If America should go Communist/Socialism

Communism is the third step of a three step plan – the first step is revolution (to remove the monarchy or government), the second step is the establishment of a ruling proletariat which is called “socialism” (a government of the people). When the socialist government attains its main goal – removal of all private property ownership, the government is meant to step down and the state becomes headless – this is communism. Accordingly, there has never been a true communist state as all socialist states end up retaining their government. With that out of a way. We can truly understand the history of Marxist influenced governments. I was wanting to get American views on a socialist or a communist form of government taking control in the U.S. I also have a link to a passage by Leon Trotsky from August 17, 1934
www.newyouth.com...

The problem is, communism can't work on a large scale because it doesn't require a majority to operate, it requires everyone to make it operate. That is why "communes" can survive while on a national scale, they will fail every time. We as humans always need a government of some form. Even most communes made will end up with a leader in them. We haven't found a way to survive without someone telling us what to do.

reply to post by ventian


I agree with you. Just look at the history of governments influenced by Marxism. If I recall Sweden has some form of socialism which works for that country. But on wikipedia it says Sweden is a Parliamentary democracy and Constitutional monarchy. There are probably some socialized laws.

Originally posted by ventian
The problem is, communism can't work on a large scale because it doesn't require a majority to operate, it requires everyone to make it operate. That is why "communes" can survive while on a national scale, they will fail every time. We as humans always need a government of some form. Even most communes made will end up with a leader in them. We haven't found a way to survive without someone telling us what to do.

Humans do not need governments, you just need families, which are basically micro-governments. Any government on a larger scale is not necessary but may be useful for certain purposes, they all ultimately fail.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by CREAM]

reply to post by CREAM


Thanks Confucius.

If America goes Communist/Socialist expect life expectancy to plummet, the birth rate to drop, an agricultural failure resulting in millions of deaths, etc.

Granted any way that gets us back to carrying capacity is good in the long run.

reply to post by Merle8

Ummm you realise Cuba has virtually the same life expectancy as the US, the birth rate could do with dropping world wide and why would agriculture fail under communism?

No offense, but asking for an Americans opinion on Socialism/Communism is like asking a 6 year old how to drive.

Well I do consider myself the Socialist, but advocating a stateless society is not what I would prefer. A classless society, yes.

I still believe the allocation of goods should be done on the Supply and Demand scale, this is a democracy through selection of goods whilst a Socialist Economy or a Demand Economy lacks transparency and personal selection.

Resources are distributed based upon what is allocated to that region, or what is needed any excess is generally not permitted. While I would not be in disagreement with an economy where Market and State work together to plan the economy, government allocating necessary resources while the Market will handle consumption goods(i.e. excess).

While it's a Democratic Revolution, Solidarity Revolution or an all out Revolution is of no opinion to me. We have consistently saw that every time a Socialist Revolution occurs the Revolutionaries become dictators and rule with brute force. We have failed to ever pass the Socialist stage, and they even manipulated the Socialist stage into authoritarian tyranny.

I would prefer Democratic Socialism, I don't agree with a stateless society though, I part with Marxists and other Socialists about the eventual outcome as I still prefer having a state. The state should be decentralized, partial direct democracy(referendums and recalls), transparent and abides by the laws of Liberty and Justice.

reply to post by ghostsoldier


Putting down the greatest nation on Earth shows your envy. It isn't our fault you weren't born here.

Anyway, in response to the OP question I don't believe Communism would (or should for that matter) work in the United States. The people wouldn't have it. Our founding fathers created a Republic and that is what we shall remain.

To start with im not american (english atualy) but i am a self confessed communist. I do have some problems though with standard marxist concepts, for one im totaly oposed to the whole dictator of the poliraite thing (forgive my spelling) a dictator for any reson is still a dictator - coruptable and unreprepresentive. my ideal socity would be govened by direct democracy and elected comities made for and disolved after specific issues/ projects. as for america I think it will strugle to move beyond capitalism for a while yet while people still remember the cold war propoganda, nevertheless a more progresive america may be on the horison and i hope it sucseeds so the world can see socilisums sucsess.

But as always I remain Forever Skeptical.

Communism/Socialism requires the use of excessive amounts of violence by the State because participants in a communist/socialist State are not voluntary actors.

Since the product of labor is owned by the State, the worker must relinquish the fruits of his labor to the State. Natural law goes against this so violence is required to enforce this.

Taxes, for example, require guns. A State can not expropriate property and labor without the use of guns because people will naturally defend what they labor to produce. People will also naturally defend property which they have homesteaded as well.

Let us assume an example of homesteading:

In the westward expansion of America, people were allowed to homestead land and resources. Let us say that after moving west, I found a nice plot of land near a small town and I decide I want to homestead that land as a farm. So I post my stakes in the ground and begin building a small farm for myself. No one owned the land before me, so I have claimed it as my own.

A few years into my farming, the citizens of the near by town decide that the town should take my farm and run it as a non-profit community farm because they feel I am profiting too much from my corn crops.

To do this, they necessarily will need to threaten me with violence since I will not willingly give up my farm.

