• 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
What you and many of your ilk completely fail to understand is that we already redistribute wealth. We redistribute it from the working class to the owner class. The movements that you so vehemently oppose want to stop that from happening. I don't know why so many Americans support an aristocracy, but you and yours are working to achieve exactly that outcome.

No, I support a meritocracy not an aristocracy. Aristocracy is inherited and remains stagnant regardless of the actions of the individual, a meritocracy will see rises and failings based upon the merits of the individual. The working class takes money from the owner class also. How much a particular worker earns is based upon the value the worker gives and his value in a competitive market. The owner pays a "fair" wage, which really means he pays either the minimum to get the work done or he pays more to receive greater value from the work.

If a worker is only qualified for a McJob and there are 100 of them for each job, "fair" wage isn't going to be much. If however you need a pipeline welder which requires great skill and there are 100 jobs for each welder, then that worker, the welder, is going to do pretty darned good.

Merit, the skills and attitude to do a job controls the workers wage, not owners. The owners who need the work done will pay what is necessary to get the work done. When the cost of labor for the owner exceeds what the consumer is willing to pay, then the business fails, period. How much profit a business gets is controlled by how much competition there is in the market for the product sold/produced. Reduce competition and profit/wealth concentrate with the few instead of spread out over the many. The reduction also reduces the number of jobs available and thus lowers the pay for workers because there are more workers available than jobs.

No form of socialism can change those dynamics without totally breaking the whole system. Over Regulated capitalism interferes with the proper working of that dynamic. Under regulated capitalism/corporatism can to monopolies and greatly concentrate wealth.

But since socialism is not only economic but social, it tries to "balance" what each person gets instead of letting each person receive what they have earned. In doing so, it subjugates the productive/earners to the none-productive/earners.
 
Communism is inherently anti-democratic, totalitarian and bloodthirsty. The historical record is there to prove it.

There is no historical record of it because communism has never existed on anything even close to large-scale. The best shot you have of saying "communism existed" was Spain long, long ago - pre-Franco. Even that, in my opinion, was not true communism. About the largest example of organized communism were several monastic cloisters of times long past.

Lots of countries are described as "communist" by propagandists and "red scare" re-creators, but the word mostly exists as agitprop by highly uninformed people. I prefer to speak of communism by real terms instead of slanderous pejoratives.
 
"Merit, the skills and attitude to do a job controls the workers wage, not owners"

So DV I am just guessing here but you haven't spent years signing the front of paychecks eh?
 
No, I support a meritocracy not an aristocracy. Aristocracy is inherited and remains stagnant regardless of the actions of the individual, a meritocracy will see rises and failings based upon the merits of the individual. The working class takes money from the owner class also. How much a particular worker earns is based upon the value the worker gives and his value in a competitive market. The owner pays a "fair" wage, which really means he pays either the minimum to get the work done or he pays more to receive greater value from the work.

Well, that's not what your policies actually do. They stagnate power and wealth as much upward as possible. The "competitive market" is based wholly on the power of owners, with workers feeding on the scraps. Actual merit seldom makes even a little bit of difference. Most people obtain employment through connections or nepotism, not through talent or skill.

If a worker is only qualified for a McJob and there are 100 of them for each job, "fair" wage isn't going to be much. If however you need a pipeline welder which requires great skill and there are 100 jobs for each welder, then that worker, the welder, is going to do pretty darned good.

Artificial scarcity of work and artificial lowering of wages are tools to keep power and wealth moving ever upward. It has nothing to do with merit. It is merely setting the rules for the marketplace to benefit the rich and powerful over the poor, and denying them any power.

Merit, the skills and attitude to do a job controls the workers wage, not owners. The owners who need the work done will pay what is necessary to get the work done. When the cost of labor for the owner exceeds what the consumer is willing to pay, then the business fails, period. How much profit a business gets is controlled by how much competition there is in the market for the product sold/produced. Reduce competition and profit/wealth concentrate with the few instead of spread out over the many. The reduction also reduces the number of jobs available and thus lowers the pay for workers because there are more workers available than jobs.

That's absurd. There is, right now, far more labor available than there is work to do. Especially if you take out all the work that does nothing but produce profit, instead of actual goods or services. The idea that competition keeps wealth and power distributed is nonsense. It never has. It has no effect on the concentration or distribution of power at all.

No form of socialism can change those dynamics without totally breaking the whole system. Over Regulated capitalism interferes with the proper working of that dynamic. Under regulated capitalism/corporatism can to monopolies and greatly concentrate wealth.

The system is already totally broken. Or have you become so mired in this "job creator" nonsense that you don't see that the only thing standing between a worker and starvation is whether or not a rich person can make a profit off of their labor. The worker is, by definition, forced to sell their labor for less than it is worth. Sure, you can go into business for yourself, but then that vaunted competition comes in and the rich and powerful can do whatever they want to force you out of the market.

But since socialism is not only economic but social, it tries to "balance" what each person gets instead of letting each person receive what they have earned. In doing so, it subjugates the productive/earners to the none-productive/earners.

None of this is true. How difficult really is it to understand "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"? Everyone contributes, and everyone reaps the rewards.

The future will unfold in one of two ways. Either we will stick with the current systems where all the power is held in the hands of a few people, and increasing technology will render labor less and less important, and more work will be done without humans. A growing population and fewer jobs (and the number will only continue to decrease) will mean a bigger underclass and lower pay. The impoverished class will grow, and the gap between rich and poor will widen. Or, we do not let the entire economic system continue to operate for the benefit of a few, and aim it to benefit everyone. Everyone will contribute, and no one will have to be overworked because there will be less work to do. And we can all enjoy the fruits of that labor. Do you want your capitalist dystopia, or do you want an egalitarian future where people are actually happy?
 
Only if it's called something else with a conservative ring to it...like say....Christianity.

we have an attempt at a lower form of it now called Obamacare
 
"Studying for the Bar"
how long does that take?

help me out here if you would:
"take out all the work that does nothing but produce profit"

and

"a person can make a profit off of their labor"
 
To save the poll from influence, I will spare my opinion for the time being. :)

So, is communism possible in the USA?

Overall, I would say nation wide communism won't come to fruition anytime soon in the United States but perhaps in specific city or area. Poverty stricken, minority dominated cities aren't all that far off from socialism as it is. Private business might exist but those still in business are taxed through the nose for redistribution. I'm not sure if there is a real difference between the state owning everything and the state providing the money to pay for everything.
 
DV what I find astounding is how willingly people large & small will allow the subjugation of: "Redistribution of wealth" .
We Americans have become so inured to the idea that paying:
a capital gains tax
corporate income tax
personal income tax
FICA (twice if you are an employer) and or
self employment tax
Medicare/medicaid tax
and then
(in most states)
State Income tax
har then when you go to spend it
city sales tax?
federal gasoline taxes
cost rolled into every product and or service due to the businesses being taxed
wait
there's no way I can hope to list all of it, it is insanely out of control
then to top it off we are told the rich aren't paying enough although they are the one's paying the vast majority
and to add insult to injury the Feds (and many States) run Huge ruinous deficits that would crush any normal
privately owned business or send a private citizen into bankruptcy court

and starting in 2014 there is the wunderful Affordable Care Act with it's bevy of taxes?

subjugation yup

and the commie mofo's are clamoring for More, More More socialism?

:moon:

First, the US is one of the lowest-taxed countries on earth, particularly towards the wealthy.

Second, fiscal deficits and the national debt aren't a problem so I don't know why you're bringing it up as if it's an argument against Federal programs.
 
First, the US is one of the lowest-taxed countries on earth, particularly towards the wealthy.

Second, fiscal deficits and the national debt aren't a problem so I don't know why you're bringing it up as if it's an argument against Federal programs.

USA has the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world, only behind Japan.
 
"fiscal deficits and the national debt aren't a problem"
whew thanks I was completely unaware that a nation couldn't ruin itself in that manner.

So have you ever been in a tax bracket that took half of your income?
How did that make you feel as you did your cash flow analysis and profit n loss statements?

Has your CFO ever told ya that you should draw a larger paycheck because everything
over a certain amount was exempt from FICA taxation and your first thought was:
Why in the hell should I use that as a determining factor in how much I should pay myself?

and while this was goin' on did you ever think to yourself that if the government didn't have
both hands down your pants stealing your money you'd certainly pay those people who are helping
you to run your business more because they are directly involved in serving your customers?

If more Americans knew what it was like to write paychecks rather than collect them we'd
throw these bums out in a fortnight !
 
"the US is one of the lowest-taxed countries on earth"

thx gipper I found that supposed statement of fact to preposterous to respond too
 
we have an attempt at a lower form of it now called Obamacare

Forced healthcare. How horrible.

Well, it sure beats torture and secret renditions...aka Bushcare.
 
"the US is one of the lowest-taxed countries on earth"

thx gipper I found that supposed statement of fact to preposterous to respond too

Well, we actually are one of the least taxed nations in the world. Of course, that's not because we're undertaxed - it's because everyone else is even more overtaxed than we are.
 
Where the state owns all the means of production it isn't possible to think of it in terms of taxation?
Where the nation is so impoverished there isn't anything too tax?
When someone has spent their entire life as a wage slave and their level of what taxation is remains limited to the 1040EZ form?
I take it all back we are the Richest nation on earth!
Khayembii has helped me to see that 16 trillion in public debt means nothing.
Currently we are taxed at such an absurdly low rate that raising taxes will not only serve to punish those evil rich bastards but will also result in an immediate economic boom which will 'lift all ships' !
cool beans
 
"Merit, the skills and attitude to do a job controls the workers wage, not owners"

So DV I am just guessing here but you haven't spent years signing the front of paychecks eh?

Was talking about theory and natural dynamics of the market/economy, not the current government created train wreck that we have.
 
Last edited:
"Forced healthcare"
is that like an involuntary proctology exam?
oh yes now that we've embarked on the fully socialized healthcare journey
we'll have to endure decades of stories of lousy medical care
until in a very short time our medical industry which is currently the envy of the world
has sunken to the level of the performance of our public schools

but its a-ok cuz them evil rich folks will not only continue sending their kids to private schools
but get their A1 quality private medical care as well

The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding
A rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
 
Forced healthcare. How horrible.

Well, it sure beats torture and secret renditions...aka Bushcare.

I've had government run healthcare almost all my life. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone with a choice would want it.
 
Why did you add the "in the USA"? It doesn't change the question :p
 
oh sry DV my bad
if someone declares themselves as left or right it helps (as a very shorthand method)
to try and quickly figger out 'where they're coming from'
since you've listed other I'm bereft of that avenue

yup a mixed economy doesn't stay that way for long
and sadly history shows it always goes in only one direction
 
Mach wouldn't it change it completely ?

"Is communism possible"

that's material for a whole nuther thread ;)
 
Well, that's not what your policies actually do. They stagnate power and wealth as much upward as possible. The "competitive market" is based wholly on the power of owners, with workers feeding on the scraps. Actual merit seldom makes even a little bit of difference. Most people obtain employment through connections or nepotism, not through talent or skill.



Artificial scarcity of work and artificial lowering of wages are tools to keep power and wealth moving ever upward. It has nothing to do with merit. It is merely setting the rules for the marketplace to benefit the rich and powerful over the poor, and denying them any power.



That's absurd. There is, right now, far more labor available than there is work to do. Especially if you take out all the work that does nothing but produce profit, instead of actual goods or services. The idea that competition keeps wealth and power distributed is nonsense. It never has. It has no effect on the concentration or distribution of power at all.



The system is already totally broken. Or have you become so mired in this "job creator" nonsense that you don't see that the only thing standing between a worker and starvation is whether or not a rich person can make a profit off of their labor. The worker is, by definition, forced to sell their labor for less than it is worth. Sure, you can go into business for yourself, but then that vaunted competition comes in and the rich and powerful can do whatever they want to force you out of the market.



None of this is true. How difficult really is it to understand "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"? Everyone contributes, and everyone reaps the rewards.

The future will unfold in one of two ways. Either we will stick with the current systems where all the power is held in the hands of a few people, and increasing technology will render labor less and less important, and more work will be done without humans. A growing population and fewer jobs (and the number will only continue to decrease) will mean a bigger underclass and lower pay. The impoverished class will grow, and the gap between rich and poor will widen. Or, we do not let the entire economic system continue to operate for the benefit of a few, and aim it to benefit everyone. Everyone will contribute, and no one will have to be overworked because there will be less work to do. And we can all enjoy the fruits of that labor. Do you want your capitalist dystopia, or do you want an egalitarian future where people are actually happy?

Apparently you have confused the current/past US economy with some form of unregulated capitalism. The government has been screwing with it for a very long time. Industrialist/corporatist started trying to control the market and limit competition at least as early as the late 1800s, probably if you dig deep enough, from the very beginning.

Lets see, in history, there has never been a particularly successful attempt at socialism and the top economy has always been a market/capitalist based system. Name a single attempt at socialism in a whole society that was ever been "successful" and did anything but impoverish everyone in that society, except those leading the socialism.
 
oh sry DV my bad
if someone declares themselves as left or right it helps (as a very shorthand method)
to try and quickly figger out 'where they're coming from'
since you've listed other I'm bereft of that avenue

yup a mixed economy doesn't stay that way for long
and sadly history shows it always goes in only one direction

I'm other, because the whole of my political beliefs don't really fit left or right. Economically, I consider the extremes left socialist/communist and the right corporatist, neither of which I support. I'm more towards Libertarian on the economy, that is, keep the government out of it as much as possible/practical.
 
Apparently you have confused the current/past US economy with some form of unregulated capitalism. The government has been screwing with it for a very long time. Industrialist/corporatist started trying to control the market and limit competition at least as early as the late 1800s, probably if you dig deep enough, from the very beginning.

Lets see, in history, there has never been a particularly successful attempt at socialism and the top economy has always been a market/capitalist based system. Name a single attempt at socialism in a whole society that was ever been "successful" and did anything but impoverish everyone in that society, except those leading the socialism.

I can't name a single time anyone actually really tried socialism. The prominent examples you're thinking of were fascist dictatorships that falsely labeled themselves socialist. But you're entirely wrong if you think that the problem is "government screwing with the marketplace". Real liberty in this country disappeared the moment that government was put up for sale on the market. We certainly regulate our capitalism, but not for the benefit of anyone but the most powerful capitalists. They remain wholly unregulated, and they have the bought and paid for congress to prove it.
 
I can't name a single time anyone actually really tried socialism. The prominent examples you're thinking of were fascist dictatorships that falsely labeled themselves socialist.

It's so great and we know so much about it, yet no one every actually tried it? I'm not sure if you realize this but that's about the most damning evidence vs socialism presented so far.

Second, most of us understand that socialism has of course actually been tried, but reality ensures that it immediately becomes corrupted and power is grabbed by a few, who then use the façade of socialist propaganda and ideals to continue their regime for as long as it lasts, which typically hasn't been all that long. It's like those elementary particles that exist, but it's nearly impossible to observe them independently because the picoseond they come into existence, they decay or react into some other form.
 
"the economy, that is, keep the government out of it as much as possible/practical" ?

well hootenanny n hawt dang we've got ourselves a closet Conservative here folks! ;)

"bought and paid for congress to prove it"

trust me buddy no business man would spend that kinda money if there wasn't going to be a return on investment.
two reasons to pay for the politicians
either one: to gain some unfair advantage through the use of the government against your competition
(there can never be a monopoly without government intervention)
or
two: keep the government from coming is and wrecking your business
kinda like paying protection money to the mafia ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom