• 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:
maybe, increasing workers conscious will bypass ownership.
Click to expand...

mebbe the janitor will be better equipped to renegotiate the parts contract from the overseas supplier
and make better decisions regarding next years corporate tax policy when he meets with the drillpress operator
that took over for the CFO?
 
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...

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Too many cooks in the kitchen"? What you are essentially saying is that expert workers are in the position to know best practices, and you are partially correct, yet you ignore the fact that limited resources have to be split between multiple branches in any organization, which leads to the singular question of "who get's what and when?". Decisions need to be made on a constant basis with the big picture in mind; experts tend to take a myopic view of their area of expertise, which leads to the requirement of "Generalist experts"... which is what we call a Manager. Sure, workers can be effective self-managers, yet only with proper motivation (read: incentives) and not for every position. If the fry cook's pay was dependent on how many fries they upsold at the cash register, they'd probably sell a lot more fries, yet working the register isn't their job; division of labor (which gives us specialization and advantage in the first place) often rightfully separates incentive from actual production. In all reality, a worker's pay can be subsidized through stock option and/or direct take from daily profits to some degree, but this just simply isn't possible in all situations. If every cashier and fry cook in the McDonald's franchise had a stake of their store, it wouldn't be enough to make them work that much harder... unless their stake was so high that the store then becomes an unviable business. Who would put up their money (resources) in order to give others wildly increased opportunity at the expense of taking all of the risk? This is why the Soviet system failed and why the Chinese system eventually adopted a more market-based approach. The system just works, even if some of the "less fortunate" allow themselves to get thrown under the bus. It's not a strict meritocracy by any means, but market/capitalistic systems have inherent motivation by way of reward. No planned market system will ever reach the efficiency or efficacy of a capitalist market system. It's just human nature.

jag2594 said:
If the CEO and shareholder stop participating, will the production continue ?
Click to expand...

How is Apple doing without Steve Jobs?
 
Last edited:
AngryOldGuy said:
mebbe the janitor will be better equipped to renegotiate the parts contract from the overseas supplier
and make better decisions regarding next years corporate tax policy when he meets with the drillpress operator
that took over for the CFO?
Click to expand...


workers will own the negotiation, Janitor job is to clean. HE will negotiate the clean department with other workers.
 
"negotiation" isn't in his Union contract to the sub-assemblies won't be delivered the line will stop the customers will go elsewhere to company a that isn't run by janitors?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Have you ever heard the phrase, "Too many cooks in the kitchen"? What you are essentially saying is that expert workers are in the position to know best practices, and you are partially correct, yet you ignore the fact that limited resources have to be split between multiple branches in any organization, which leads to the singular question of "who get's what and when?". Decisions need to be made on a constant basis with the big picture in mind; experts tend to take a myopic view of their area of expertise, which leads to the requirement of "Generalist experts"... which is what we call a Manager. Sure, workers can be effective self-managers, yet only with proper motivation (read: incentives) and not for every position. If the fry cook's pay was dependent on how many fries they upsold at the cash register, they'd probably sell a lot more fries, yet working the register isn't their job; division of labor (which gives us specialization and advantage in the first place) often rightfully separates incentive from actual production. In all reality, a worker's pay can be subsidized through stock option and/or direct take from daily profits to some degree, but this just simply isn't possible in all situations. If every cashier and fry cook in the McDonald's franchise had a stake of their store, it wouldn't be enough to make them work that much harder... unless their stake was so high that the store then becomes an unviable business. Who would put up their money (resources) in order to give others wildly increased opportunity at the expense of taking all of the risk? This is why the Soviet system failed and why the Chinese system eventually adopted a more market-based approach. The system just works, even if some of the "less fortunate" allow themselves to get thrown under the bus. It's not a strict meritocracy by any means, but market/capitalistic systems have inherent motivation by way of reward. No planned market system will ever reach the efficiency or efficacy of a capitalist market system. It's just human nature.



How is Apple doing without Steve Jobs?
Click to expand...


if a cook knew that everyone is getting a fraction of the pay the store makes. Everyone would be working as a team and laziness would not be accepted. You don't work you don't get paid.

I don't know much about apple, he did a good job keeping the media from knowing the slaves he was producing in china. jeez, they had to put a net under the windows to catch people from dying. Thats the true reason why they were so successful.


Apple: Poor working conditions inside the Chinese factories making iPads | Mail Online

CHECK OUT THE PICTURES



Unpleasant sight: Nets to prevent workers from jumping to their deaths are pictured outside one of the Foxconn factory buildings in the township of Longhua, in southern Guangdong province
 
Moot said:
Thats true, it wouldn't the USA anymore. It would be an authoritarian theocracy with all the communist bells and whistles. And since Jesus preached socialism....it would be an easy switch......if only it weren't for that darn constitution and separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
Jesus did NOT preach socialism. Jesus preached individual responsibility, not government giveaway programs.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
There is NO DIFFERENCE between Fascist and Communist. They are BOTH SOCIALIST.
Click to expand...
you mean
It wasn't called the National Socialist German Workers' Party by accident?
I thought we Conservatives were supposed to be the Fascists?
2yuy9af.jpg
 
gmeyers1944 said:
Jesus did NOT preach socialism. Jesus preached individual responsibility, not government giveaway programs.
Click to expand...