Alternatively they could decide to take my excess profits in the form of taxes. Since they feel they deserve the profits more than myself, they must necessarily threaten me with violence to extract that money from me.

Alternatively, they might decide that I shouldn't produce corn, but instead produce wheat. Since I chose to produce corn for reasons of my own, getting me to produce wheat instead would require threats of violence.

These two underlying points of socialism, that the State owns your labor and that the State owns all the land, necessitate the need for violence.


There are much broader economic problems that come from this as well, such as how to correctly price goods and services since there are no private markets to set prices in a purely communist system.

Socialism without violence can occur on small scales, such as communes, churches, or even family units, but these entities are all voluntary arrangements. None of the actors are threatened with violence if they do not participate.

Voluntary socialism is great, if people want to do that they should be allowed to. However State socialism is necessarily brutal and violent.


[edit on 29-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Rather than to list the failures of communism of which history is replete and have been articulated in fantastic fashion on this site, I can tell you that prior to a major push toward communism thousands of Americans would flee the country. The number of Americans leaving the US and taking up residence elsewhere is already at an all time high.

There are plenty of places in the world where libertarian philosophy reigns and are quite easy to move to. Some would renounce their US citizenship and some would not. In any case it is quite easy to live outside of the US and the perview of the US, including financial perview. The income level of those leaving would be high and as such a major hit on the tax base. You are going to have plenty of time to set up the legal structures and liquidate all of your US holdings, real estate, pension accounts, life insurance, 401Ks and brokerage accounts and move them outside of the country.

This can be done legally and easily and millions would do it, myself included.

I am not about to turn my fruit of my life's labor over to the government to pursue some utopian nonsense. Not a chance

from what I have learned in an economics class, a major problem with communism especially what happened in the Soviet union is that the government tends to attempt micro managing every industry and job ( kind of what is happening in the US with the banks and auto industry and what has happened places like Venezuela), everything has to be just so. an example being that a particular quota on steel isn't made or is not delivered on time then every product that is made with steel is halted up from military equipment to that new family car. if there is a hiccup in the system it will be felt in the entire system since it is all controlled by the government.

East Germany used to have a Communist government.
It was so popular that they had to build a wall to keep out the hordes of western Europeans who wanted to become part of the system.
At least, that's the story they told their citizens.

reply to post by DISRAELI


similar to what the north korean government tells its people.

When i was 17, i got to visit POland* met my first g/f thier, in Warsaw. Traveoled all throughout southern poland for 2 1/2 months. This was 1992. One day, we went to her fathers job, just south and east fo warsaw, city of Radom. I dont know what it is he did thier, but thier were raditaion signs on dorrs. he wore a simple shirt to work, thats all.
She would enterperate to me in english, as i asked her mom n father what was it like under communism. HORRRIBLE they replied. you dont have the same feedom you have here in america, capitlalism, to make as much money as you can or want. under communism, you had a set income* just enough to buy food, and some cloths, but not enough to squirrel away in the bank. Yuode be detained and thouroughly questioned if it wa found out you had, lets say american money under the mattress* and most likely go to prison.
One day, when she was like 5 or 6, 1980/1981, being roman catholic, mandatory to got to church every sunday late morning. One day she and her mom were going, and 2 russian troops guys walked up n stopped them. told them they could not go to church. Her mom siad please, we just want to go to church. the russian occupying tropps clicked their ak 47's, to show they menat businesss and told them to go back home or be shot, they wouldnt allow them to go to church. a sad story i remember she told me, to this day.
A guy i worked with with romania 5 years ago, also told me, under communsim, the same..set income, KGB would lsiten especailly if you accted nervous and suspiscous. it was very common, for people to be pulled out of a phone booth, eating lunch at a sidewalk table, and maybe never sen agian, maybe in prison...
jsut some info to share with all. and think about*

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by ventian

 

I agree with you. Just look at the history of governments influenced by Marxism. If I recall Sweden has some form of socialism which works for that country. But on wikipedia it says Sweden is a Parliamentary democracy and Constitutional monarchy. There are probably some socialized laws.

