• 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
AngryOldGuy said:
Turns out he was right along eh?
Click to expand...

If one is delusional with no firm grasp of reality, then maybe.

No, McCarthy wasn't right. He did a lot more harm than good. Accusing others of being communist without any regard for factual evidence isn't really a good thing.
 
Last edited:
even though they were commies
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
And how are land disputes in your ideal system resolved? None of the farmers want to sell, none of the people with homes want to sell, none of the businesses want to sell... so where does the power plant go?

The situation is hypothetical; the fact that we have property rights to resolve future disputes is very much grounded in reality.
Click to expand...

That has very little to do with who owns the land - more like laws and individual preferences. If one people owns it, or if ten do, negotiations can still occur, they can still sell it. the government can still force them to move, communities can still choose what to do democratically, and so on.

Here's a question for you: how are private and group property different in this case?
 
Org said:
That has very little to do with who owns the land - more like laws and individual preferences. If one people owns it, or if ten do, negotiations can still occur, they can still sell it. the government can still force them to move, communities can still choose what to do democratically, and so on.

Here's a question for you: how are private and group property different in this case?
Click to expand...

There is literally no difference. The way you are describing group property is just like Incorporation.... another evil facet of Capitalism.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
There is literally no difference. The way you are describing group property is just like Incorporation.... another evil facet of Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Not at all. This analysis is all about who owns property with the capability of generating wealth. In capitalism, it's private capitalists. In feudalism, it was aristocrats. In socialism, it's workers.

I'm describing socialism, and my advocacy of markets doesn't change that.
 
Org said:
Not at all. This analysis is all about who owns property with the capability of generating wealth. In capitalism, it's private capitalists. In feudalism, it was aristocrats. In socialism, it's workers.

I'm describing socialism, and my advocacy of markets doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Is communism possible in the U.S.? Sure it is......when you have so many ignorant sheeple in our society that can't even recognize socialism which according to Marx is the stepping stone to Communism, what's stopping it?

In regard to the posts on capitalism- What is practiced in this country today could be called modified capitalism, socialized capitalism, regulated capitalism, government-controlled capitalism, corporatism, soft fascism. Essentially they're all the same thing.

I think the term that bests describes what we have today is corporatism where big business is in bed with big government. Go check out the list of fortune 500 companies and start counting all those who are government subsidized.
 
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...

The successful worker actually does the work.
 
jag2594 said:
I don't believe...
Click to expand...
I believe your beliefs and reality need not have even a casual acquaintance, I don't think they even have coffee together.

which is more important to an economy
wage slaves
consumers
or businessmen to turn the product of the workers activity into products and services
that the consumers will purchase at a price that the businessman can generate a profit from?
 
AngryOldGuy said:
I believe your beliefs and reality need not have even a casual acquaintance, I don't think they even have coffee together.


wage slaves of the workers ?
Click to expand...

I think everyone would be better of if the elite would give a hand in the production.
 
jag2594 said:
I think everyone would be better of if the elite would give a hand in the production.
Click to expand...

Obama is working as hard as he can, man
2d6wjly.jpg
 
Then who are these supposed non-productive elites ?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Socialists tend to think work can be done without, you know, work.
Click to expand...

No, workers own the means of productions, you know....Like John Smith. IF you don't work you don't eat.
 
jag2594 said:
No, workers own the means of productions, you know....Like John Smith. IF you don't work you don't eat.
Click to expand...

Define "worker".
 
You mean like when Obama shafted the shareholders and gave GM to the Unions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom