• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is communism possible in the USA?

Is communism possible in the USA?

  • Yes, Soviet type of communism

    Votes: 9 9.1%
  • Yes, community type of communism

    Votes: 10 10.1%
  • Yes, religious type of communism

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • Yes, other type of communism

    Votes: 12 12.1%
  • No, not possible

    Votes: 57 57.6%
  • Dunno

    Votes: 3 3.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 6.1%

  • Total voters
    99
I don't really understand people's hangups with particular forms of government. History shows us that government has always worked in cycles. Democracy is not an end point, and neither is any other form.

Another thing is that no particular form of government is a guarantee that things will be good or bad. History shows us that there have been periods of prosperty and peace under republics, monarchs, fascists, communists, democracies, etc. The form of government does not inherently guarantee any standard of civilization. It's the social structures and level of common trust within them that enables or disables proper function.

People are so busy fighting about form instead of function that the necessary socioeconomic evolutions are not happening, and it's reaching a boiling point. If you favor one form of governance past its expiry date, then it means that the transition to the next form will be all the more harsh and disruptive. History teaches us that too.
 
Perception seems to be the problem here, more so than actual disagreement.

I say the rich don't work for their money, and many of you who think you are rich, but are so very far from it, are offended because you know damn good and well that you work hard.
I say the poor work the hardest and defend them with passion, and people assume I must be poor, otherwise I would not care about the poor.
One of you gives examples of the poor who do not need help by mentioning TV's, computers, and cell phones. But when I present proof that it is easy to have all of these things for free, that part is ignored and I am attacked personally instead of debating substance. Some of that was my own fault I suppose.

I entered this thread because I saw a one sentence response to the "Jesus was a socialist" themed argument, that I thought was really good. Good to the point of being worthy of a rebuttal. Essentially, the point was that Jesus was about individual charity, not societal.

Now I'd like to do all of us a favor by attempting to steer this thing back towards the topic heading and away from pettiness.

Debating the issues surrounding the working poor is riddled with problems.
One problem is that people have vastly different definitions of poor, and even more vastly different definitions of rich.
The largest problem is that many of you think of people gaming the system, or lazy people when you see the poor. Even though it is a fact that most of the poor work very hard doing the most difficult jobs life has to offer.
The reason that this conversation seems to make little sense thus far, is that everyone is discussing completely different things while thinking that they are having the same discussion.
The 1% has somehow managed to have those who make little defend their position to those that make very little.

I made the point earlier that those who make lots, do not work for it. I get jumped all over by people who make little, but think they make lots.
Just to find out that one of the main people jumping on me also agrees that those who make lots, "do not work for it".
None of that crap matters.

The point that I began with (the religious one) is as follows: I liked the Individual Responsibility response and agree it has merit. I feel that would work great if we only had a few million who suffer. But these are not biblical times. Our entire society has fractured. We have over 100 million working poor in this Country by my standards. By anyone's standards we have at least 40 million. Are you familiar with the Walmart debates? Do you realize that almost every single one of their employees is on some type of social government welfare?
When I make these points and you read them and your thoughts are, "But I make 6 figures and can support my family", my response to you is that you and I are not the topic of this conversation. We are not among the 100 million+ that I advocate for.
And if you have a government job, or are an officer in the military, you are also not the topic of this debate.
Go take a drive down the main suburb street of any town with about 100,000 people and play a game with me. Take note as you drive down the road. Look at each establishment and then try to imagine what each person makes as you drive by. I did this earlier today. I passed store after shop after shop and after 30 to 50 places that all pay less than 10 dollars per hour, I came to the power company. Then later I came to the hospital, but only after thousands of jobs that are sub poverty.

The problem is very evident based on your reactions. YOU think that YOU are the ones that are needed to equalize the poor. You fail to realize that you are so very far from being rich. In the eyes of the top 1%, your 100,000 income is no different than the homeless Walmart stock boy. Neither of you register to the guy with the 40,000,000.00 income.
But that guy sure gets a chuckle to watch you be the one that defends him, especially when he realizes that YOU think you ARE him.

Church charity and donations do not, can not, and can never fix this. The problem is much more vast than that. And the problem is clearly growing.
The working poor are getting larger every decade.

Half the time debate is simply faulty because of everyone placing different values on all of the issues.
And the other half of the time debate is dishonest because dishonest debate has become the new political norm.
Until these things are fixed, I do not know that a solution is possible.

Ok so this is how I believe that all of the above ties in very nicely with the topic heading:

Communism will never happen in America through the front door. And whereas social programs are essential to a strong Capitalistic system, a Socialist Government is equally as unlikely through the front door.
But both are very possible and rather likely to happen through the back door if the above problems of 100 million working poor and 30 million uninsured are not fixed.
Some of the Conservatives seem to think I am a socialist or worse, but I am not. I believe strongly in Capitalism, but only if it is regulated and controlled. Greed left unchecked turns into disease. And right now our Nation is full of disease.
The irony to me is that I would think the Strong Conservative types would want to fix these problems even more than me.
I see so many posts in here that indicate that you Right Wingers think that true socialism is coming, or communism is coming. So why are you so unwilling to stop it? If it comes it will come by way of governmental collapse due to the poor growing too vast, the hatred too strong, and the dishonesty too impossible.
A living wage for the poor and a couple of social programs would prevent our collapse and would prevent outright socialism from taking hold. (or worse).
The irony is that we have similar goals for our Nation, but because we can not agree, we will end up having exactly what neither of us want.
 
I'm sorry but Forest Gump has other meaning than mediocrity or retarded-ness. ;)
He is not to be taken literally.
I agree___I was just being cute Cane_

It's a girl thing; I doubt you'd understand_

"Location: EUSSR"

Hmmm? does that translate to Communist Europe or Eastern Russia?

I'll bet you're a desperate russian mobster doing time in a siberian gulag?

There I go; being cute again__just call me incorrigible! :2dancing:
 
100 grand annual or more.

Yeah, I don't think that's big money at all. Depending on your lifestyle and family, it might be quite enough that you don't have to worry about things poorer people are worrying about, but it's still not "big money".
 
Yeah, I don't think that's big money at all. Depending on your lifestyle and family, it might be quite enough that you don't have to worry about things poorer people are worrying about, but it's still not "big money".
Whether or not an income is substantial is relative to what city or part of the country or world in which one works and resides_

For example, try living in upper east side Manhattan on 100k a year_
 
Last edited:
Whether or not an income is substantial is relative to what city or part of the country or world in which one works and resides_

Well....ya know? I assumed we were talking about the US? You have a flag in your sig.

If not, sorry.
 
"Location: EUSSR"

Hmmm? does that translate to Communist Europe or Eastern Russia?

European Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. The rest I leave to your imagination and empirical research. :)
 
Last edited:
Empirica is always so fun ;)
 
Yeah, I don't think that's big money at all. Depending on your lifestyle and family, it might be quite enough that you don't have to worry about things poorer people are worrying about, but it's still not "big money".
In San Diego it would be middle class while in Jackson Mississippi it would be widely viewed as high class_

But to a billion Chinese citizens, a 100k a year would be considered great wealth, privilege and good fortune_

Well....ya know? I assumed we were talking about the US? You have a flag in your sig.

If not, sorry.
We were, but sometimes a 'standard' applies everywhere in the world, such as the one I mentioned_

European Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.
I know Cane; I was just being cutesy again_

The rest I leave to your imagination
Imagination, unique to humans, makes us curious, creative, artistic, inventive and dreamers of what might be_

and empirical research. :)
True empirical knowledge is derived from proven research but a great deal of it is the result of life experiences_

Although far too many now consider the twisted facts and false realities of political ideologues to be 'empirical'_

Empirica is always so fun ;)
Unfortunately, the mean old humorless lefties don't agree with you_

Hmmm, I wonder what's up with that?! :giggle1:
 
Whether or not an income is substantial is relative to what city or part of the country or world in which one works and resides_

For example, try living in upper east side Manhattan on 100k a year_
lulz

Not in America, but in London, you'd be laughed out of the city. 100K might just get you off the street, but that's it.
 
Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are personally making 100 grand or more annual in USA, you are in top 7%. If your household (with 2 or more wage earners) is grossing 100G's, you are in top 17%.
My feeling is the 83% of households and the 93% of individuals making LESS than 100grand, would consider that a handsome salary, or "BIG' money.
 
Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are personally making 100 grand or more annual in USA, you are in top 7%. If your household (with 2 or more wage earners) is grossing 100G's, you are in top 17%.
My feeling is the 83% of households and the 93% of individuals making LESS than 100grand, would consider that a handsome salary, or "BIG' money.

$100,000 in rural areas is... very comfortable. $100,000 in a large city is meager,at best.

It's all relative.
 
$100,000 in rural areas is... very comfortable. $100,000 in a large city is meager,at best.

It's all relative.

Of course it's relative, but most city dwellers don't make $100 gs I bet.
All the store clerks, waiters, bartenders, police, teachers, taxi drivers, government employees, warehouse workers, even construction workers, probably don't make 100g in the cities.
 
Of course it's relative, but most city dwellers don't make $100 gs I bet.
All the store clerks, waiters, bartenders, police, teachers, taxi drivers, government employees, warehouse workers, even construction workers, probably don't make 100g in the cities.

They live outside of the city and commute, or they live I'm the really crappy parts and commute a little less.

The average price of a home in New York City is $2.5 million. That is, very roughly, a $12,000/month mortgage payment.
 
Of course it's relative, but most city dwellers don't make $100 gs I bet.
All the store clerks, waiters, bartenders, police, teachers, taxi drivers, government employees, warehouse workers, even construction workers, probably don't make 100g in the cities.

That's because you listed a bunch of occupations that don't require much in the way of education, marketable skills, etc.

You don't need much upstairs to be a store clerk, or bartender...or teacher...

*looks to see if Josie is around*
 
That's because you listed a bunch of occupations that don't require much in the way of education, marketable skills, etc.

You don't need much upstairs to be a store clerk, or bartender...or teacher...

*looks to see if Josie is around*

and people who DO get expensive educations but not wise enough to select a field that isn't SUBMERGED with applicants for every opening, temporarily take jobs as clerks and bartenders.
temporarily meaning YEARS?
 
Back
Top Bottom