What is your vision of Utopia? If you could create your own country that you were a CITIZEN of (ie, not the ruler or president, or whatever), what attributes would it have? What types of people would live there? What kind of government would you have?

For example, I would choose a Republican Democracy like we have in America right now, but I would severely limit the national government from interfering with the private sector. Capitalism would reign supreme; the concept of "common good" would be very minimalistic, and only the strong would survive. There would be VERY BASIC welfare infrastructure. The government and court systems would operate under a moral/ethical code based on Judeo-Christian morality. The governmental structure would basically be based on the current government that the US has, with some minor changes.

Damnit, Tob, your utopia is almost exactly like my company. But... the strong people are replaced by dorks with a diploma. :(

The mine?

Build Up an Empire, be VERY rich and hidden in my own world of lust and revenge.

My country would have no goverment..... but a law were if someone breaks the law.. they are killed there and then. The people would have to be nice-law obeying citizens.. or they would die.

My country would have no goverment..... but a law were if someone breaks the law.. they are killed there and then. The people would have to be nice-law obeying citizens.. or they would die.

...and the Brits would be under the Islamic Sandals at last (they haven't brain nor boots yet). Idiot.

mine would be like puttin holland and the US in a cocktail shaker, shake it
and tadaaaa! that's my utopia

a small country with the american attitude with legal drugs and legal gay marriages :D
plus awesome music bands (we miss that over here, within temptation does a good job though) waffle houses, IHOPs, benihana, cheap clothes AND hot topic + skechers ( ihate that person who decide to take m out of the dutch shoe stores)

What is your vision of Utopia? If you could create your own country that you were a CITIZEN of (ie, not the ruler or president, or whatever), what attributes would it have? What types of people would live there? What kind of government would you have?
My Utopia would be similar to ToB's, insofar as it would be a Republican Democracy. It's the best form of government tried to date. However, the government would have NO buisness in the private sector. The government would be forbidden to interfere in the day to day goings on of the average man. There would be no executive branch, only a legislature, court system(including police), and a military. All other services would be privately run. The legislature would pass laws that were based on objective morality, as opposed to arbitrary standards laid down by some book. If you couldn't prove that an action interfered with someone else's rights, it would be legal to do that action. There would be no death penalty. Laissez-faire capitalism would be the economic system of choice. Large corporations would be commonplace. If you couldn't compete, too bad. "Congress shall make no law abridiging the freedom of production and trade"-Ayn Rand

The types of people that would live there would be industrious, independent people. They'd have to be in order to succeed in a society with no safety net for failures. They'd also be kind, because they would understand the concept of respecting other people's rights.

This world would be perfect if Kris^ would take his fucking meds.

Seriously.

My Utopia would be similar to ToB's, insofar as it would be a Republican Democracy. It's the best form of government tried to date. However, the government would have NO buisness in the private sector. The government would be forbidden to interfere in the day to day goings on of the average man. There would be no executive branch, only a legislature, court system(including police), and a military. All other services would be privately run. The legislature would pass laws that were based on objective morality, as opposed to arbitrary standards laid down by some book. If you couldn't prove that an action interfered with someone else's rights, it would be legal to do that action. There would be no death penalty. Laissez-faire capitalism would be the economic system of choice. Large corporations would be commonplace. If you couldn't compete, too bad. "Congress shall make no law abridiging the freedom of production and trade"-Ayn Rand

The types of people that would live there would be industrious, independent people. They'd have to be in order to succeed in a society with no safety net for failures. They'd also be kind, because they would understand the concept of respecting other people's rights.

You are a damn libertarian! :D

You are a damn libertarian! :D
Of course. :D You should follow my rants in here more closely. I haven't caught nearly enough shit lately.

This world would be perfect if Kris^ would take his fucking meds.

Seriously.
Agreed.

Of course. :D You should follow my rants in here more closely. I haven't caught nearly enough shit lately.

I am more towards the libertarian side of the spectrum than anything.

Answer me this though: How will you provide checks and balances for the houses of legislation with no executive branch as you suggest?

my utopia is the U.S. govt with politicians who arent held by party lines and speak their minds, and a voting public who actually gave a shit enough to vote.

Answer me this though: How will you provide checks and balances for the houses of legislation with no executive branch as you suggest?
Since the people elected to the legislature are citizens as well, the laws apply to them just as much as they apply to the average man. There would be no immunity from prosecution as there is now, except for First Amendment lawsuits, so as to allow them to speak without fear of a lawsuit. The judicial branch would have the ability to veto laws based on an objective evaluation of their intent and wording. If the law was found to have a clause or intent that infringed on the rights of a person that was doing nothing to harm others, that law should be vetoed. A judicial branch is much more qualified to be interpreting the laws than a president.

In the world I see -- you're stalking
elk through the damp canyon forests
around the ruins of Rockefeller
Center. You will wear leather
clothes that last you the rest of
your life. You will climb the wrist-
thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears
Tower. You will see tiny figures
pounding corn and laying-strips of
venison on the empty car pool lane of
the ruins of a superhighway.

i would create a place where people really care about each other, and - most important - about the environment and of course animals. animals are what means the most to me, so there wouldn't be things like animal testing. a place where every animal and every human can feel good and be happy. of course that would mean to sacrifice a part of our pleasant life but that is the price.
oh, and: no hipgop(sorry, i just don't like it), no war and so on....

This is my vision of being citizen in a pleasing utopia.

First, Society would keep the checks and balances in place (the executive, legislative, judicial branches of government). This is very, very important and prevents one or more of the governing organizations from getting too much power. And, this would prevent a situation taking place in Russia today, for example. President Vladimir Putin recently eliminated elections for governors of that country’s providences, and has basically turned the legislature into an “automatic bill passage system”. It is very important to keep the elected officials elected, and keeps the branches in check (in spite of the arguments for combining them from both the left and right).

Second, society must maintain free trade as close to lazziez-faire as possible. A free market can only remain free, as long as there are not collars to inhibit growth. Unfortunately, there has to be limits at times, because the a free trade system may conflict a system that values human life / human functions at times. Appropriate government roles are needed to keep this in check, yet not get carried away.

On a side commentary, as much science there is for and against environmental safeguards, a society that respects its environment as a whole does not need laws to protect it. If individuals made the choice to demand environmentally friendly autos, for example, businesses would meet the demand of their customers and not worry about meeting environmental regulations, another benefit from the function of free trade. (I am very interested in environmental studies, but I can say that the jury is still out on certain things, like how human presence has damaged the ecosystem. There’s data for and against. Bottom line, though, is we have a role to be stewards of nature. At the same time, those who own the land are stewards. Government, individuals, companies must recognize). If someone infringes on someone else’s rights to a clean environment, the infringee may sue the infringer…

The U.S. Bill of Rights must be kept. It is a 200 yr old document that has been interpreted well throughout the course of American history. There is freedom of speech, but that does not include the right to say “I’m going to kill the president” and mean it. (I did not violate the law, b/c I was not meaning to do so for criminal intent. This is an example how it is necessary for the judicial system to interpret the law)

I would eliminate or sharply curtail lobbying because money is its primary driving factor, and that makes that an unequal playing field (special interest groups, etc). People and organizations may continue to submit letters to their elected representatives as this is a function of free society.

Limited tax burden is always beneficial on society, as that allows for better individual control and freedom of what one chooses to do with his / her money. Taxes are always controversial. We need basic police, fire, and Emergency services, but is it really moral that I don’t have a choice whether I’m required to pay taxes to feed the mouths of convicted murderers on death row? (donations may be a more appropriate alternative, here). But I don’t want to get off on my death penalty tangent.
Lastly, a society that recognizes the value of human life is a society that takes care of it on its own, without needed legislation requiring that individual to contribute. That includes retirement (Social Security for example), Medi-care and Medi-caid. Social security is put in somebody else’s hands… the very large federal government. If that gets “lost in the shuffle” and benefits the president’s certain agenda without my consent, then I have disagreement with that. However, much of the population segment does not bother to save for retirement, so it’s in everyone’s own good to have a social security dept. In a utopia society though, we would be smart enough to do this on our own, w/out government control. Medi-care / Medi-caid are government entities that do NOT have to worry about competition, and therefore, do not benefit from economic competition. Thus, they become increasingly less efficient over time.

A society that recognizes human life in the mental illness of the homeless is a society that includes them, and puts them to good use. This takes personal recognition and commitment, not a system of food stamps and welfare that perpetuates the loss of this part of humanity’s contribution. Right and left view people alike must agree to work towards constructive integration of these people as right now, they don’t contribute anything (forgive me for being blunt). However, once the majority of individuals in society recognized that these people, in fact, have value for humanity, then all get a boost in productivity and a reduction / elimination of tax burden.

In the world I see -- you're stalking
elk through the damp canyon forests
around the ruins of Rockefeller
Center. You will wear leather
clothes that last you the rest of
your life. You will climb the wrist-
thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears
Tower. You will see tiny figures
pounding corn and laying-strips of
venison on the empty car pool lane of
the ruins of a superhighway.


So basically we are either Indians or Wookies, I cant figure out which

I want a world where nobody is fat and everybody is naked.

So basically we are either Indians or Wookies, I cant figure out which


actually, a cross between the two.


ewoks.

actually, a cross between the two.


ewoks.


i just have to let you know, i laughed out loud at that...thanks for making my day.

I would create a world were society wasen't such a bitch, and all people respected each other. Like people did not fell they had to live up to the expectations of society. I would make the justice system stronger.. because to many people get away with things they shouden't.

I would create a world were society wasen't such a bitch, and all people respected each other. Like people did not fell they had to live up to the expectations of society. I would make the justice system stronger.. because to many people get away with things they shouden't.

STFU

You already posted your Utopia! :mad:

I just thought of this on spur of the moment, i didnt really think this ENTIRELY out...

Id have a government with aristocratic (by intellegence and education, not money and class) advisors, democratic assembly, and a dictator/tyrant leader (or at least, almost all-powerful leader).

And since most people connect dictator/tyrant as a bad thing, then I'll clear it up: A good leader/dictator, who makes fair choices, etc. Not the bad ones that history can recall easily...

The gov't might not last long with the all-powerful leader... but it sounds good to me, even if it is just temporary.

Also, I would hafta decide who exactly chooses the aristocratic advisors... I wonder if they'll take an IQ test or something...

I find the whole concept of an achievable utopia to be arbitary and frivoless.
The thing about Utopia is that its something we strive for, that we hope for. And just like all things in life, the journey and the hope for the object is greater than actually attaining it in the end.
Think about it. We've all had things that we've wanted so badly in life we can never stop thinking about it. Generally speaking a product or something (I'm not saying people in relation to love because I believe that is different) but once we get it, we have about a week where we're ecstatic about it, and then it fades, we don't care about it anymore and strive for something better.
The idea of having a utopia is a good idea, but the idea of actually living in the utopia isn't. It would never work because as humans its a fundamental construct for us to always want more than what we've got, and this is illustrated clearly with the corruption in government and business by those at the top. One would think that leaders and CEO's would be happy with the huge amounts of money, perks and prestige they get, but evidently they aren't. We're all driven by a form of greed, and don't mistake that for a bad thing because it inevitably in some warped sense, it drives our society forward.

This has been a streaming resonance ramble.

What is your vision of Utopia? If you could create your own country that you were a CITIZEN of (ie, not the ruler or president, or whatever), what attributes would it have? What types of people would live there? What kind of government would you have?

For example, I would choose a Republican Democracy like we have in America right now, but I would severely limit the national government from interfering with the private sector. Capitalism would reign supreme; the concept of "common good" would be very minimalistic, and only the strong would survive. There would be VERY BASIC welfare infrastructure. The government and court systems would operate under a moral/ethical code based on Judeo-Christian morality. The governmental structure would basically be based on the current government that the US has, with some minor changes.
This somewhat sounds like my utopia, except I would have a Keynesian economic system instead of strict capitalism. A strict capitalist society will have several flaws, such as (1) being vulnerable to economic recessions and depression, (2) a few big corporations controlling the entire market, and (3) a GIANT divide between the rich and the poor. Basically, 0.1% of the population will own 99% of everything. Which brings us to the question of justice - what about the people born after all the major corporations have controlled 100% of the free market? They're pretty much forced into the working class, no matter what skills they have. Starting up a new corporation under such conditions would be nearly impossible, and small businesses simply cannot compete against giant corporations. Capitalism is probably the best economic system used to date, but there has to be some government regulations to ensure equal opportunity for everyone, and not on a "first come first serve" basis. (And how exactly would "only the strong survive?" Are the poor and unemployed supposed to be killed off or something?)

Though I strongly agree with you that the justice system should operate under a moral/ethical code, and on a Republican Democracy government system. Eramnes ellaborated really well on the government system, saves me from typing out my junk, which probably won't be nearly as coherent or detailed as his. :p

But like Resonance said, it's impossible to actually achieve utopia. Eveyrone's utopia is different, and no one's can completely be satisfied.

in my utopia, it would just be me, and b0b.

A strict capitalist society will have several flaws, such as (1) being vulnerable to economic recessions and depression,
Government actions and intervention in the economy cause economic flucuations that are of the severity you are probably talking about. ALL economic systems are vulnerable to recession and depression, but a pure capitalist system would have recessions and depressions of less severity and shorter duration. The Federal Reserve is a big part of economic fluctuations because of overall control of banking policies for the nation as a whole. I talked a lot about this here (http://www.evboard.com/showpost.php?p=234647&postcount=6). I'd rather not type it all out again. If you still have questions, I might have answers:D.
(2) a few big corporations controlling the entire market, and
Well, I thought I had a previous post about this too but my search-fu isn't working good enough or it got nuked. So, here we go. When I say monopoly, I mean a free-market monopoly, i.e. one that was aquired by good business sense in a free market situation. More than likely, when you think monopoly, you mean a coercive monopoly, i.e. one that was granted by government favor, directly or indirectly, and operates independent of the law of supply and demand. In a pure capitalism situation, coercive monopolies cannot exist, because there is no government meddling in the economy, preventing them from developing. Now, my kind of monopoly is good for the economy, because it shows that said company is extremely efficient and can bring prices down lower than its competitors. However, I bet you're saying "What if it drives out all the competetitors, then raises prices so that no one can afford their product(s)?" In a pure capitalism situation, without government aid or favors, this situation cannot exist. This company is bound by the laws of supply and demand. Arbitrarily raising the price means that no one will buy their goods, and such would open the door for competition, regardless of how big the company is. If it's something that's required for living, such as food or water, it only means that the competition entering the field will do so sooner, and will be more apt to do a good job. In a pure capitialism situation, it would take a whole lot of skill to hold over 50% of a given market. Competition would be intense, because everyone is out to make their money. "Evil Monopolies" are a bad lie spread by Marxists that a vast majority of people believe, even those in business.
(3) a GIANT divide between the rich and the poor. Basically, 0.1% of the population will own 99% of everything.
I'm willing to bet that you or your parents don't own your house, your car, or any other large posessions free and clear right now. I never see anyone talk about that.
Which brings us to the question of justice - what about the people born after all the major corporations have controlled 100% of the free market? They're pretty much forced into the working class, no matter what skills they have. Starting up a new corporation under such conditions would be nearly impossible, and small businesses simply cannot compete against giant corporations. Capitalism is probably the best economic system used to date, but there has to be some government regulations to ensure equal opportunity for everyone, and not on a "first come first serve" basis. (And how exactly would "only the strong survive?" Are the poor and unemployed supposed to be killed off or something?)
Starting out in the working class is no disadvantage in a pure capitalism situation. There's no job so low that doing it better won't get noticed. It's in the "big shots'" best interest to promote the best minds underneath of them to positions of higher authority, where their minds can be tapped to improve upon the systems already in place. It's an endless progression of better and better technology improving the standards of living for all. It's why there's no more 18 hour days and child labor. We've developed new technology to make better products and technology in less time. As for "only the strong surviving", I personally am not a social Darwinist. Pure capitalism provides an equal opportunity for all, and there would be plenty left over to donate to charity if you were so moved. The fact that it is an equal playing field is what makes people want regulation, because they think they need special favors to succeed, which is usually not the case.
Though I strongly agree with you that the justice system should operate under a moral/ethical code, and on a Republican Democracy government system. Eramnes ellaborated really well on the government system, saves me from typing out my junk, which probably won't be nearly as coherent or detailed as his. :p
Thank you for the kind words.

my utopia's judicial system would include a trial of your peers, but not everyone could serve on a jury.

To be on a jury, you would have to have some law education(more than what is taught in public education, but not as much as law school). Also, before a trial there would be a lesson on the laws and precedence pertaining to the case at hand.

Why would I make everyone go through this trouble, you ask? Anyone see the OJ Simpson trial?

Perhaps in a pure capitalist society, everyone starts off with the same oppotunity - an "equal playing field" like you said. But what about the next generation? What do you think is more likely: (1) Giant corporations grow even bigger to meet market demands, or (2) New corporations arise? It would be pretty hard to start a new corporation to compete against the existing ones. You have to start small, and small companies simply cannot compete against a large corporation in the same field. I'm not saying people wont' be well off in the working class, but many of them in the next generation won't have the same opportunities to make it to the top level. Plus many of businesses remain within a family, so many people are born into the top position, and didn't work for it. Perhaps I'm being unrealistic in searching for a completely fair government and economic system, but hey, we're supposed to post our utopias, not what's real :p

ps. I don't understand why you said if my parents did own our house and cars free and clear. :confused: (Oh, and they do own our large possessions without debt. :p)

in my Utopia....the govt would be like what we have in australia already...except john howard woudnt be prime minister...and we wouldnt be under the Queen, we would be independant and have a president, president Johnny Depp, i think. we would have the same gun laws and drug laws, and people would obey these laws, cos everyone will respect each other, and wouldnt want to kill each other, cos they would rather be at the beach or at a gig :p

All I really need for a utopia is a girlfriend and to not die from a heart attack.

That sums it up fairly well.


/off topic

Perhaps in a pure capitalist society, everyone starts off with the same oppotunity - an "equal playing field" like you said. But what about the next generation? What do you think is more likely: (1) Giant corporations grow even bigger to meet market demands, or (2) New corporations arise? It would be pretty hard to start a new corporation to compete against the existing ones.
That is the point. There's no need for small companies because they are inefficient and small. They can't do the same quality job that a larger corporation can do. Since there is one large company instead of many small ones, people can benefit, even if they are only janitorial employees. ALL people get the benefit of the best minds around them, working to improve their quality of life, rather than a half-hearted attempt by a company that's too small to have the proper resources. Take a look at the history of ALCOA or General Electric to see what I mean. ALCOA was the best example of an uncoerced monoply to date. They of course got broken up, but at one time they were a powerhouse in the aluminium industry. Also, if a large company starts acting irrationaly, like arbitrarily raising prices or making a shoddy product, there WOULD be room for new companies to start, because people would be reluctant to buy from the large company that's being dumb.
I'm not saying people wont' be well off in the working class, but many of them in the next generation won't have the same opportunities to make it to the top level.
They would if they had the ingenuity and knowledge to improve on past methods. All I'm discussing is an economic system that rewards people based off of their best efforts as opposed to political skill or diplomatic characteristics. People do have an opportunity to rise if they are good enough - I know. I was promoted to shift manager in 8 months at the Hardees I worked at when I first got a job. I was 16. You are supposed to be 18 to get that job. Granted, it's a Hardee's, but if you do your best and constantly improve, there's no limit to what you can do.
Plus many of businesses remain within a family, so many people are born into the top position, and didn't work for it.
The majority of large corporations are publicly held. If someone inherits a CEO position and well, sucks at it, then the large numbers of shareholders can vote him out of office, sell their stock, etc. It's good business sense to be publicially held, as it allows for more funding. Stock markets are good for the economy.
ps. I don't understand why you said if my parents did own our house and cars free and clear. :confused: (Oh, and they do own our large possessions without debt. :p)
You asserted that the vast majority of people would own nothing, while a tiny percentage would own almost everything. I contended that most of the time, that is the situation now, most people have mortgages and car loans, which means that the bank all but owns your houses and cars, but people only complain when you talk about unregulated capitalism.

My vision of utopia (which actually means "no place"):

A utopian government would be based on the Judeo-Christian concepts of love, justice, and servanthood. Welfare would be extremely limited, and the helping hand would come from the individual, not the government. I recognize that welfare must exist for people in certain temporary circumstances, so I propose that the government would employ these people rather than encouraging them to have a free ride at everyone else's expense. I would drastically lower property, food, and income taxes, while lowering the so-called vice taxes (liquor, cigarettes, and gambling) only slightly. The taxpayers would naturally do without certain government services that they are accustomed to, but lower taxation would give each individual the freedom to purchase the services that he or she wants. Government funds would be very limited. There are only four ways in which it need be spent:

1. Defense (including law enforcement)
2. Education
3. Welfare Work Programs
4. Public Works (streets, bridges, etc.)

The vast majority of government spending is waste. Laziness is intolerable. Therefore, if we trim the fat, we will all be more satisfied.

More to be added later.

<3 Mary

Therefore, if we trim the fat, we will all be more satisfied.
or kill the fat people!#!@11
My vision of utopia (which actually means "no place"):
*GAAAAAAAAASP*
does this mean i never get to be with b0b?!!!
*faints of unhappiness*

That is the point. There's no need for small companies because they are inefficient and small. They can't do the same quality job that a larger corporation can do. Since there is one large company instead of many small ones, people can benefit, even if they are only janitorial employees. ALL people get the benefit of the best minds around them, working to improve their quality of life, rather than a half-hearted attempt by a company that's too small to have the proper resources. Take a look at the history of ALCOA or General Electric to see what I mean. ALCOA was the best example of an uncoerced monoply to date. They of course got broken up, but at one time they were a powerhouse in the aluminium industry. Also, if a large company starts acting irrationaly, like arbitrarily raising prices or making a shoddy product, there WOULD be room for new companies to start, because people would be reluctant to buy from the large company that's being dumb.

They would if they had the ingenuity and knowledge to improve on past methods. All I'm discussing is an economic system that rewards people based off of their best efforts as opposed to political skill or diplomatic characteristics. People do have an opportunity to rise if they are good enough - I know. I was promoted to shift manager in 8 months at the Hardees I worked at when I first got a job. I was 16. You are supposed to be 18 to get that job. Granted, it's a Hardee's, but if you do your best and constantly improve, there's no limit to what you can do.

The majority of large corporations are publicly held. If someone inherits a CEO position and well, sucks at it, then the large numbers of shareholders can vote him out of office, sell their stock, etc. It's good business sense to be publicially held, as it allows for more funding. Stock markets are good for the economy.

You asserted that the vast majority of people would own nothing, while a tiny percentage would own almost everything. I contended that most of the time, that is the situation now, most people have mortgages and car loans, which means that the bank all but owns your houses and cars, but people only complain when you talk about unregulated capitalism.
Daaaamn, I think I'm actually being convinced to take your side. However, we've never had an entire nation adopt strict capitalism. In theory, it works. But then again, in theory, communism was the "perfect system".

Strict capitalism may have worked well in those examples you posted, but so did communism. Small societies, especially tribal societies, functioned extrememly well with a communist policy. But when communism was adopted by entire nations, well, I don't really need to ellaborate. I understand your views, but right now it's still theory, as it has never been tried on entire countries. Adopting strict capitalism may or may not bring back serious problems like communism did, but I think it's well worth a shot. :)

Utopia would be could if they were back to their old store & not having all the non rock/metal stuff there...... ooooops you guys are talking about a paridise lol tho Utopia is paridise (well used to be) when it comes to Record Stores lol
Well a true Utopia for me would be to have the one I love together with me forever.
But I guess most times Utopia's are a myth...... Except for the record store of course lol

Daaaamn, I think I'm actually being convinced to take your side. However, we've never had an entire nation adopt strict capitalism. In theory, it works. But then again, in theory, communism was the "perfect system".
First, communism was never the "perfect" theory. It was wrong in theory, which is why it was wrong in practice. A system that doesn't respect private property will never be able to function, and since it initates force against other men, is morally wrong. Capitalism is more than theory however, because as a system it is in accordance with human nature. Capitalism would work because it respects and protects property rights, which is crucial to survival as a human being. Look at it this way, the most fundamental right is the right to life. To ensure yourself a good life, you must have the means to provide for that life as best as possible. Without property, you have nothing to provide for yourself with, or to trade to others who are better in a certain area. Say you aren't good at farming. Most people aren't. If you have property, be it money, goods, whatever, you have something to trade so you can aquire that food. In capitalism, you are free to do business with whomever will do business with you; on fair terms that are agreeable to both of you. You own property which you are free to dispose of or keep. Under communism/socialism, someone is forced to give you their food, and you are forced to give up some possesion of yours to someone who's given you nothing. There's no incentive for the populace to produce any more than the bare esssentials. Why advance when there's no guarantee that you will get any benefit from your advancement? This is why communist nations stagnate and live in poverty. You can't force someone to think, it doesn't work. Once a communist nation runs out of sheep who will turn themeselves and their ideas over to the state, there's no more advancement, and as such, the nation stagnates and dies. The chain of victims is only so long. Capitalism prevents this by allowing people to trade freely with each other for the best of one another's abilities and goods. The harder you work, the more you can get, and the happier and healthier you become. People enjoy thinking when they know something will come of it, and as such, they are happy to sell their inventions on the free market, in order to spur other people to work to buy/use their product, which causes them or the company they work for to invent another gadget that the original inventor can use to better their life. It's a never-ending cycle of improvement. Capitalism works in practice, because it is good theory, unlike communism which is doomed to fail from the start.
Strict capitalism may have worked well in those examples you posted
If you can come up with an example where capitalism would fail to function, please post it here.
Small societies, especially tribal societies, functioned extrememly well with a communist policy.
This is because they didn't need to deal with a world economy. As long as you are unaware of what the rest of the world has for technology, it doesn't matter if your standard of living is comparatively low. You don't know any better. Also, with a smaller number of people, it's easier to distribute goods and services.
But when communism was adopted by entire nations, well, I don't really need to ellaborate.
This is where the "chain of victims" comes in. Once a nation exhausts all their minds that are willing to work under coercion, the nation withers and dies. It happened in the USSR, and it's happening in Cuba, China, and North Korea. I like to point to the "left shoe" phenomenon. In the USSR, Stalin decreed that so many pairs of shoes had to be made every month. When the end of the month would come around, they would find the correct number of pairs, but they were only left shoes, instead of what we would consider a pair. You can't force someone to think. You can force them to work, but only doing mindless tasks that require no more than physical labor.
I understand your views, but right now it's still theory, as it has never been tried on entire countries.
Following the history of the United States, the periods of fastest development coincide with the periods of most economic freedom. Before the Sherman Act was passed, growth and development in the US was running at a breakneck pace. The more regulations came into the economy, the slower we began to develop. It's like bleeding to death, but the government doesn't care to stop it. Yes, we've never been purely capitalist, but during the 19th century, we were close, and that was one of the times of our fastest development.

If you really want to know even more, google for Austrian economics. That is basically the study of unregulated capitalism. You can learn a lot from them, even if the reading is a little dry.