• 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 can't name a single time anyone actually really tried socialism. The prominent examples you're thinking of were fascist dictatorships that falsely labeled themselves socialist. But you're entirely wrong if you think that the problem is "government screwing with the marketplace". Real liberty in this country disappeared the moment that government was put up for sale on the market. We certainly regulate our capitalism, but not for the benefit of anyone but the most powerful capitalists. They remain wholly unregulated, and they have the bought and paid for congress to prove it.

I've named a ton before, ranging from Allende's Chile to the Eastern European bloc of the 80s, amongst numerous others.

Socialism's been tried. Socialism's failed.
 
Absolutely possible. It will not be called "Communism", it will be called something else. But the envy, the lust for power, the collectivism...they are simply elements of our human nature. The ones we have to suppress, if we want to stay civilized - and, in the long term - survive.
Envy and Power-Lust? No. Collectivism is about selflessness by definition. That's like saying, "We shouldn't teach kids to share, that'll lead to envy and power-lust." What is so uncivilized about sharing?

we all know that Marx said "religion is the opium of the people" but in reality, communism can sit quite comfortably alongside religion. the catholic church is alive and well in Cuba, in post Stalinist USSR, several orthodox churches were revived, and while most religion was suppressed in Vietnam, one branch of Buddhism was acceptable.
Yup, Marx and most early Communists had a very distinct dislike of religion. That really has absolutely nothing to do with Communism itself, though. Modern Communist/Socialists/Marxists/etc. tend to be fairly tolerant of religion; those who attack Collectivism as a threat towards religion are just rabble-rousers. It's the age-old game of making a devil out of the other guy.
Which is a strange argument, given how many times it has been tried, in different parts of the world, with different people from different cultures being involved in the attempt. Do any Communist apologists claim that somewhere in the world, there is a group of people different from all those who have tried it so far, who would produce a different result than that which came of every other attempt to implement Communism?

One cannot easily avoid being reminded of the cliché about insanity being defined as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result.

Communism has never been attempted. That's not our delusion, it's just a fact. There are a lot of dictators who used the words and imagery of Communism to give themselves a political edge, but that doesn't make them Communists. It's no more different than our Politicians who use the words and imagery of Christianity for political gains; when our country fails, is that a failure of Christianity, The American Dream, our Constitution, or of the men who try to implement them? We shouldn't blame a theory or an idea for the way another person will twist it to fit their agenda.

Oh, and that old Cliche is just that. Was Edison insane when he kept trying to invent the light bulb, or the Wright Bros. with their airplane, or just about any great inventor with their great ideas? Every dedicated person is insane until they succeed.

Interesting point. Marx always spoke of the "temporary dictatorship" during the regime change, but I certainly cannot think of a country that ever got past that point.

Bingo! It's not Communism that fails but the "temporary" part of a dictatorship. Barring coups and revolutions, has there ever been a "temporary" dictatorship? It's practically an oxy-moron! That's one place where modern Communists/Collectivism have proposed other solutions, typically with democracy. Marx, Engels, and Lenin truly believed that there could be a beneficial dictatorship, but we know that it's simply not possible. Modern Communism/Collectivism should not be connected with Authoritarian government; most of us are proponents of volunteerism and democracy. To link modern collectivism with totalitarianism would be like linking modern capitalism with child labor or slavery.

That's pretty much the standard apologetic for Communism—to claim that since every attempt failed so disastrously, that those who tried to implement it must have gone about it the wrong way, and that therefore, what they did doesn't count as a genuine attempt to put Communism into practice.

There has never been a communist nation on the face of this planet. Even with the most rigid definition of classical Marxist Communism, there has never been an attempt to actually follow his plan. The major flaw was his and Lenin's idea of a "temporary dictatorship". As I mentioned just above this quote, modern collectivism proposes other paths to reach a communist end. It's not "Communism" that's the problem, it's the path to get there.

Not only is it possible, it is inevitable. We are slowly moving towards a more egalitarian system. Those who panic about the loss of what make this country great don't realize that a commitment to equality and curbing abuses of power (the hallmark of a real socialist system) are what make it great. The only think that could truly destroy this nation would be to sell control of it to a new aristocracy. Which is, of course, what the conservative factions are trying to do, even if they don't all realize it. That's certainly what the billionaires who fund those factions are trying to do.