There is no such thing as socialised laws. There are socialised economics, which
Sweden (a Social Democracy) does have, like every nation.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Your a little bit off. Removal of a government without alternative is called anarchy. In a "socialist country, the government owns interest in and heavily regulates industry, banking, commerce, all revenue generating activity. The government redistributes proceeds, via mechanisms such as healthcare, social security, and welfare or similar programs.
Free markets are eliminated completely, or to a large degree. In other words, your choices are limited.
In a communist country, the government takes complete ownership of most viable commerce entities and removes property rights, other than limited personal items. Income is derived from the state. Housing belongs to the state. You belong to the state.
We already have a ruling "proletariat". It's called congress. Remember that this country became the wealthiest in the world under limited government and free markets. Our poor folks own color televisions, cars and cell phones. As govenment involvement increased, our economic fortunes declined. We now are nearly exclusively a socialist nation on the edge of an abyss.
This government propagandizement that we are all "interdependant", and "responsible for each other" is merely to set the stage for a communist, or as you know it "progressive" regime. The spirit of american individualism is under assault. Any man who would trade his freedoms to remove a little risk from his life is a fool, and will never fulfill his potential. He'll never open a business and beat the odds, becoming a billion dollar entity, employing thousands, paving the way for his employess and their children. He'll never feel the thrill of taking a chance and winning, or of building character by losing and learning. He'll just go to work, provided he has a job or hasn't been euthanized, do a mediocre job because he lacks incentive, come home to his government issued housing (projects), watch government run programing touting the benefits of communism, and lead a misierable existence. No freedom to travel, no expanding the immagination, just tout the government line, work and die.
You see, marxism was disrobed for what it is early in the twentieth century, so it's since been repackaged as "progressivism" (marketing, you know). Other fun aspects of communism include rules regarding the size of your family (limited resources, you know), genocide ( no dead weight), endless speeches and statues of and from a guy like...say....Obama, and a ban on religion (don't want anything competing with the state you know). Then there's the abject poverty a communist country lives in. You'll say China is wealthy and I'll tell you that the chinese middle and upper classes include less than one percent of the population. You see, the Chinese government controls the image. So if you like misery and don't think the pursuit of happiness is for you, you'll love communism.
Unfortunately, a large part of the younger people are complete victims of an indoctrination. You've been lied to. You actually think the progressives have your best interest in mind. Here's what they have in mind. Staying in power, creating the likes of a "thousand year reich", and redistributing your wealth (what did you think social justice means) to "his people", more or less as a jab at the white collar folks. Of course, they won't be around to offer you that 100k job, so there is a downside. And if you've worked hard and accumulated any wealth, we'll you probably exploited black folks or illegal immigrants somewhere along the way, so we'll be needing that back.
Progressive's like Obama never understood that we don't care what color somebody is, we're too busy living our lives and working hard. And we exploit no one. We have what we have because we work our butts off. Therefore, what we have is ours, not the state's. I truly don't beleive he understands what will inevitably happen, should he attempt to take it away. We won't cooperate. We are one act of extorsion (tax hike) or one giant takeover (health care) away from a rebellion. Did you notice that a bill was introduced last week stating that all adults 18-42 would be required to serve either in the military or a "civilian security force" for two years? What's that about? It's about two things. Indoctrination and control of civil unrest. You see, to take away the guns and remove the 2nd ammendment, you need manpower. Important safety tip, don't get involved in coming down south and trying to disarm folks.
All those dreams you have about going wherever, doing whatever and being whatever. Scratch that if Obama is able to impose his will. Think it can't happen here. You've lived what, 20 years. Read a history book. Reference Germany, 1930's. Hitler started with class warfare, then his own civil security force (they became the ss). Always starts the same. That's because these tactics come from marxist text books and are now taught at universities here in the US. For example, check Obama's college affiliations.www.youtube.com...
Unfortunately, we're at the edge of an abyss, and it may well be that we have one option left, and that would be non-compliance while we're still armed. www.youtube.com...

[edit on 29-7-2010 by astrogolf]

No.

There is no such thing as a 'Communist Nation'. The very idea is an oxymoron. Communism as Marx envisioned it was actually a system akin to Anarchy- small groups of people without a government who share everything in common with the rest of the community (known as a commune- basically a small village of some sort) which is ruled by democratic means. The USSR, China and other 'Communist nations' were/are authoritarian Socialist hell holes- true Communism on a large scale is arguably impossible to achieve, and these regimes got too wound up with trying to achieve the impossible instead of simple things like trying to look after their citizens.

America is no where near a Socialist economy, and you would do well to remember that. You don't even have a Socialist healthcare system yet.

Everybody is interdependent in modern society. Whether that's desirable or not is up for debate, but currently no man is an island. Your tax money goes towards building the roads which allow people to get to work and allow food to be transported from where it's grown to where it's sold. Your tax money funds schools, the emergency services, your military and many, many other things. Without many of these things the society you rely on and grew up in would arguably collapse. It's not even the first time the United States has even been this far to the left- The 1940's saw it in a situation much like today's and were some of the most prosperous times your nation has ever seen. Regulation of businesses was at it's peak, and corporate taxes were a huge 38% at the highest level- the same as today.

Obama is just another right-wing corporatist, much like Bush, and I don't know why you in America voted for him in droves. However, he's not even a 'Socialist', let a lone a 'Communist'. He's a Keynesian and a Corporatist, as most of your presidents have been.

Hitler wasn't a Socialist. He was an insane megalomaniacal tyrant. He had the Socialist wing of the Nazi party killed off in the 1934 Night of the Long Knives after the support of the working class had already got him where he wanted to be. He was in bed with the Corporations, and little of what he did was Socialist or Marxist. He despised Marxism as a Jewish plot.

America may be near a tyrannical 'abyss', but it won't be a Socialist one. It will be a Keynesian Corporatist one, and if you want to actually inform the populace of your nation about the problems approaching it, attacking strawmen 'Communists' will get you nowhere. Attack the real culprits- Mega-Corporations and their hugely powerful lobbies which have bought every president and almost every member of Congress you've had for about 30 or 40 years to service their own interests.

Perhaps then you can sort out the problems affecting your nation.