What are your political views on;
True capitalism - Very hard to pull off. Actually practically impossible as no market can be completely free of collusion/monopolies/third-party intervention. This concept is really more of an economic theory, but if it were to be pulled off, in essence, we'd all be doing things for free just to participate in a community. As ironic as it sounds, true capitalism and true communism in practice would be exactly the same, although different in ideology. To clarify, under a perfect capitalist structure, things would be priced to the exact cost that they are worth, and no profit is made. They are created simply because they are needed, and each person spending choice are directly in-line with this model, so therefore everyone creates things for the need of the community, not because there's any profit to be had. To further explain, perfect capitalism has perfect competition, and in perfect competition, prices are lowered to the point of cost, and no lower.
True anarchy - Entropy. Annihilation.
True socialism/communism - Can't exist unless humanity radically changes it's social understanding. In true communism, everyone takes exactly what they need and no more. Human beings aren't very good at the no more then needed part, so in any system there would be corruption. Basically, the only way true communism could exist is if there was a technology that would be able to measure need and capacity to work, and force cut-offs for both.
The current Democratic-Capitalism - Sort of depends on which part of the world we're talking about, but from the broad perspective, current day capitalism is more of a mixture between oligarchy and ingenuity. You have set families that are not kings, but might as well be, but you have the opportunity to improve your economic status with enough time, effort, and knowledge. Although that sounds great, typically one thing is particularly overlooked. In order to rise in any economy, an average person (not an anomaly, or self-made millionaire story) must have a proper education and some contacts. The catch is that although in the developed rules straight racism is looked down upon, and prosecuted, socio-economic stereotyping is absolutely fine. So, without sounding too vulgar, one cannot force an African American, Hispanic, etc. into a gang and out of school, but creating the environment they live in, and furthering a negative culture in the media, pretty much determines their fate by the age of 15-20. So, although rare opportunities are offered, our capitalism today is still focused on the prosperity of certain groups (as it has been for pretty much all of it's existence), while pretending to operate as a model society.
Globalization & global capitalism - This is the one where one will hear the most conspiracy theories. The NWO, the Amero, the Rockefeller-Asia tie-ins, the Bill Gates Foundation front. All of these concepts, while they may be somewhat interesting, in my opinion don't really show reality for what it is. Man has always been an "us vs. them creature", until there's two people in a room when eventually he becomes a "me vs. you" creature. As such, globalization is being forced to occur due to technological advancement coupled with comparative advantages (economic concept showing that although a single country can do two things well, sharing one item with another country can have advantages as you focus on your more efficient product production). It's not necessarily a bad thing, as two countries who regularly do business together, are probably not going to bomb each other, and there communities will begin interacting more. The problem is the following: Back when countries where isolated, and you could only get there by a boat, interactions had too high an opportunity cost to create world-wide supply/demand impacts. Now, with information passed across the world in a milli-second, trading can occur instantaneously. Inherently this seems ideal, closing in on the so-called perfect capitalism mentioned above, but the truth is, this sort of competition will create a new-rich. Most likely it will be countries with the most raw resources and/or most efficient workforce. And the underlying problem? Although in economics business follows politics, in reality we've always seen the opposite. So if China were to be the most powerful business globally, their politics would slowly be integrated into everyones lives. If it's India, Brazil, Russia, whoever the powerhouse will be, their politics will soon follow. Now obviously we're talking about a long period of time, but the reality is there, we just have to reach it. And here we have our final dilemma. Depending on the powerhouse that wins will shape the world for the next few centuries. Which means if an Individualistic country (think US, Russia, UK) wins, some personal freedoms, etc. will be kept. If a Community-based country (think China, Japan, etc) wins, the big-brother effect will be more prevalent.
Sorry for the long paragraphs, but I guess that's how long it takes.