Exactly, this is the biggest flaw of the typical Conservative argument; they don't remember how bad it was. The free market was not a beacon of hope or great success of our economy. The free market meant slavery, extreme wealth inequality, and the lowest health statistics our country has ever had. All the problems of our modern economy can be linked with an over-populated labor force, not a regulated market. For most of the early 20th century, the labor force was less than a third of the eligible population; most women weren't working and most children lived at home well in to their twenties. With the various acts that enabled equal employment of all Americans, there came a negative consequence of an expectation that more people should work; we now have more than 2/3 of our eligible population working. Just because all Americans can work, doesn't mean they should work. That could be fixed with a social force towards staying at home and seeking education.

Although I do have a college education, I don't support it as true source of knowledge or experience; it's just a stupid piece of paper. But, I still think more people should seek an education, for the sole purpose of removing themselves from the labor force. We need less competition for jobs and more skilled workers for the future, and colleges provide for both. But, our current system still isn't providing jobs for these skilled workers; we need a new system. College education and other labor force deflators will "fix" the economy for the short term, but the problem will keep returning until we fix capitalism itself.

Neither communism nor socialism is possible, anywhere, as long as scarcity exists.
Yes, this is the biggest issue in all systems. Communism addresses scarcity in passing, but it never really sets forth a path to removing it. It's a chicken and the egg situation; you can't get post-scarcity from capitalism, but you can't leave capitalism without post-scarcity. I am a proponent of technological utopianism, which hinges on a singularity event in society and technology; the idea being that we will build a new system (spontaneously?) that is post-scarcity. Some propose that this event will occur by 2040, but futurists have a talent for getting things wrong. (where's my flying car?)

No, I support a meritocracy not an aristocracy. Aristocracy is inherited and remains stagnant regardless of the actions of the individual, a meritocracy will see rises and failings based upon the merits of the individual. The working class takes money from the owner class also. How much a particular worker earns is based upon the value the worker gives and his value in a competitive market. The owner pays a "fair" wage, which really means he pays either the minimum to get the work done or he pays more to receive greater value from the work.

If a worker is only qualified for a McJob and there are 100 of them for each job, "fair" wage isn't going to be much. If however you need a pipeline welder which requires great skill and there are 100 jobs for each welder, then that worker, the welder, is going to do pretty darned good.

Merit, the skills and attitude to do a job controls the workers wage, not owners. The owners who need the work done will pay what is necessary to get the work done. When the cost of labor for the owner exceeds what the consumer is willing to pay, then the business fails, period. How much profit a business gets is controlled by how much competition there is in the market for the product sold/produced. Reduce competition and profit/wealth concentrate with the few instead of spread out over the many. The reduction also reduces the number of jobs available and thus lowers the pay for workers because there are more workers available than jobs.

No form of socialism can change those dynamics without totally breaking the whole system. Over Regulated capitalism interferes with the proper working of that dynamic. Under regulated capitalism/corporatism can to monopolies and greatly concentrate wealth.

But since socialism is not only economic but social, it tries to "balance" what each person gets instead of letting each person receive what they have earned. In doing so, it subjugates the productive/earners to the none-productive/earners.

The problem is that "merit" is in the eye of the beholder. Every free-market capitalist I've talked to has said that they promote a meritocracy, except that they get to decide what "merit" is. Quite literally, in a free market you are "better" if you have more money, no matter how you got it. A gold miner is "better" if they hit a lode (by chance), a child is "better" if they have a rich parent (by chance), a company is better if they hit the trend (by chance). A capitalist society is the only way a man can get rich by selling pet rocks, and that guy is considered to be a "genius" by capitalists. Money is the worst way to measure merit if ever I saw one.

The idea that a person will be paid for their skills is 100% dependent on their being open jobs for that skill (which isn't the case for most people), and on the tendency for employers to pay what you're worth (not the case, ever). Most employers pay an equally low amount for any particular position, and there is no force to raise the average wage for any particular position. The idea that companies "compete" for workers is simply untrue, as long as there is unemployment. Fixing unemployment is key to reviving a capitalist system, but it simply doesn't address the issue of "merit" vs "wealth"; only a collectivist/social-minded system tries to raise wages for the sake of paying people what they are worth.

It all comes down to the fact that a company can't profit from paying people what they are worth. It's a simple fact of "profit" in general. If you have an hour or so to spare, check out this video; it's a breakdown of the evolution of various socio-economic systems and how they relate to Marxism. It's fairly interesting, and frames the argument the way most modern Marxists see this issue; especially wages vs. "worth". The ending shows a relatively elegant solution to implementing Marxist ideas within Capitalism, using employee owned/operated non-profit companies.

Crisis and Openings: Introduction to Marxism - Richard D Wolff - YouTube
 
How in the world can capitalism wipe out the species?

The first world's, and increasingly 2nd world's, insatiable consumerism on which capitalism depends is likely to destroy our environment, in turn us ...
 
Apparently you have confused the current/past US economy with some form of unregulated capitalism. The government has been screwing with it for a very long time. Industrialist/corporatist started trying to control the market and limit competition at least as early as the late 1800s, probably if you dig deep enough, from the very beginning.

Lets see, in history, there has never been a particularly successful attempt at socialism and the top economy has always been a market/capitalist based system. Name a single attempt at socialism in a whole society that was ever been "successful" and did anything but impoverish everyone in that society, except those leading the socialism.

What would you call the Sweden or Denmark's economy? I think it's fairly socialistic in nature.
 
"Communism has never been attempted."
hah yeah and that's cuz there's no such thing
wait which Communism is he referring too ?

never mind neither version works so it's all the same

dang it really must be something really cool for all these people to keep wanting it
kinda like eternal life, salvation & 72 virgins (or is it just 70+ ) ?
 
rabbitcaebannog when you consider their size(s)
I wouldn't 'call' them at all
 
I agree with the poster who said this country is likely to head toward Fascism.
 
'size matters' ;)
ha ha ha and this is coming from a woman?

ok I'll play what would you like to say in regards to the unbelievably smashing success of socialism in those two countries?
 
I've named a ton before, ranging from Allende's Chile to the Eastern European bloc of the 80s, amongst numerous others.

Socialism's been tried. Socialism's failed.

Capitalism failed. It promised a real change from the aristocracies of the past. The only difference was which ruling class was in charge, and the illusion that they weren't.
 
Can a 'capitalist ruling class' use force to get you to do anything?
or are they just limited to running ads in the media to try to get you to buy their products and services?

birv55.jpg
 
Capitalism failed. It promised a real change from the aristocracies of the past. The only difference was which ruling class was in charge, and the illusion that they weren't.

Pure capitalism does fail; there's no argument to that. However, the most prosperous nations, by and large, are mixed economies that show a tremendously heavy partiality toward capitalism.
 
"Pure capitalism always fails"
and then folks ask:
name one time true laissez faire capitalism has ever existed
and I get sooo confused
How 'bout this, since nearly every thinking person can acknowledge the abject failures
of communism/socialism (but many keep on wanting it to be tried again?)
Why not just give laissez faire a chance?

oh and while yer at it why not
214cn5v.jpg
 
What are you even saying

My Reply:

I am saying that the anger on the street is huge and will only worsen as the economy declines further.

There are those who claim that the U.S. Capitalist system can recover and I totally disagree.

Presently; the U.S. is spending at least a trillion dollars more per year than what it earns. This would not include the ongoing trade deficit and whatever the Federal Reserve is doing.

An increasing GDP is when a U.S. Capitalist buys a pair of shoes manufactured in China for a dollar and then sells the shoes in North America for 2 dollars .... thus the GDP increases by a dollar.

Those who hold a more positive view of the U.S. economy must begin to explain what a reduction in spending (amounting to at least a trillion dollars per year perhaps 2 trillion) would do to an already damaged economy and society?

An economic recovery is not possible with a "Service" economy. There needs to be a vibrant manufacturing sector and that has been destroyed.

We can expect two items to top the news during the next two years .....

Religion:

Consumption Tax:

I follow this topic rather closely:
http://www.dotandcalm.com/calm-archive/EconomicNotes.html

What exactly stops those "rich" people from moving themselves and their money, as some have already done, to another location?

My Reply:

The only place on this earth for the Rich Folks to hide-out will be Zimbabwe or the like.

Calm

Here is some historical information for research purposes:

U.S. Finance: Socialism - Capitalism
Articles and Commentaries by various writers and media pundits.
June 2005 --- December 29, 2008
http://www.dotandcalm.com/calm-arch...alism-01-October24-2009--December29-2008.html
January 03, 2009 --- March 17, 2010
http://www.dotandcalm.com/calm-arch...pitalism-02-January03-2009--March17-2010.html
March 30, 2010 --- May 18, 2012
http://www.dotandcalm.com/calm-arch...m-Capitalism-03-March30-2010--May18-2012.html
June 12, 2012 --- July 10, 2013
http://www.dotandcalm.com/calm-arch...Capitalism-04-June12-2012--August22-2012.html
 
Last edited:
No, I support a meritocracy not an aristocracy. Aristocracy is inherited and remains stagnant regardless of the actions of the individual, a meritocracy will see rises and failings based upon the merits of the individual.
So you're good with a 100% estate tax? That's good to know! :)
 
USA has the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world, only behind Japan.
I'd like to see that in actual terms instead of what's on the books. I'm willing to bet corporate tax/corporate gross income is much lower than most other countries. The rate itself may be higher but the deductions are also higher.
 
remind me never to let you do my books
 
'size matters' ;)
ha ha ha and this is coming from a woman?

ok I'll play what would you like to say in regards to the unbelievably smashing success of socialism in those two countries?

The standard of living is not so bad.
 
yeah being a 1st world country tends to do that
what else?
 
And in this country, it really doesn't. Or rather, it doesn't have to, and we artificially create it. Scarcity is only ever going to decrease as technology improves. Socialism is basically inevitable, both for this country and for the world.

People advocating for socialism have their own definitions of what scarcity "really means." The Zeitgeist video, for example, posits that post-scarcity, modern, socialist cities of the future will only need 3% of the population to maintain. And where, exactly, does this 3% come from? Needing ANYTHING is the textbook antonym of post-scarcity. Unless you're comfortable with slavery, as long as it's just "3%".

We will continue to live with scarcity until the very moment we can synthesize anything we need from a raw stock of atoms, up to and including being able to synthesize more synthesizers. And even then, post-scarcity for the human race will only last as long as there is an abundant amount of atoms in relation to the population. True and eternal scarcity is a myth, born in the land of milk and honey.
 
Gonzo there is a beauty in your words comparable to that which can be seen in Quantum field theory ;)

hah ya gotta love it when well fed, housed, clothed socialists stamp their feet and throw their sippy cups from their high-chairs
ranting about poverty, starvation & scarcity

My mind wanders to the concept that none of them have ever really experienced first hand what the onset of starvation
the various phases you go through, feels like? Now nearly dying from exposure is a whole nuther kettle of fish eh?
 
People advocating for socialism have their own definitions of what scarcity "really means." The Zeitgeist video, for example, posits that post-scarcity, modern, socialist cities of the future will only need 3% of the population to maintain. And where, exactly, does this 3% come from? Needing ANYTHING is the textbook antonym of post-scarcity. Unless you're comfortable with slavery, as long as it's just "3%".

We will continue to live with scarcity until the very moment we can synthesize anything we need from a raw stock of atoms, up to and including being able to synthesize more synthesizers. And even then, post-scarcity for the human race will only last as long as there is an abundant amount of atoms in relation to the population. True and eternal scarcity is a myth, born in the land of milk and honey.

I definitely agree with the first paragraph...not so much the second one though.
 
So you're good with a 100% estate tax? That's good to know! :)

Sure, same day that every single person earns everything that they now inherit. Oh, things like freedoms, rights, etc. If people are not allowed to inherit physical things, like property and money, then why should they be allowed to inherit the truly important things.

Did you earn the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or did you inherit that? Seems only fair, since some don't inherit money and you think everyone should start even, then since every person doesn't inherit these, then you would be willing to give them up also so that every person starts even and only gets what they earn for themselves.
 
clearly this dude doesn't have a rich uncle about to croak off
or is it that he's so lacking in fiduciary responsibility that none of his family members would trust him with a dime
or is it that he doesn't understand that death taxes have only one purpose and that is to keep the middle class poor
because the truly wealthy folks are completely unaffected by such silly things or
mebbe I'll go get a nuther' cuppa joe
 
Sure, same day that every single person earns everything that they now inherit. Oh, things like freedoms, rights, etc. If people are not allowed to inherit physical things, like property and money, then why should they be allowed to inherit the truly important things.

Did you earn the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or did you inherit that? Seems only fair, since some don't inherit money and you think everyone should start even, then since every person doesn't inherit these, then you would be willing to give them up also so that every person starts even and only gets what they earn for themselves.
I made no personal opinion of a 100% inheritance tax - YOU did that when you posted this:

"Aristocracy is inherited and remains stagnant ... "

Since you believe in passing money and property down from one generation to the next it seems obvious that you want to perpetuate the aristocracy regardless of your alleged ideal of a meritocracy.


Every person starts even (with the Constitution) as long as it applies equally to everyone all the time. You're just flopping around and grasping at straws with that line of attack. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom