• 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
jag2594 said:
A miner, not one who has at a desk in air conditioning room. But who is actually does the Mining
Click to expand...

So, people who sit at desks by definition don't work, according to you.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
What is the difference between a private capitalist and a successful worker?

To be honest, every socialist argument, point, idea, or thought all looks exactly like capitalism to me, only with different people in the top spots; replace the current aristocracy of wealth with another aristocracy of control. And make sure to sound really hopeful and idealistic while selling it.
Click to expand...

While not pretending to be a total decentralist, I do fundamentally reject the idea of "top spots". And it seems you don't really get what I mean by worker-ownership.

6E73EEAD-320F-43E7-A2058FA52B191715.gif


This is an image of basic horizontal structure, which is what's meant by worker ownership. Decisions are made by voting and discourse, with coordinators being elected facilitators, holding no management authority above the rest. In many models, the "team members" are deparments, or entire companies, and some decisions are made autonomously by these smaller groups. There's a lot of variation, especially when accounting for size and individual constitutions, but the core principals still apply. In essence, it's the application of democracy to the workplace - and thus the abolition of private property and the capitalist class.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
So, people who sit at desks by definition don't work, according to you.
Click to expand...

yeah...some people are so painfully stupid they actually believe that unless you are sweating your ass off and killing yourself, you are not working. Apparently companies just run themselves and supplies and materials just show up by magic.
 
Org said:
While not pretending to be a total decentralist, I do fundamentally reject the idea of "top spots". And it seems you don't really get what I mean by worker-ownership.

6E73EEAD-320F-43E7-A2058FA52B191715.gif


This is an image of basic horizontal structure, which is what's meant by worker ownership. Decisions are made by voting and discourse, with coordinators being elected facilitators, holding no management authority above the rest. In many models, the "team members" are deparments, or entire companies, and some decisions are made autonomously by these smaller groups. There's a lot of variation, especially when accounting for size and individual constitutions, but the core principals still apply. In essence, it's the application of democracy to the workplace - and thus the abolition of private property and the capitalist class.
Click to expand...
It is also the abolition of prosperity. Few co-ops work, and when they do, not for long. Without capitalism we have economies like the USSR or E. Germany, the latter of which held back to the prosperity of the whole of Germany for years as they gradually converted to capitalism.
 
Canell said:
To save the poll from influence, I will spare my opinion for the time being. :)

So, is communism possible in the USA?
Click to expand...
Let's put it this way; through force communism can be established anywhere. But communism will never thrive or create social prosperity no matter where it is. The very idea of forced socialism/communism is dunce cap material. (I have lived in a socialist environment)
 
very true
played out on the world stage for all to see
to the detriment of millions stuck on the wrong side of the fence
East and west Germany
North and south Korea
 
dnsmith said:
It is also the abolition of prosperity. Few co-ops work, and when they do, not for long. Without capitalism we have economies like the USSR or E. Germany, the latter of which held back to the prosperity of the whole of Germany for years as they gradually converted to capitalism.
Click to expand...

That's empirically and historically false.

Cooperatives may not be a new idea—with at least 130 million members (more than one in three Americans), co-ops have broad political and cultural support—but they are becoming increasingly important in new-economy efforts. A widely discussed strategy in Cleveland suggests a possible next stage of development: the Evergreen Cooperatives are linked through a nonprofit corporation, a revolving loan fund and the common goal of rebuilding the economically devastated Greater University Circle neighborhoods. A thoroughly green industrial-scale laundry, a solar installation company and a soon-to-be-opened large-scale commercial greenhouse (capable of producing about 5 million heads of lettuce a year) make up the first of a group of linked co-ops projected to expand in years to come. The effort is unique in that Evergreen is building on the purchasing power of the area’s large hospital, university and other anchor institutions, which buy some
$3 billion of goods and services a year—virtually none of which, until recently, had come from local business. Senator Sherrod Brown is expected to introduce national legislation aimed at developing Evergreen-style models in other cities. (Full disclosure: the Democracy Collaborative of the University of Maryland, which I co-founded, has played an important role in Evergreen’s development.)

"Democratized businesses” like employee-owned companies, where more than 10 million Americans work.
Click to expand...

Beyond Corporate Capitalism: Not So Wild a Dream | The Nation
The New-Economy Movement | The Nation

Then there's the Spanish Mondragon system, and the Italian cooperatives.

I could also point to what happens when socialism is put in place. Sometimes it fails due to it's own urgency and siege mentality. Sometimes military/imperial pressures force it out of existence. But in other cases, it flourishes.

In Spain, a kind of left anarchism worked beautifully, until being removed by military force.

In Venezuela and Cuba, living standards have greatly improved, as have political participation and literacy.

In Hungary, before Stalinist and capitalist interference, conditions greatly improved. Under the current capitalist government, many complain about the poverty and job insecurity unseen under socialism.
 
Org said:
That's empirically and historically false.
Click to expand...
wow just wow read his aboot tab, tell me you've lived as much life as he
nevermind, folks sitting in the lap of capitalist luxury and freedom can afford to propound the wonders of communist oppression.
I suppose it is the way of things.
 
Org said:
While not pretending to be a total decentralist, I do fundamentally reject the idea of "top spots". And it seems you don't really get what I mean by worker-ownership.

6E73EEAD-320F-43E7-A2058FA52B191715.gif


This is an image of basic horizontal structure, which is what's meant by worker ownership. Decisions are made by voting and discourse, with coordinators being elected facilitators, holding no management authority above the rest. In many models, the "team members" are deparments, or entire companies, and some decisions are made autonomously by these smaller groups. There's a lot of variation, especially when accounting for size and individual constitutions, but the core principals still apply. In essence, it's the application of democracy to the workplace - and thus the abolition of private property and the capitalist class.
Click to expand...

Clearly you've never worked in an organization. A "coordinator" without management powers is quite useless. Somebody has to make desicions and there is no getting around this fact. Now, the idea of voting on the person who gets to make the decisions is not entirely without merit, yet still falls prerilously short of effective when an unpopular decision (that may be the better decision) will get a person unelected. Its the same reasoning for why we don't let our kids vote on what to have for dinner - they lack the necessary knowledge to make good decisions.
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah...some people are so painfully stupid they actually believe that unless you are sweating your ass off and killing yourself, you are not working. Apparently companies just run themselves and supplies and materials just show up by magic.
Click to expand...

I once worked for an enormous aviation association. My job was to coordinate and schedule personnel and training for compliance. While I only flew a small percentage of the time and never turned a single wrench, the hundreds and hundreds of people I was responsible for could not have done their jobs without me. I was one of the hardest working people in that organization, and I did it all from my desk.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I once worked for an enormous aviation association. My job was to coordinate and schedule personnel and training for compliance. While I only flew a small percentage of the time and never turned a single wrench, the hundreds and hundreds of people I was responsible for could not have done their jobs without me. I was one of the hardest working people in that organization, and I did it all from my desk.
Click to expand...

I am a supply officer in the army reserves. the last year I spent in Iraq was probably the hardest I ever worked in my life. processing 7 years worth or accumulated crap left behind by units when they went home. 16-18 hour days, 6-7 days a week. inventorying containers and trying to track down who the crap belonged to
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
So, people who sit at desks by definition don't work, according to you.
Click to expand...

Sorry misunderstanding, there are jobs that are in need of people to do paper work. I meant someone overlooking the whole thing, like a CEO or share holder. Desk Positions that needed for a production and are very important.
 
dnsmith said:
Let's put it this way; through force communism can be established anywhere. But communism will never thrive or create social prosperity no matter where it is. The very idea of forced socialism/communism is dunce cap material. (I have lived in a socialist environment)
Click to expand...

Who said anything about forcing socialism and communism. The USSR under stalin has been questionable to label its economy as Communism.

Don't forget that their was a large socialist movement in the U.S. Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Daniel Deleon, Upton Sinclair and others. It was not forced, it was by popular idea.
 
CEO's and shareholders are the one's that give jerbs to them lil wage slaves.
Them evil 'job creators' that are electing to not participate in this Obamanation.
Give us another Ronnie Raygun and we'll do another 80's boom and all you Liberals
can criticize the Yuppies and the dinks (Dual Income, No Kids) again.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Clearly you've never worked in an organization. A "coordinator" without management powers is quite useless. Somebody has to make desicions and there is no getting around this fact. Now, the idea of voting on the person who gets to make the decisions is not entirely without merit, yet still falls prerilously short of effective when an unpopular decision (that may be the better decision) will get a person unelected. Its the same reasoning for why we don't let our kids vote on what to have for dinner - they lack the necessary knowledge to make good decisions.
Click to expand...

I'd like to challenge that by making four points:

1. Incompetency can occur, whiter there is one leader, or ten, or twenty. If anything, group decision making is more effective, just based on the volume of cognitive capital. So no, there doesn't need to be "somebody to make decisions", there just needs to be a way of making them effectively.
2. I disagree that workers "lack the necessary knowledge to make good decisions". Especially in their field - because each department/group has a degree of autonomy, following a similar model to Agile Product Development -, workers are experts, making them best equipped to make decisions in that field.
3. Knowing that workers can be effective self-managers removes the need for a capitalist and the profit model. Profits and non-productive employees come with a cost to productive employees (decreasing their pay) and consumers (Increasing prices.) So from an efficiency standpoint, worker-ownership is the way to go.
3. I've regularly attended meetings of the post-national-disintegration Occupy. Their operations are wildly efficient. There's a larger organizing body, which consists of all the group's members. This body is presented proposals to vote on by smaller groups, called working groups. These proposals come with an argument for why they should be carried out, followed by a short period of debate, and a straw poll. The working groups, in their case, are open to any member, and contributions are based on merit - the person who's best at a certain thing will do it. G.A. Cohen's ideas of socialist EoA and community are very prevalent. People provide their services not because they're forced to, or paid to, but because they genuinely want to. And because they know that if they don't, things won't get done and it'll all fall apart. ---- I see very real applications for this in the workplace. It happens quite a bit, as I showed in an earlier post, and it'll likely be happening a lot more.
 
Org said:
I'd like to challenge that by making four points:

1. Incompetency can occur, whiter there is one leader, or ten, or twenty. If anything, group decision making is more effective, just based on the volume of cognitive capital. So no, there doesn't need to be "somebody to make decisions", there just needs to be a way of making them effectively.
2. I disagree that workers "lack the necessary knowledge to make good decisions". Especially in their field - because each department/group has a degree of autonomy, following a similar model to Agile Product Development -, workers are experts, making them best equipped to make decisions in that field.
3. Knowing that workers can be effective self-managers removes the need for a capitalist and the profit model. Profits and non-productive employees come with a cost to productive employees (decreasing their pay) and consumers (Increasing prices.) So from an efficiency standpoint, worker-ownership is the way to go.
3. I've regularly attended meetings of the post-national-disintegration Occupy. Their operations are wildly efficient. There's a larger organizing body, which consists of all the group's members. This body is presented proposals to vote on by smaller groups, called working groups. These proposals come with an argument for why they should be carried out, followed by a short period of debate, and a straw poll. The working groups, in their case, are open to any member, and contributions are based on merit - the person who's best at a certain thing will do it. G.A. Cohen's ideas of socialist EoA and community are very prevalent. People provide their services not because they're forced to, or paid to, but because they genuinely want to. And because they know that if they don't, things won't get done and it'll all fall apart. ---- I see very real applications for this in the workplace. It happens quite a bit, as I showed in an earlier post, and it'll likely be happening a lot more.
Click to expand...

Add secrecy and you have communist cells?
 
yobarnacle said:
Add secrecy and you have communist cells?
Click to expand...

Yeah, following a Bakunist sentiment, many leftist political groups do operate like that.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I once worked for an enormous aviation association. My job was to coordinate and schedule personnel and training for compliance. While I only flew a small percentage of the time and never turned a single wrench, the hundreds and hundreds of people I was responsible for could not have done their jobs without me. I was one of the hardest working people in that organization, and I did it all from my desk.
Click to expand...

According to Marxists, your labor would hold no value because it has no tangential, direct, or measurable help to the task being completed.

This is why China went backwards so far during the Great Leap Forward. Ironic.
 
Gipper said:
According to Marxists, your labor would hold no value because it has no tangential, direct, or measurable help to the task being completed.

This is why China went backwards so far during the Great Leap Forward. Ironic.
Click to expand...

Do you follow the austrian school, not sure if all Libertarians do?
 
jag2594 said:
Sorry misunderstanding, there are jobs that are in need of people to do paper work. I meant someone overlooking the whole thing, like a CEO or share holder. Desk Positions that needed for a production and are very important.
Click to expand...

CEOs work. CEOs probably work longer days than anyone else under them. It is the supreme coordinating position. And shareholders get votes. This means they have to educate themselves and attend meetings, or else their money will evaporate.

Again, it seems we are arguing the definition of "work". You seem to be under the impression that someone not turning a wrench is simply milking the system.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
CEOs work. CEOs probably work longer days than anyone else under them. It is the supreme coordinating position. And shareholders get votes. This means they have to educate themselves and attend meetings, or else their money will evaporate.

Again, it seems we are arguing the definition of "work". You seem to be under the impression that someone not turning a wrench is simply milking the system.
Click to expand...

If the CEO and shareholder stop participating, will the production continue ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom