• 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
wait im confused I thought Obama was a communist?
 
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...

Marxism is everywhere, I'm surprised they haven't erected a Monument to Karl in DC yet.
 
Org said:
If you go back to, say, 1 million BC, you would have found that everything was free - you just needed to access it.
Click to expand...

EVERYTHING was free. Including your neighbor's stuff. All you needed was access to it, which might have meant killing him or his whole tribe. Consider water resources, like rivers and streams. What if I want to farm on it? What's that? YOU want to farm right here? Well how do we solve this dispute? Fine, you stay here, and I'll move up river... and then dam the river to divert the flow of water to my brother over there. What? You didn't like that either? Well then, what do we do about it? Have laws? And people who enforce them? But then, how will they eat if they're out enforcing the laws and not farming? What? We give them a little bit of our food so they can spend their time making sure I'm not messing with you?

And so on. Property rights are what separate us from the beasts.... especially those having to do with land and natural resource exploitation.
 
Org said:
If you go back to, say, 1 million BC, you would have found that everything was free
Click to expand...
dunno 'bout you I'd rather not go back to, say, 1 million BC we had only just begun walking upright
your social structure isn't well suited to a time when folks are armed with high yield thermonuclear weapons we just finished a 40 year cold war against your Soviet ideology. Maybe if it had turned hot we could have wiped it off the face of the planet?
 
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...

Extreme, wild, ungratefulness for one. They will build on sharing as a given and to hell with your pride, self achievement, and effort that made the thing yours (whatever it may be) to begin with.
 
Papa bull said:
Only the rich acknowledge it. It's a war the left is hell-bent on waging. Class-envy is a terrible thing, but it's human nature. People see what they don't have and they want it. They don't see what it took to get it and most sure as HELL don't care about doing what it takes to get it, but they still want the reward. That's why we have police and court systems and prisons. Without them, many of the have-nots that lack the work ethic to achieve the rewards they wish themselves also lack the decency not to act on their baser impulses. The prisons are full of people that fail to follow such rules and are unable to resist the temptation to steal what they want instead of working for it like everyone else.
Click to expand...

That there is all what communism is about really. But instead of going to prisons the system will promote more of them until collapse under its own weight. No system can stand where people just want access and stay away from things needed to get that access to begin with.
 
OscarB63 said:
communism is a great system, if applied to relatively small population groups of like-minded individuals. The problem comes in when you try to apply it to a society comprised of hundreds of millions of people.
Click to expand...

If by "likely-minded" you mean undeniable workaholic people that do not mind sharing also, then I agree that it may work. Once you put greed, cost effectiveness (i.e., work less but gain more of other people's honest work) though, the system starts shaking.
 
jag2594 said:
This is not a free country, to start a business you have to be an "accredited investor".

It is basically just a financial threshold. For individual investors, you need a net worth of $1 million (alone or with spouse) OR annual income of $200,000 (or $300,000 in joint income with spouse) in the two most recent years, with an expectation that you will continue to earn that this year.

Most people don't have that kind of money.
Click to expand...

Ever considered opening a business in less challenging areas of the world?
 
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...
Click to expand...




A lot of thing are 'possible' in the USA.
But most of them will never happen.

Communism is one of the things that will likely never happen.

Who is going to vote it into power?

Think about it.

Why worry or even think about something so unlikely?
 
shrubnose said:
A lot of thing are 'possible' in the USA.
But most of them will never happen.

Communism is one of the things that will likely never happen.

Who is going to vote it into power?

Think about it.

Why worry or even think about something so unlikely?
Click to expand...

That was my initial thought. But this thread outlived those initial thoughts for far too long for some reason!
 
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...

Horse****, the liberals claim they have the population to take over the US with their ideology....and it ain't fascism.
 
shrubnose said:
A lot of thing are 'possible' in the USA.
But most of them will never happen.

Communism is one of the things that will likely never happen.
Click to expand...

I think there are many communes in the U.S. right now. Take the hutterites for example. :)
Although I agree the terms 'communism' and 'communalism' are somewhat messed up.
 
shrubnose said:
A lot of thing are 'possible' in the USA.
But most of them will never happen.

Communism is one of the things that will likely never happen.

Who is going to vote it into power?

Think about it.

Why worry or even think about something so unlikely?
Click to expand...

Communists are amost never "voted into power". But I agree a Communist takeover in the US is very unlikely.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
EVERYTHING was free. Including your neighbor's stuff. All you needed was access to it, which might have meant killing him or his whole tribe. Consider water resources, like rivers and streams. What if I want to farm on it? What's that? YOU want to farm right here? Well how do we solve this dispute? Fine, you stay here, and I'll move up river... and then dam the river to divert the flow of water to my brother over there. What? You didn't like that either? Well then, what do we do about it? Have laws? And people who enforce them? But then, how will they eat if they're out enforcing the laws and not farming? What? We give them a little bit of our food so they can spend their time making sure I'm not messing with you?

And so on. Property rights are what separate us from the beasts.... especially those having to do with land and natural resource exploitation.
Click to expand...

Okay, so let me make one thing clear: I'm positioning myself in favor of collective property, not against property altogether. Farms (to use your example), during this early period, were property of family units and slightly larger groups. Property rights were still enforced, but not by a central authority. This is much like the popular militias of Spain, and the world's still-existing small family farms (I grew up on one, and alongside many others.)

This kind of advocacy isn't really revolutionary. Many professors and public intellectuals (Gar Alperovitz, Richard Wolff, and Noam Chomsky, to name three you're probably familiar with) advocate for this kind of decentralized ownership. Alperovitz, in his case, has meticulously outlined the tens of millions of Americans involved in it today. And the point of going back to early property was to point out that private property isn't natural - it, in all it's wickedness, is a human institution. It was created by rulers, and should be abolished by subjects.
 
Artevelde said:
Communists are amost never "voted into power". But I agree a Communist takeover in the US is very unlikely.
Click to expand...

That's why they call themselves "progressives". If they called themselves "Communists" they know they'd never get elected.
 
Org said:
And the point of going back to early property was to point out that private property isn't natural - it, in all it's wickedness, is a human institution. It was created by rulers, and should be abolished by subjects.
Click to expand...

It was a natural consequence of society. Without private property, we would all be killing each other over physical position - space - and who gets to occupy it.

Tell me, what happens when a collective farm just so happens to be next to a river that a power plant "needs" to be on? Which family gets the boot? Which farm gets demolished to make way for "progress"? How is this solved without private property rules? Or take a mine, for example. A person wants to dig gold out of the ground in a particular place, and someone else wants to do the same thing on the same spot. How do you resolve this conflict?
 
Papa bull said:
That's why they call themselves "progressives". If they called themselves "Communists" they know they'd never get elected.
Click to expand...
They try to use political correctness to change the labels but reality is indeed a stubborn mistress.
and some of us are quite aware that hell hath no fury like a mistress scorned
you end up having to sleep with one eye open in fear she'll creep up and snip off yer dangly bits
no wonder they are so cranky
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
It was a natural consequence of society. Without private property, we would all be killing each other over physical position - space - and who gets to occupy it.

Tell me, what happens when a collective farm just so happens to be next to a river that a power plant "needs" to be on? Which family gets the boot? Which farm gets demolished to make way for "progress"? How is this solved without private property rules? Or take a mine, for example. A person wants to dig gold out of the ground in a particular place, and someone else wants to do the same thing on the same spot. How do you resolve this conflict?
Click to expand...

What? To your first example, the farm gets precedence, because it owns that plot of land. And what do you mean by "which"? There's only one farm. To your second: the previous owner sells it to whomever of the two they choose.

A group owning a firm doesn't change the fact that land is (often) owned.
 
Artevelde said:
Communists are almost never "voted into power".
Click to expand...
No but Hitler was
2yuy9af.jpg
 
Artevelde said:
Communists are amost never "voted into power". But I agree a Communist takeover in the US is very unlikely.
Click to expand...

If it didn't happen in the early 1900s or the Great Depression, it's not happening now.
 
Since it hasn't happened the possibility for it too happen still exists
28saazo.jpg
 
Org said:
What? To your first example, the farm gets precedence, because it owns that plot of land. And what do you mean by "which"? There's only one farm. To your second: the previous owner sells it to whomever of the two they choose.

A group owning a firm doesn't change the fact that land is (often) owned.
Click to expand...

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.
 
If it is California they don't' build the power plant.
 
Turns out he was right along eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom