• 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
Do you follow the austrian school, not sure if all Libertarians do?

I consider myself more of a neoclassicist, but I'll accept a hodgepodge - austrian, Ricardian, even very small doses of Keynesianism.
 
ya sound like one mixed up dude, fer christ's sakes pick one and go with it
all you'll ever get for straddling the fence is splinters in yer nether regions
 
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.

Socialism with shareholders
 
Socialism with shareholders

I've heard it described as "socialism for the well connected". Like, From each according to his means, to each according to his relative position in the ruling party.
 
Kinda like the old Supreme Soviet Politburo members?
Model Is No Good
Everyone say: Aye
u1ono.jpg

woe be unto you
careful what you wish for
 
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?


Your right I need to provide more detail rather than just talking. I need to do more research. Thanks for the criticism.
 
I need to post more images of the wonders of totalitarianism
but the last batch I ran across are far to gruesome for such a family friendly site?
 
I need to post more images of the wonders of totalitarianism
but the last batch I ran across are far to gruesome for such a family friendly site?

The Horrors of Totalitarianism Democracy: Book One, Voting

20080221-americas.jpg

460x.jpg

cubans-voting.jpg

1362477513-thousands-line-up-to-vote-in-the-kenya-general-elections_1844894.jpg

8148322260_d970afb28c_z.jpg
 
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.

In his own definition, Mussolini stated that fascism was anti-socialism, anti-capitalism, anti-socialism, anti-democracy. I generally just view it as a political religion.
 
them pics are far too horrific
 
them pics are far too horrific

I know. Lines of happy people spending the day participating in their political process as equals. We'd never see that kind of thing in the civilized world. :lol:
 
Communism is not possible, at least not "through the front door".

Fascism, maybe.

I wonder though... Is there a name for a system of Government that is controlled by the corporations and super wealthy by way of mass misinformation to get the people to vote against their own self interests?
 
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.

All of these verses refer to individual responsibility, not government give-a-way programs that use money that was forcibly taken by taxation.
 
All of these verses refer to individual responsibility, not government give-a-way programs that use money that was forcibly taken by taxation.

And when a society is engineered as such where full time workers can not make enough to survive on their own, do you feel that in the eyes of Jesus we do not have a responsibility to adjust the system in such a way that 1 third of our population is not dependent upon this individual charity?
The Romans felt as you do and it did not go well for them in the end.

If you can call that taxation as "forcibly taken", then can I call the profits of the super wealthy "forcibly collected"? They collect these profits off the backs of the poor because the system is engineered where they have no choice. It is by force, under penalty of suffering or even death. Whereas the forcible collection of tax is much less punitive.

Do you think that Jesus is in favor of having so many millions work all their waking life, still unable to make it, while so very few own everything?
So often I see Conservatives point to the minority example. The crackhead that refuses to work and milks the system. But what of the majority example. What of 1/3rd of the population that works their asses off, still unable to make it?
 
And when a society is engineered as such where full time workers can not make enough to survive on their own, do you feel that in the eyes of Jesus we do not have a responsibility to adjust the system in such a way that 1 third of our population is not dependent upon this individual charity?
The Romans felt as you do and it did not go well for them in the end.

If you can call that taxation as "forcibly taken", then can I call the profits of the super wealthy "forcibly collected"? They collect these profits off the backs of the poor because the system is engineered where they have no choice. It is by force, under penalty of suffering or even death. Whereas the forcible collection of tax is much less punitive.

Do you think that Jesus is in favor of having so many millions work all their waking life, still unable to make it, while so very few own everything?
So often I see Conservatives point to the minority example. The crackhead that refuses to work and milks the system. But what of the majority example. What of 1/3rd of the population that works their asses off, still unable to make it?

There are poor people in the USA. and then there are "poor" people collecting benefits, with multiple cars, multiple tv sets, multiple computers, cel phones, ect.

They eat very well on food stamps...if they buy real food instead of expensive junk.

The problem with any state run assistance is people find ways to abuse it.

Now, when a church helps the poor, they visit them. Not like a social worker spying, but out of concern to see how they can help. the fellowship with the person. Create a relationship. And get to know them. Much harder to cheat THAT type of assistance .
 
And when a society is engineered as such where full time workers can not make enough to survive on their own, do you feel that in the eyes of Jesus we do not have a responsibility to adjust the system in such a way that 1 third of our population is not dependent upon this individual charity?
The Romans felt as you do and it did not go well for them in the end.

If you can call that taxation as "forcibly taken", then can I call the profits of the super wealthy "forcibly collected"? They collect these profits off the backs of the poor because the system is engineered where they have no choice. It is by force, under penalty of suffering or even death. Whereas the forcible collection of tax is much less punitive.

Do you think that Jesus is in favor of having so many millions work all their waking life, still unable to make it, while so very few own everything?
So often I see Conservatives point to the minority example. The crackhead that refuses to work and milks the system. But what of the majority example. What of 1/3rd of the population that works their asses off, still unable to make it?
All I know is that I am a retired mail man. I pay my taxes and I make charitable donations. I do not compare the two. Also. The government is a very inefficient way to deliver services to the poor.
 
there are poor people in the usa. And then there are "poor" people collecting benefits, with multiple cars, multiple tv sets, multiple computers, cel phones, ect.

They eat very well on food stamps...if they buy real food instead of expensive junk.

The problem with any state run assistance is people find ways to abuse it.

Now, when a church helps the poor, they visit them. Not like a social worker spying, but out of concern to see how they can help. The fellowship with the person. Create a relationship. And get to know them. Much harder to cheat that type of assistance .

amen!
 
All I know is that I am a retired mail man. I pay my taxes and I make charitable donations. I do not compare the two. Also. The government is a very inefficient way to deliver services to the poor.

Your missing the larger point. If you view the poor as people in need of charity or special services, then I do not blame you for your views.
However, the point is that those who work the hardest and for the longest hours (the poor) should not need charity to begin with.
A person can not make it on their own at minimum wage even by working 60 hours a week.
These people do not want your charity. They do not want your handouts. It is degrading and insulting to suggest that they should be forced to take your charity to survive.
They should be able to work hard and be able to feed themselves, without either your help or the Government's help.
But that is impossible, because our system has failed.

You want these people to rely on individual handouts as a method of equalization of the system. But that is not reliable. They can not balance a check book based on some church's spotty charity. It is not reasonable to make them take handouts that can not be relied upon.

Those who work the hardest in our society deserve better than your crumbs.
 
There are poor people in the USA. and then there are "poor" people collecting benefits, with multiple cars, multiple tv sets, multiple computers, cel phones, ect.

So your examples of people that should not collect benefits are people with multiple TV sets, computers, and cell phones?
If I can prove to you that your thinking is wrong would you revise your opinion or simply change the subject?

TV's - When we consolidated 2 households a little over a year ago I tried giving away 3 TV's. No one would take them. I then tried giving them to goodwill, but they were not accepting more because of over supply. I ended up putting them by the road and a scrapper picked them up. All 3 worked just fine. I watched the scrapped throw them into his truck. Heard them shatter and smash.
There is no person in America without a TV in every room that "wants one". Does this mean there are no poor people in America?

Computers - I have 2 desktops on the floor of my closet. I'll give them both to you for free if you want to come pick them up. One is an XP and very viable.
Are you even aware that in Florida public schools, it is required that a kid have a computer? My step daughter gets her assignments from the computer, does her homework on the computer, and sometimes even turns it in on her computer. Sometimes she stays up till 2 or 3 AM doing homework on her computer.
Sure, the schools say that if a kid is so poor they don't have a computer, they can always go to the library. The library that closes at night and have a 1 hour time limit for computer usage... yeah right.
A child has to have a computer to make a passing grade, DEFINITELY to reach their potential.
Most people can manage to find a computer for free, its the internet service that costs money.
Say a parent has to purchase the internet service so their child can pass, and then gets a second computer for free.
Does this mean they no longer deserve to eat?

Cell Phones - Ronald Reagan's program gives everyone a free cell phone who gets food stamps. (Or most of them)
Do I even need to expand on this?

They eat very well on food stamps...if they buy real food instead of expensive junk.
Seriously? What is your grocery budget?
I do the shopping for a family of three. My budget is $1200 per month. But after shopping for us for 14 months I have yet to ever stay anywhere close to the budget.
The real amount I spend is between $1,400 and $1,800. (More than a minimum wage job's entire income AND their food stamps.)
You have to eat lunch where lunch is available for one thing. But if your working for a living there is no way to spend hours cooking a bunch of flour and frozen peas.
The guy that used to rake our pine straw up for us gets $150.00 per month in food stamps.

I'd love to see you eat "real good" off $150.00 a month.
That is 5 dollars per day or $1.60 cents per meal.
What do you plan to do, eat off the dollar menu every day?

The problem with any state run assistance is people find ways to abuse it.

Now, when a church helps the poor, they visit them. Not like a social worker spying, but out of concern to see how they can help. the fellowship with the person. Create a relationship. And get to know them. Much harder to cheat THAT type of assistance .

There are more poor people in need of equalization in this country than there are people who attend church.
These people do not want your church, your charity, or your hand outs.
They want to be able to work their asses off and be able to feed their family without the humiliation of still being unable to make ends meet.
 
I wanna corvette and a swedish supermodel girlfriend and I think you should pay for it
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
 
Does this mean there are no poor people in America?
That is correct, now on to your next bit of logic why socialism is written into the Constitution plz
 
I wanna corvette and a swedish supermodel girlfriend and I think you should pay for it
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

why is it considered "greedy" to want to keep the money you have worked for and earned but it is not considered "greedy" to want to take money from someone else and give it to those who have not?
 
why is it considered "greedy" to want to keep the money you have worked for and earned but it is not considered "greedy" to want to take money from someone else and give it to those who have not?

Your looking at things as though those with the money have worked for it and as if those without it have not.
But that is not what happens in this country. The rest of the world, I have no idea.

In America, those that work hard for their money, have none.
Those that work a little, have some.
And those that don't work at all, have everything.

A man used to be able to work hard and support his family, 50 years ago.
A man and woman could work hard "together" and support their family in the 80's.
Now days, a man and woman can both work 2 jobs and still not be able to have medical care or proper food and only make it with help.
With this progression... what comes next?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom