Is communism possible in the USA?

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...

Karl Marx defined Socialism as "the transition period between Capitalism and Communism"_

The introduction of even a simple insignificant socialist policy into a capitalist system will grow and spread until it eventually dominates the entire ideopolitical structure_

Once socialism is injected into Capitalism, corrupt and progressive politicians will continuously expand on it to buy votes, despite the increasing burden it places on a nation's economy_

And as people become more dependent on government, the more freedom they must surrender to it while their Socialist Utopia slowly progresses toward a Communist police state_

Capitalism and Socialism can never co-exist in harmony until the human race evolves beyond the desire for wealth and power and entitlement to the fruits of another's labor_

So in answer to the poll question; The United States has been on the path to Communism ever since the first Socialist Policy was introduced into its system_

Empirica Your thoughts on this matter should be etched into every school child's psyche
at least that way when they grow up they will know why their country in now a complete shambles

MoSurveyor said:

I made no personal opinion of a 100% inheritance tax - YOU did that when you posted this:

"Aristocracy is inherited and remains stagnant ... "

Since you believe in passing money and property down from one generation to the next it seems obvious that you want to perpetuate the aristocracy regardless of your alleged ideal of a meritocracy.


Every person starts even (with the Constitution) as long as it applies equally to everyone all the time. You're just flopping around and grasping at straws with that line of attack. :lol:

Click to expand...

So you understood part of the sentence, not the whole. Just because someone inherits money does not mean they will be able to keep it. If the lack the "merit" to keep it they lose it. An Aristocracy however, the don't lose it because their position is part of law.

Empirica said:

Karl Marx defined Socialism as "the transition period between Capitalism and Communism"_

The introduction of even a simple insignificant socialist policy into a capitalist system will grow and spread until it eventually dominates the entire ideopolitical structure_

Once socialism is injected into Capitalism, corrupt and progressive politicians will continuously expand on it to buy votes, despite the increasing burden it places on a nation's economy_

And as people become more dependent on government, the more freedom they must surrender to it while their Socialist Utopia slowly progresses toward a Communist police state_

Capitalism and Socialism can never co-exist in harmony until the human race evolves beyond the desire for wealth and power and entitlement to the fruits of another's labor_

So in answer to the poll question; The United States has been on the path to Communism ever since the first Socialist Policy was introduced into its system_

Click to expand...

Aye, dear. As I said, not while I'm alive. So if things keep going, then dying time is getting nearer. But, I won't be going that path alone.

take as many of them with you as you can ?

AngryOldGuy said:

take as many of them with you as you can ?

Click to expand...

"When he opened the forth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, 'Come!' And I looked and behold, a pale horse! And it's rider's name was Death, and Hell followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beast of the earth"-- Rev 6, 7-8.

Let the socialist be warned then, I am coming and hell is coming with me.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

People advocating for socialism have their own definitions of what scarcity "really means." The Zeitgeist video, for example, posits that post-scarcity, modern, socialist cities of the future will only need 3% of the population to maintain. And where, exactly, does this 3% come from? Needing ANYTHING is the textbook antonym of post-scarcity. Unless you're comfortable with slavery, as long as it's just "3%".

We will continue to live with scarcity until the very moment we can synthesize anything we need from a raw stock of atoms, up to and including being able to synthesize more synthesizers. And even then, post-scarcity for the human race will only last as long as there is an abundant amount of atoms in relation to the population. True and eternal scarcity is a myth, born in the land of milk and honey.

Click to expand...

Why would you assume that 3% of people would do all the work? If everyone contributes, that's a few hours of work a week. Probably less. How is this a difficult concept? Everyone contributing is what we already expect of people. Only instead of half the population living in poverty, everyone lives a comfortable life. All at the simple cost of no one being absurdly rich, which no one needs to be anyway. Horrible, isn't it?

Paschendale said:

If everyone contributes,

Click to expand...

And that's your problem, right there. Which few are going to have to go through rigorous education in order to perform the higher order functions? Which ones are going to be the garbage men?

Unless you institute slavery, the only system ever contrived that allows for all the work getting done is a market-based reward system, i.e. capitalism. It's a catch-22, because the market only works when profit is the goal, and if there is no profit (no scarcity), then there is no mechanism to make it work... nor a need! But again, we're back to talking about a post scarcity society, and if even one hour of labor is required, we aren't post-scarcity.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

And that's your problem, right there. Which few are going to have to go through rigorous education in order to perform the higher order functions? Which ones are going to be the garbage men?

Unless you institute slavery, the only system ever contrived that allows for all the work getting done is a market-based reward system, i.e. capitalism. It's a catch-22, because the market only works when profit is the goal, and if there is no profit (no scarcity), then there is no mechanism to make it work... nor a need! But again, we're back to talking about a post scarcity society, and if even one hour of labor is required, we aren't post-scarcity.

Click to expand...

The world is not so tiny a place as you imagine, nor people so selfish. The market does only work when profit is the goal. Which is why the market is an illusion and a pipe dream. That is why the market will soon be obsolete, if it isn't already.

douglas said:

Envy and Power-Lust? No. Collectivism is about selflessness by definition. That's like saying, "We shouldn't teach kids to share, that'll lead to envy and power-lust." What is so uncivilized about sharing?

Click to expand...

You are obviously using some bespoke definitions of "Communism" and "collectivism". When people say "Communism", it usually means the Marxist-Leninist totalitarian ideology.

As for collectivism, it is, in practice, about "selflessness" indeed, but not the kind that leads to voluntary sharing. It is about refusing to see people as individuals with their unique selves, endowed with freedom of choice. Instead, people are viewed as members of some group, sometimes absolutely abstract or made-up, like the "kulaks" and "podkulachniks" Soviet Communists exterminated.

douglas said:

Yup, Marx and most early Communists had a very distinct dislike of religion. That really has absolutely nothing to do with Communism itself, though.

Click to expand...

I would agree. Historical Communism had positioned himself as a revolutionary ideology striving to overturn the existing order, of which religious institutions were an integral part. There's no special reason why future analogs - facing, in all probability a deeply secular "ancien régime" - cannot arrive marching with crosses or under green banners. Major religions surely supply plenty of fuel for social demagoguery.

Cyrylek said:

You are obviously using some bespoke definitions of "Communism" and "collectivism". When people say "Communism", it usually means the Marxist-Leninist totalitarian ideology.

As for collectivism, it is, in practice, about "selflessness" indeed, but not the kind that leads to voluntary sharing. It is about refusing to see people as individuals with their unique selves, endowed with freedom of choice. Instead, people are viewed as members of some group, sometimes absolutely abstract or made-up, like the "kulaks" and "podkulachniks" Soviet Communists exterminated.

Click to expand...

Agreed, both Marx and Lenin proposed dictatorships/totalitarianism as a necessary phase in the path to communism. We have more knowledge than they did; there's a 100+ years of failures to learn from. We now know that a dictatorship simply can't be tolerated, it always goes bad. For the context of this question, no classical Communism will ever be possible in the US, because it will never be proposed again. It's like saying whether the whig party will win the 2016 election; it's not even a possibility.

When most people talk about "communism", they're either the kind who know nothing about it and are just afraid of "isms", or they mean some neo-marxist or completely new proposal that works within the current system. Very, very, few are actually referring to somesort of Marxist-Leninist revolution.

Cyrylek said:

I would agree. Historical Communism had positioned himself as a revolutionary ideology striving to overturn the existing order, of which religious institutions were an integral part. There's no special reason why future analogs - facing, in all probability a deeply secular "ancien régime" - cannot arrive marching with crosses or under green banners. Major religions surely supply plenty of fuel for social demagoguery.

Click to expand...

To make myself perfectly clear, I'm as afraid of a Communist revolution as I am a Religious revolution. I propose that collective wealth distribution can be implemented with a peaceful transition; using a rise of non-profit organizations, employee owned/operated corporations, and unions.

Ultimately the only real issue is scarcity, whether it's authentic or artificial; if a technological breakthrough created a post-scarcity society, capitalism and employment would be voluntary to begin with. There are two ways to "fix" unemployment; create more jobs or less competing workers; if people didn't "need" to work, there'd be less people looking for jobs and a resultant decrease in unemployment rates. Many people have proposed a basic income or living wage, to give all people a choice to either work for wages or collect a subsidy for staying out of the workforce. This isn't a high strain on capitalism, since it creates more consumers.

As many people have stated, most Americans are favorable of Communism, as long as you call it something else.

DVSentinel said:

Aye, dear. As I said, not while I'm alive. So if things keep going, then dying time is getting nearer. But, I won't be going that path alone.

Click to expand...

Many before us sacrificed and died to ensure that we might experience the American Dream and it is now our responsibility to pass The Dream on to the next generation_

I don't want my generation to be remembered as the one that failed when the torch was passed to us_

but while we WILL leave them trillions in debt
at least they will have Obamacare

douglas said:

It's like saying whether the whig party will win the 2016 election; it's not even a possibility.

Click to expand...

In precisely the same form and shape - of course not. But the same extreme statist tyranny could come with similar slogans (while "wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross", for instance).

douglas said:

When most people talk about "communism", they're either the kind who know nothing about it and are just afraid of "isms", or they mean some neo-marxist or completely new proposal that works within the current system. Very, very, few are actually referring to somesort of Marxist-Leninist revolution.

Click to expand...

I think we are talking about different sets of "most people". Most people in college cafeterias of Amherst, MA or Boulder, CO - perhaps. Most people in Russia, China, Poland, Korea, Ethiopia, etc, etc (i.e. most people in the world) know "communism" as that Communism.

douglas said:

using a rise of non-profit organizations, employee owned/operated corporations, and unions.

Click to expand...

Well, if it is voluntary, it ain't Communism - or even socialism. I know, I know, semantics; but, as a Polish writer said half a century ago, "The next world war will not be fought over resources or ideology - it will be fought over semantics".

douglas said:

Ultimately the only real issue is scarcity.

Click to expand...

Oh, but it is not. Ultimately the only real issue is freedom of choice. (Of course, I would say that, as a libertarian).

Cyrylek said:

Well, if it is voluntary, it ain't Communism - or even socialism. I know, I know, semantics; but, as a Polish writer said half a century ago, "The next world war will not be fought over resources or ideology - it will be fought over semantics".

Click to expand...

I understand the difference. The issue is this argument is just a front for all the things that are done by current politicians that people label as "communist". I see this thread as a debate for increasing the minimum wage, socialized medicine, and reducing corporatism; not really a support of Marxism.

Oh, but it is not. Ultimately the only real issue is freedom of choice. (Of course, I would say that, as a libertarian).

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as choice when an ultimatum is involved; Work or starve isn't much of a choice. The typical libertarian argument for a free market is that it's a choice between wages and positions, but it's simply not valid in the modern age; there is no labor shortage or booming industry, your choices have been limited to work or starve.

All of these "choices" are due to scarcity; in a post-scarcity society, you'd have a choice of live or work and live better. When "starve" is the other option, it's not a choice.

Modern exploitation is only valid in an age of scarcity, whether it's authentic or artificial. I have always said that our scarcity is artificial; there is enough food, water, land, energy, and automated labor to support a basic standard of living for every man, woman, and child; just "living", should be an option already.

Moot said:

Forced healthcare. How horrible.

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

Click to expand...

Everything with Bush Obama made worse, but sheeple will continue to scream bush

Paschendale said:

The world is not so tiny a place as you imagine, nor people so selfish. The market does only work when profit is the goal. Which is why the market is an illusion and a pipe dream. That is why the market will soon be obsolete, if it isn't already.

Click to expand...

So who will pick up the trash?

You seem to think I'm selling my fellow man short, but there's a reason why they put trash cans every ten feet at Disney World - studies have shown that is as far as the average person is willing to walk to throw something away vs just tossing it on the ground. And in this post-scarcity, non-profit world, we will still NEED people to pick up after other people. Now, I got together with some other deep thinkers, and we took a vote: we voted you to pick up the trash. Good luck.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

So who will pick up the trash?

You seem to think I'm selling my fellow man short, but there's a reason why they put trash cans every ten feet at Disney World - studies have shown that is as far as the average person is willing to walk to throw something away vs just tossing it on the ground. And in this post-scarcity, non-profit world, we will still NEED people to pick up after other people. Now, I got together with some other deep thinkers, and we took a vote: we voted you to pick up the trash. Good luck.

Click to expand...

It's unlikely that I would end up with such a job, since it would waste my talents, but picking up trash for an hour a week is a very small price to pay for a comfortable life. Sounds like a fine deal to me. Why do you think that you're too good to do that?

And you do sell your fellow people short (and you don't consider women at all). If our society were not so mired in selfishness, people wouldn't be so lazy as to throw trash on the ground like that.

Paschendale said:

It's unlikely that I would end up with such a job, since it would waste my talents, but picking up trash for an hour a week is a very small price to pay for a comfortable life. Sounds like a fine deal to me. Why do you think that you're too good to do that?

And you do sell your fellow people short (and you don't consider women at all). If our society were not so mired in selfishness, people wouldn't be so lazy as to throw trash on the ground like that.

Click to expand...

"Since it would waste my talents."

That's a neat turn of phrase. I, for one, can't think of a single person in this world with the self esteem to think they are only fit for picking up trash and thus not wasting the valuable time of the likes of you and me (<--- tongue in cheek). The last Socialist I had lengthy interaction with was absolutely convinced this new world order would happen in his day, and his new job would be.... a socialist. He was determined that his job would be leading groups and making decisions. My, that's kind of a lofty self-image, isn't it?

Why, in the new world, I would CLEARLY be the President. If only everyone would put all of their things in the communal pot...

ashurbanipal said:

No. But those are not core ideas or motivations of communism.

Click to expand...

They most certainly are, as demonstrated by history.

Artevelde said:

Communism is inherently anti-democratic, totalitarian and bloodthirsty. The historical record is there to prove it.

Click to expand...

Artevelde said:

So you feel Jesus was in favour of mass-murder and brutal oppression?

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing the unrealistic ideals on which Communism is based with the empirical results of every attempt that has been made to put those ideals into practice.

Marx did not intent or expect that trying to follow his ideals would lead to mass-murder and brutal oppression. He was, of course, very much mistaken.

Bob Blaylock said:

You seem to be confusing the unrealistic ideals on which Communism is based with the empirical results of every attempt that has been made to put those ideals into practice.

Marx did not intent or expect that trying to follow his ideals would lead to mass-murder and brutal oppression. He was, of course, very much mistaken.

Click to expand...

Marx was very much in favour of bloodshed and brutal oppression and was very explicit about this.

DVSentinel said:

So you understood part of the sentence, not the whole. Just because someone inherits money does not mean they will be able to keep it. If the lack the "merit" to keep it they lose it. An Aristocracy however, the don't lose it because their position is part of law.

Click to expand...

So it's OK to have the aristocracy as long as they can demonstrate an ability to retain power instead of achieving it for themselves? Some meritocracy! :lol:

artevelde said:

They most certainly are, as demonstrated by history.

Click to expand...

It really doesn't seem possible that history (i.e. the things that happened...or perhaps more perspicuously, the stories we tell about the things that happened) could reveal what someone's ideas and motivations were or are. The best it can do is give us a clue about them, but with some obvious caveats. To say otherwise, you may as well claim that (for example) business owners who start a business but fail intend to fail, or that someone whose house is struck by a tornado wanted their house to be struck by a tornado, or that Albert Einstein and Marie Curie intended for people to make nuclear bombs.

I wonder if you could point out where, in The Communist Manifesto, Marx explicitly called for systematic bloodshed and oppression. He thought there would be a revolution, of course...but you can say that about any numer of proponents of democracy and market economics. You could also say that about Jesus--indeed, it was his anti-establishment rhetoric that got him crucified in the first place. So, show us where Marx thought it should be necessary to do massive and cruel violence over and above what was necessary to revoke the established social order.