• 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
Moot said:
What a coincidence, religion has a long and violent history of suppressing any form of dissent and alternative authority, too.


Anyway, Hitler was a protestant and the German Evangelical Church supported the Nazi's....


"The Protestant Reich Church, officially The German Evangelical Church (German: Deutsche Evangelische Kirche) and colloquially Reichskirche, was a unified state church that espoused a single doctrine compatible with National Socialism...."
Protestant Reich Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

It's rather obvious that neither Hitler nor the other leading Nazis considered their religious affiliation, if they had any, important enough to make it priority or inspiration for their plans. On the contrary, in Nazi ideology, Christianity was a "semitic slave religion unsuited for the Germanic soul" and was supposed to be replaced on the long run. Himmler i.e. had many plans for reviving old Germanic mythology and/or esoterics, and the other Nazis only paid lip service to Christianity:

They thought Christianity was incompatible with their idea of an unlimited quasi-religious belief in the state which they wanted to implement on the long run, but realized Christian ideas were still too strong within the populace to ignore them. So they did with the Protestant Church in Germany what they did with all other mass institutions too: They attempted to get them on party line. That's why they brought into existence the church of the "German Christians" according to which the old OT Jewish God was not the same God as the NT "Father", but in fact a "desert demon" or even "the devil", and Jesus was made an example for "Arian" bravery and heroism. This main "German Christians" church was supposed to get the Protestants on party line, not vice versa.

Those Protestants who disagreed with the "Germanification" of the Evangelische Kirche formed the Confessing Church, an anti-Nazi Protestant church which disagreed with Nazi ideology.
 
German guy said:
It's rather obvious that neither Hitler nor the other leading Nazis considered their religious affiliation, if they had any, important enough to make it priority or inspiration for their plans. On the contrary, in Nazi ideology, Christianity was a "semitic slave religion unsuited for the Germanic soul" and was supposed to be replaced on the long run. Himmler i.e. had many plans for reviving old Germanic mythology and/or esoterics, and the other Nazis only paid lip service to Christianity:

They thought Christianity was incompatible with their idea of an unlimited quasi-religious belief in the state which they wanted to implement on the long run, but realized Christian ideas were still too strong within the populace to ignore them. So they did with the Protestant Church in Germany what they did with all other mass institutions too: They attempted to get them on party line. That's why they brought into existence the church of the "German Christians" according to which the old OT Jewish God was not the same God as the NT "Father", but in fact a "desert demon" or even "the devil", and Jesus was made an example for "Arian" bravery and heroism. This main "German Christians" church was supposed to get the Protestants on party line, not vice versa.

Those Protestants who disagreed with the "Germanification" of the Evangelische Kirche formed the Confessing Church, an anti-Nazi Protestant church which disagreed with Nazi ideology.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that Hitler was never a Protestant (he was baptize as a Catholic, although obviously he opposed the church as an adult); that the Nazi's suppressed church organizations as much as they dared and imprisoned many clergy.
 
Canell said:
OK, how about this kind of communism? :peace
Click to expand...

That is the form I thought was possible. One must think "commune ism" to relate because in the USA "Communism" has been bastardized to the extreme that the MSM massaged non-thinking masses think it means godless evil. Then again, reading about the Hutterites brings to mind "Corporatism" except it is a more personal level as opposed to thousands of stockholders or even a few stockholders.
 
I would say the Soviet type of Communism is most attractive to Liberals. It seems to have the widest channels to absolute power.
 
Dooble said:
I would say the Soviet type of Communism is most attractive to Liberals. It seems to have the widest channels to absolute power.
Click to expand...
Quote from the truly ignorant!

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Shadow Serious said:
If the Constitution is not upheld at all then anything is possible, but I think that it would be more likely that a Fascist Regime would be more probable than a Communist one.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think it more likely Facism would take over before Communism.
 
sawdust said:
Communists believe that the reason communism has failed every time it has been tried as an economic system is the wrong people tried it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...

The principles of communism always seems to be used by despots to get popular support of the working class and the poor....and once that power is gained it becomes a totalitarian dictatorship. I think that is one of the reasons people say communism was never really put into practice. To this day, it's still just a theory.
 
Moot said:
The principles of communism always seems to be used by despots to get popular support of the working class and the poor....and once that power is gained it becomes a totalitarian dictatorship. I think that is one of the reasons people say communism was never really put into practice. To this day, it's still just a theory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
polisciguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dictatorship the way Marx meant it versus the way Lenin meant it, doesn't seem the same. I think Marx's idea of a dictatorship was that of the working class would hold political and economic control over the oppressors and capitalists, within a democratic system. The protalitariots are the dictators.

The State and Revolution

Whereas Lenin's idea of a dictatorship was to have a small group of vanguard protalitariots to have complete political and economic control over everyone.

As I understand Marx's theory, the bourgeoisie would overthrow the wealthy and the powerful. I assume the bourgeoisie are the upper middle classes such as property and business owners. Then eventually, the lower working classes and the poor would swamp all of the upper classes and somehow - he wasn't very clear - completely collapse society and create communism. Does that sound about right to you?
 
Moot said:
The principles of communism always seems to be used by despots to get popular support of the working class and the poor....and once that power is gained it becomes a totalitarian dictatorship. I think that is one of the reasons people say communism was never really put into practice. To this day, it's still just a theory.
Click to expand...

Communism has been tried in many countries. The results have been universally disastrous and very bloody.
 
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...
Of course.
 
Artevelde said:
Communism has been tried in many countries. The results have been universally disastrous and very bloody.
Click to expand...
It's never been tried.
 
Artevelde said:
NoC_T said:
It's never been tried.
Click to expand...

Having trouble with reality?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Artevelde said:
Quite funny, since I'm sticking to historical facts and you choose to deny them.
Click to expand...
Curious then that your facts should have no basis in..ya know..fact.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. I've seen it very often. Never underestimate the capacity of ideologically obsessed people to be blind to the facts.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except it couldn't have been attempted, by definition. I always find it vaguely amusing that Cons make use of terminology they have little to no understanding of.

The most recent laugh your side gave me was in describing Hitler as a Socialist. lulz
 
NoC_T said:
You wouldn't like it here. Too many facts.
Click to expand...

You are the left-wing variant of a holocaust denier. Not much use debating people who deny reality.
 
Artevelde said:
Yes I know. I've seen it very often. Never underestimate the capacity of ideologically obsessed people to be blind to the facts.
Click to expand...
Nor the freedom with which Conservatives are able to pick and choose their definitions as it suits them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom