll do a job cheaper than his competitor. Typically, this would mean that he would either have to use cheaper paint, or pay his employees less wages, or a combination of things. Whatever his format, it works, and he earns big bucks. That doesn't mean that the other painters don't as well. I'm sure he loses bids just as often as he wins them. But he doesn't give up.
In each of these cases, a government has been built at one time or another.
As much as anarchism is appealing, which is the lack of government, you can't build a government off of it... I mean, that's just a contradiction in terms... a government based off of a lack of government!
These kids who think that it would be just wonderful to have chaos don't realize that they couldn't really survive in such an environment. In fact, they'd have less chance of surviving than survivalists... and if there really was a situation where a post-apocalyptic environment occured, I doubt even survivalists would make it. I think that the people who would survive in such a situation would be those you would least expect... those who are not ready for such a situation... the sheep who just do the same routine day after day. The ones who want the situation would be the first to go (the anarchists), and the survivalists would be the second.
Monarchy isn't all that bad of an idea. A king or queen in charge. What he or she says is law and is enforced any way that he/she desires. For example, you get caught stealing, and a hand gets cut off... that's the way it is. Too bad for you.
The problem with monarchy lies with the Saddam Husseins of the world, where the power goes to the head. But, before he was captured, you'll note that there was no terrorism by all the different tribes. They were literally scared to death of Hussein. Once he was captured, however, things turned to shit, didn't they?
Okay, I've given you examples of several different -isms, mostly just to show that there are good things and bad things about all of them: communism, capitalism, socialism, monarchism, etc.
I did this because one of my friends is having a discussion about socialism, and mainly national socialism.
The most recognized form of national socialism is from Germany's Hitler era, but that's because Hitler added fascism into the mix. If you can't believe that Germany was a National Socialist, I want you to take the german version of that phrase, Nationalsozialist, and abbreviate it... n-a-z-i. nazi. Specifially, Hitler created the National Socialist German Workers Party. In and of itself, there was nothing wrong with this party... it was just a national workers union (although, I don't happen to like unions).
The problem arose when Hitler wanted to purify Germany... get this, an Austrian wanting to purify Germany... Actually, at this time, Germany was more like a bunch of smaller squabbling countries than one proud nation. By creating this party, Hitler actually united the country together.
But Hitler was also very interested in the occult. He didn't just send people out to find Christian relics, like the Arc of the Covenent and the Cup of Christ, but he sent them out to find any religious relics they could get their hands on. He even wanted King Arthur's Round Table.
Somewhere in Hitler's youth, he got the idea that the Germanic people were the descendents of another race of people, called the Aryans. Depending on who you talk to, these Aryans were an angel-like creature which started intermingling with people. In my own opinion, the Aryans were probably the first of the people to trek out of Africa, which would have made them black, not white.
Hitler had this grand scheme to return the German people back to their angelic state by purifying the population. But not just the population, everything to do with German/Germany had to be purified. This included the language. By this time, the Germans were doing the same thing to the German language that the English and Americans were doing to the English language... that is, we have spent hundreds of years incorporation words from almost every other language on the planet. If we didn't, you wouldn't have phrases such as deja-vu, boulevard, uber, cardiac, gymnasium, etc. (heh, even the phrase et cetera (etc) isn't English in origin). The Germans had started doing the same thing, using words from other languages. Hitler viewed this as bad, and wanted the language to be purified. This way, after a thousand years, the race and the language would become pure, and they would once again be Aryans.
It is funny to thin how stupid these modern day neo-nazis really are. These kids think that it is only important to be white.
Hitler had specific designs on what was pure. Yes, you had to be white, but you also had to have blue eyes, and either blond hair, or very light brown at the darkest. Hitler knew he was not among this group, but he also said it didn't matter that he ran this group, because it would still take 1000 years (by his calculations) before the race would be pure, anyway.
The boys/men allowed to reproduce to help purify the race also had to be 185cm (about 6 feet tall) or taller, and if you had any cavities, it meant you didn't have strong enough teeth to carry on your genes. Have you met any neo-nazis without cavities? With blond hair? Taller than 6 feet? Blue eyes? There may be some here and there, but most of them are more anarchist punks than national socialists. In fact, I doubt they even know HOW to share. The ones who I've encountered were black-haired, brown eyed, stubby boys. Hitler would have had them castrated and thrown out of the country... really! Oh, and remember, they had to speak German.... Pure German! Saying "über" and "fick dich" don't cut it!
Okay, so now we come to the whole point of all this... the purification of a language.
One of the reasons why foreigners have trouble learning English as a second language is due to all the influences from other languages... that is, the number of words we can use to describe something can get confusing. This is especially true when, even though two different words may mean something very similar, by using one instead of the other, you can really change the meaning of the sentence and of what you are trying to say. I don't have a specific example, but it's similar to the phrase, "Why use a large word when a miniscule one will be just fine."
Enlish has approximately 3 times the number of words than almost any other language (on average).
If we wanted to purify English, we would have to eliminate more than 2/3rds of the words just to get rid of the foreign words.
Then we would have to go back to Olde English and learn the conjugations of the verbs and the suffixes to all the nouns to make them match their case, along with the genders of the nouns. Unless you've learned a couple of foreign languages, you probably have no clue what I just said. Most English speakers probably don't even know what the word conjugate means... because we only change our infinitive verbs except for the third person singular... I see, you see, he sees. "To see" is the infinitive... and it stays the same for all cases except for he/she/it/one. And, in that case, we just add an s.
"To be" is the only irregular... I am, you are, he is... actually, I think we have another irregular... I just can't think of it right now.
It shouldn't be too long before we lose the he/she/it/one conjugated form of the verb, and we'll be saying "he see" (without the s) and it will be prefectly acceptable.
Another thing English speakers have a hard time understanding is noun gender. In several languages, a noun will be either masculine or feminine... take Spanish. Typically, you add the letter O to the end of a noun to represent a masculine item, or an A to mean a feminine item. The word for "the" will either be "el" for masculine, or "la" for feminine. "La silla" -- the chair, "El pollo" -- the chicken. In German, there are genders as well... masculine, feminine, but also neuter. German doesn't incorporate a specific ending to determine the difference, although adding an "in" to the end of a masculine or neuter noun can make it feminine... "Freund" (friend) : "Freundin" (female friend). Native Germans just have to learn which gender nouns are as they grow up. People learning it as a second language have to learn it by rote. The word for the, like in Spanish, changes depending on the nouns gender, der for masc., die for fem., and das for neuter. The plural also uses die. (pronounced dee, not dye)
I think the only thing in English which retains any gender specification is the ocean and ships. We still refer to those as female: "Isn't she a beautiful ship?" And we still say, Mother Nature.
Native English speakers seem to hate adding suffixes. A lot of people are starting to say, "drive careful." but careful is supposed to be an adverb, describing how to drive... it should be, "drive carefully."
If we were to try to purify English... the addition of suffixes would get a whole lot worse. First, you'd be adding a specific suffix depending on the case. That is, is the noun a subject, direct object, indirect object, or a possesion. You'd have a certain suffix for each of those... then you have to remember which gender the noun is, because that would also change the suffix. So the suffix for a masculine direct object would be different than the suffix for a feminine direct object.
Let's pretend ball is a masculine noun, and bubble is feminine. For a direct object, let's say that "an" is the suffix for feminine and "on" for masculine. Let's also say that "the" stays the same for masc. but changes to "teh" for feminine.
"...popped the ball" becomes "popped the ballon" and "...popped the bubble" becomes "popped teh bubblean".
Oh, it gets worse. You have to do the same with adjectives.
"popped the greenon ballon" "popped teh greenan bubblean" (notice the "on" and "an" changes on green)
So, would purifying the English language make it any better? These are just some of the things we'd have to do... there's even more.
I'm tired of typing, so I'm just going to stop here, for now.