No, Jesus preached socialism alright....


Prov. 14:31 Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

Prov28:27 If you give to the poor, your needs will be supplied! But a curse upon those who close their eyes to poverty.

Prov22:9 Happy is the generous man, the one who feeds the poor.

Luke 6:20-21 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

1 John 3:17-18 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

Psalm 12:5 "Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise," says the LORD. "Then I will protect them from those who malign them."

Proverbs 14:31 He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Proverbs 22:22-23 Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them.

Proverbs 28:27 He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.

Proverbs 31:8-9 "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."

Ezekiel 16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

These are just a few quotes from the Bible. There are a total of 131 quotes where the needs of the poor are addressed, in both the Old and New Testament....."



Credit goes to danarhea for doing the above research. Thank you danarhea.
 
well thank gawd I'm an atheist
 
I think the poor are icky
 
jag2594 said:
if a cook knew that everyone is getting a fraction of the pay the store makes. Everyone would be working as a team and laziness would not be accepted. You don't work you don't get paid.
Click to expand...

And how many people simply wouldn't even show up (or would leave early) if there isn't any business that day? Where I live, we have a thriving tourism economy during the summer and not much else during the winter. So, do these restaurants close down except for the summer months because nobody wants to show up when it's dead (even though the rent and taxes still have to be paid in the slow months)?

People who truly advocate for employee ownership have never owned a business. It is such an absurdity to consider. Probably why you don't see it that often. I mean, nothing is stopping businesses from doing that now, so why don't they?
 
gmeyers1944 said:
There is NO DIFFERENCE between Fascist and Communist. They are BOTH SOCIALIST.
Click to expand...

This is utterly incorrect. Communism is an economic ideology, which is primarily associated with authoritarian (not quite fascist, though near) figures such as Josef Stalin. It's primary tenet is socialism as well as a community to support and employ. It's opposite is a completely unregulated free market. Between these are other forms of socialism (welfare for the disabled in the case of the United States), and capitalism.

Fascism is an authoritarian philosophy which dictates that the state should regulate and subjugate the populace and their affairs. It's opposite is anarchism. Between these are lesser degrees of libertarianism and authoritarianism.

One can have a fascist governed society with a free market or a libertarian society with a socialist economy and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Michael_Alvis said:
One can have a fascist governed society with a free market or a libertarian society with a socialist economy and vice versa.
Click to expand...
So which one do advocate as a replacement for our failed Constitutional Republic?
 
Your use of sarcasm bores me.

To be empirical, I would not say that the government of the United States has "failed." It certainly has flaws, but it has institutionalized a stable, albeit avaricious and divided society.

Also the introduction of communism would be a calamity for the United States. The populace are much too frightened at the notion of sharing "their" property with the less fortunate or the disabled. The corporations have been bestowed such a foothold in the nation that even attempting to introduce communism would be nigh on impossible.
 
We sure as heck aren't moving towards Laissez-faire capitalism!
So what do you think of the doses of communism in the form of ever increasing socialism have as their end goal in this country?
Didn't it start in 1913 and has had a slow steady progression culminating with Socialised Healthcare?
Why, over time, can't we finally achieve what seems to be the long term goal?

Again, which one do you advocate as a replacement for our failed Constitutional Republic?
Because we sure as heck have strayed light years away from the Constitution already.
 
If I were to choose one, I would choose communism.

Production would be influenced by quotas, the permanently disabled would be bequeathed a lifelong pension, healthcare would be of no cost and funded by the government.

It's completely amicable to stray from the constitution, social and economic innovation is progress.
 
On a national level, no. But if some hippies want to move out to an abandoned ranch in Arizona and set up a little commune, that could last for decades. Or at least until they run out of acid . . .
 
gmeyers1944 said:
There is NO DIFFERENCE between Fascist and Communist. They are BOTH SOCIALIST.
Click to expand...

I agree because you can not reach Fascism or Communism without first the state of Socialism.

All three are oppressive forms of government that kill liberty/freedom.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
There is NO DIFFERENCE between Fascist and Communist. They are BOTH SOCIALIST.
Click to expand...

Fascism isn't socialist. Fascist economics are usually based on crony-capitalism. Like K Street. Fascism is mostly about ultra-nationalism and militarism. It's basically anti-communist and anti-liberal. The economics are just whatever achieves those goals.
 
vesper said:
I agree because you can not reach Fascism or Communism without first the state of Socialism.

All three are oppressive forms of government that kill liberty/freedom.
Click to expand...

hear hear all you wannabe commies, trust me, if you are currently unhappy with your lot in life in the (formerly) freest (formerly) richest nation mankind has ever known You'll be bulldozed into mass graves in this future dystopian communistic United states of Amerika. I'd have thought you of all people would be aware of what happens during the purges in your wonderful revolutions
 
Michael_Alvis said:
It's completely amicable to stray from the constitution.
Click to expand...
Sure, why not it worked for the French beginning in 1789 and again for the Russians in 1917?
Well not for the millions that died but hey: you can't make an omelette without breaking a few millions eggs eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom