Could communism work in the US?

Alright I've often looked at communism and it's made me think. On the surface it has the potential to be the best possible form of goverment. Yet for some reason it always seens to turn into some sort of brutal dictatorship and eventually collapses. Why is this? Well my analysis is that there are couple problems.

For one thing communism says nothing about not having democracy, it just so happens that dictatorships have arisen historically. Because in a sense, communism is almost more of a economic system. I think that so long as the public is content with communism, a communist nation can be completly democratic at the same time.

Next is a point that was brought up by chinawhite. Communism has only been practiced in developing nations. Therefore they never had any wealth to spread around in the first place. Instead it was the poor stayed poor since there was little middle or upper class.

Finally there is bueracracy. The main underlying weakness of a large communist goverment is bueracracy. The system is so massive and so complex barely anything can get done. Look at the Soviet Union, the bueracracy they had out there was enormous and overly complex.


But now I bring us back to the topic at hand. Would communism work in the US, or possibly another developed western nation?

If you'll notice US citizens would never knowingly give up democracy. So I don't really think that a dictatorship would be as much of a problem so long as we're careful. I think that it is completly possible for the US to maintain a democratic communist state.

Next is the issue of wealth. Looking around I see that most US citizens are in the middle class. And some of the small class of very wealthy are very very rich. Just look at Bill Gates, his networth is supposedly around 40 billion. Thats enough to pay China's defense budget for a whole year! Think how much 40 billion dollars could do in the hands of the greater good. So in conclusion I think that the US has just the right balance with plenty of wealth to be spread realativly equally.

Finally is bueracracy. I'll admit it, it's impossible to aviod it. The US currently isn't communist and it's already a bueracratic mess. However I think that the US could fare much better than any other nation for one simple reason. We've got a much more sophisticated computer network. From what I figure the internet and computer databases could in theory streamline bueracracy to the point were communism could be plausible without the goverment grinding to a hault?

Anyhow I'd like to hear some opinions on whether or not the US or other developed nation like the UK or Canada could handle full communism.

It's never worked anywhere else, why would it work in the United States?

It's a dead ideology, let it rest in peace.

As I've said in the other thread, "Is Communism Good or Bad?" the most fundemental flaws with the Communist idea is that, although it is a force for good, it cannot work because humans are inherentily good AND bad. By this I mean we are naturally selfish, greedy, powerhungry etc, and a Communist system requires everyone to accept people as equals and expects people to not try and take control, have more material possesions etc. Marx believed that once we didn't need more possesions, power etc, becasue they were not nessesary in a Communist environment, and by education and being rasied in a Commie environment, people would lose these basic human feelings.

Marx was WRONG.

People are biologically inprinted with these bad things, and whilst education and the environment u are rasied in does decrease how selfish u are, or how greedy, there will always be people who strive for more power, things, money "respect" etc. HUMAN NATURE does not allow Communism to work, thus, it is fundementally falwaed and can neither be installed, or run without an "elite" forming, as shown in every single attempted "Communist" states in the world, past present and future (garunteed).

So in answer to your question, it does not matter where Communism is attempted to be installed; IT JUST WON'T WORK. The amount of money and the strength of the economy of the its host nation will help in its attempted creation, but Communisms' fundamental flaws will just bring about its warped "elitist" reality, and ultimatly its demise.

COMMUNISM IS DEAD BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER ALIVE.

There will always be Communists, who are broadly fighting for good reasons; equality, far pay, workers right etc; and those people are essential to the world in order to make it a fairer place (I am not saying all people campaigning for human rights, better pay etc are communists btw). Communisms attempted creation will come about again in other poorer coutnries too, all failing to create true Communism. But at the end of the day, Communism, and extremist theories as a whole, whether they left, right, up, down, sideways or whatever, will never work.

Communism just doesn't work.

After being Capitalist all these years, the USA could never go back.. unless something cataclysmic happened and we had no choice. But even then.. I can't see it happening.

Because it demands that the system be destroyed by a violent revolution, and it also requires that basic ownership rights be completely wiped out. Becuase it forces, on everyone, a system. How could this possibly be accomplished without tyranny?

Yes it does. It demands a dictatorship of the proletariate and the rule of a single party.


Never. Americans like to own stuff. There're not going to give up property rights, and of course the constitution forbids it, so, again, it'd require a violent revolution.

Also, from what I understand, Marx and Engels were something like Futurists. They examined, in a sociological context, the 'evolutionary' (not anything like darwin or biological evolution) development of human societies, and noted that the big changes have come when there was an increase in the ability ot get enery out of the system or that the modes of production were changed. They also noticed that there was an historical trend that resulted in the devlopment of classes, labour and managment and the like. From this they concluded that a socialist/communist system was inevitable, in which the underclass rose up against the owner class, and abolished the things that had been used against them, because they'd inevitably realize that property, money, the market, wage earning, and goverment was used to 'oppress' them. This woudl result in a utopian state where there was no ownership, or at least that the 'people' would own the real means of production and the real estate.
Problem is, they were simply wrong in their analysis. And this is why communism hasn't worked out in anything like they intended. Agrarian and backwards socieites 'went communist', not industrialised ones where there was a citied or 'bourgoise' class and a class that had to sell its labour, rather than products, in order to earn set wages, and the like. IOW their 'futurist' position never materialized, the masses of workers in the developed industrialized world, where the revolution had to start and could only start, never started.

The heart of man is corrupt. It doesn't really matter what system of government you have, man will always give way to his greed and desire for power.

Communism (old Soviet-style for example) seems an easier medium to corrupt and control. There's little or no challenge to authority.

It used to make sick listening to the communists (USSR) talking about how wonderful it was. Yeah, wonderful if you are a member of the government.. They have all the perks and priveledge the little proletariats could only dream of. I guess that was a big secret.

No, I do not think it would work in America nor would I want it. It obviously has not worked that well for some other places either. This country has fought for over 200 years for demoracy and frankly, I am not ready to scrap the system at this time.

The collapse of the Soviet Union pretty much sounded the death knell for it.

But from my perspective, how is our military/industrial complex not a bastardized form of communism? Or maybe how is communism not just a bastardized form of capitalism. I barely see a difference.

My thinking here is that all the top leaders and all the top corporations are so inseperable in so many ways (from oil to healthcare really) what's the damn difference? Sure "they" own the means, but does that mean you get pwned any less?

It's capitalism because a handful in power get rich while eveyone else suffers? That's supposed to be what's wrong with communism. Oh, and it went bankrupt because we borrowed more. Pfft. BFD.

Now who's in debt? I don't know. They're all just words. No point in arguing over which poison tastes better.

The problem is that things like fascism and socialist are so extremely oppositte that they end up looking very similar (not to say that the US is outright fascist or anything).

I mean, is it really all that different to say that this Commisar is the director of factories, than to say that this manufacturing monopoly is an organ of the state?

No, never, point blank. Communism is not a form of government, an eco-political system, or any platform of politics therof. Communism is, all in all, not an evolution of government, but a complete shift in the human physche. For Communism to "work," one must transform human beings out of the animal kingdom and into something greater. Evolution- survival of the fittest- no matter how old the books and writings get, we are no farther from their truths than we were when they were scribed.

Communism is a trust in everything you cannot have. COmmunism is not about where you fit into your community, but where the community is in the scope of everything the community is not. Marx and Engles were not imagining a revolution of laborers- its a revolution of human nature.

Every imaginable government is based on the sole idea of the individual striving to become something greater than they currently are. SOMEONE in every existing government is winning. Either the masses are climbing the ladder through the "American Dream" or the elite are gaining more and more control over their subjects. It is, as Marx wrote, a struggle between the classes.

Communism is the complete extinction of class. Equality of all men. This is not natural.

This is not human.

This is not plausible in any physical form.

Keep dreaming!

Amen to that Brother.

The military is run communistic. It is not democratic whatsoever. You have to run it that way.

I don't wish to be rude to people here but a lot of you need to step away from talking about Human-Nature due to the fact you lack a lot of information about it. What you claim is "human-nature" is not but it is part of the "socialisation" of the child during its Primary and Secondary stages. (Before they turn 18).

Human Nature does not mean we will do a certain thing or act a certain way, all of this depends on how you have been raised and what your parents have done to encourage your growth and development. Communism can only work when people are educated to "help" one another instead of looking out for themselves. If they were educated in such a way then Communism would be possible but nobody educated children to help others anymore. Which is clear on this thread: the majority of people seem to come across as though helping someone else is not a reward and only some form of monetary reward is.

The difference between Human Nature and Socialisation comes down to this:
Human Nature is "The sum of qualities and traits shared by all humans"
Socialisation is "The adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture".

It has been shown in both the Indigenous populations of Australia and America as well as other smaller islands that this style of system did once exist. People would do certain things such as farm, build shelters, cook, etc, and it would be done for the good of the group this happened heavily within the Norse Areas prior to Christianity. In some respects it still happens in smaller Islands in and around Asia and also in some tribes in Africa. Communism was just an advancement upon this, but while people think there is no equality been people it won't exist. It is due to the prejudice of society that this will never happen. Which is a shame, I don't see how people can argue that Communism is in fact a bad thing when you see what it is meant to do. In fact the only way people can claim it is a bad thing is by using examples of the U.S.S.R. which was not a Communist Nation and never tried to be - it was a dictatorship and classed as one within Politics Courses. One of the first things you ever learn is Communism never existed and probably never will because people are filled with their own hates on the basis of things like Religion, Sex, Skin Colour, etc. Once these get removed and I hope they do - people might begin to work together and not apart like we are at present.

I have heard this arguement before. Although I see why you might think that, but the idea that kids are ONLY the way they are because of thier environment is wrong.

Imagine a child is in an extremely remote place, where everything he needs and requires is (hypothetically for this example) given or easily obtainable to him. In other words, he's in an environment where he is not effected by social human factors. The fact is, if another child was introduced with him, and there was say, a really cool toy that they both wanted to play with, they would both still try and get it, and fight or squabble over it because they are inherently greedy animals. They woudln't suddenly start sharing the toy, becasue HUMAN NATURE would want us peronally to have the toy. In other words, you cannot ignore human nature becasue that is what prevents communism from working. From a biological perspective as well, your genome already has "greedy" genes from predessesors, so no matter how much you are psychologically "perfect" as communism requires you to be, people will always want more for themselves.

[edit on 18/6/05 by John Pearce]

I would love to see a study which displays there is a gene which pushes for people to be greedy? Except the study done by Imperial College London which was talking about food and only food.

The simple matter of fact is, greed has never been shown to be a part of every single human so it is not a part of human nature. I've listed several places where greed was seen as a bad thing. Also you can see it in the difference between Switzerland, America and Sweden in the moder age. Nearly 25% of people in Switzerland give 1 weekend up a month to get involved in things such as Community sports, this is even higher in Sweden where it is expected that people will do things for free to help others out. I'll hunt down the book which this is displayed in and source it for you.

Also what would you have to be greedy of? In a Society based around Communism you would be seen as "better" if you did more or held a more important job - such as a doctor. Also depending on the model of communism you would also get paid more if you were a doctor as certain versions pay you depending on job and the status which comes with it. However everyone has to earn status nobody can be born with it.

So do you honestly believe that even if it wasn't nessesary people wouldn't try to become more powerful than others? (And when I'm talking of genes, I'm talking of the chemical reactions that take place that result in the lust for something). Even in mans early stages, when there were tribes, and Marx claimed that it was a form of early communism, there we're still leaders who were in control of the tribe. And in addition to this statement by Marx, how on earth could he have known how it worked? Tey didn't keep records, or write things. People are greedy, regardless of their upbringing, and wether or not I can or cannot convicne you of that, that is the reality. OVIOUSLY the social situation you are brought up in dramatically effects you, but we inherently have greed, lust and want power.

But this has never been shown, there is a term called "ethnocentric" and another called "individual differences" use in Psychology to display the fact their is no direct human nature. Depending on the enviroment we get differenet results. I think it was done in a study by Jean Piaget which found certain children to be selfish but when this study was later done in different enviroments this was not shown - the whole "greedy child" didn't exist in these areas.

It's not a fact if I believe it or not, just the fact in my 2 years of studying Sociology and Psychology, I've yet to see any evidence for it and only evidence against it.

Also only certain forms of Communism remove leadership, it is fully possible for Communism to exist with leaders who are elected by the people to make sure there is a status quo and that the land, industry, etc are not shared or controlled by people and enforce the laws. It's actually a mistake to think jobs, etc, would not exist in Communism - the token society - is just another form of Communism. In the true version people could still attempt to do better then others, they would just have to work better to become a doctor or a judge, etc, something of higher importance to the whole of the society and people would also be paid on performance and their job.

Also the forms of early Communism Marx talked about were recorded, although in paintings, etc, such as those found in Australia where the Indigionous people still tell the same story today - from those pictures.

The only thing people can't do in a Communistic Society is become amazingly rich, to the point where them or their family won't have to work again. It gets rid of this Ascribed status which can only harm society. Why should someone be better due to their name or the fact their family has more money? Which they were born into? Which they have never had to work for.

Every last one of us has good and bad within us. Whether we bahave in a good way towards each other or bad boils down to choice. Alot of how we choose has to do with how we are raised. I've seen people raised like monkeys and I've see people raised well. 9 times out of 10 people who were raised like monkeys are going to make the wrong choice. We don't need studies to tell us this. All we need to do is pay attention to what is all around us.

Sadly, many people aren't fit to be parents and they seem to breed like cats. It's unfortunate, but what are we gonna do? We can't go China policy on them. Some of them actually do change at some point in their lives. My own mother became a much more responsive parent after she found the Lord. That was tangible. (She was never a bad mother, just not always as there for us as we would have liked - in the couple years after our father died.)

As far as communism in the USA goes, I'd bet a year's salary that it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever being adopted here. Communism is one word that sends both Liberals and Conservatives howling. That's how much of an impact the Cold War made on us. Besides, as it was pointed out earlier, we North Americans are way too spoiled to ever let go of our cherished Capitalism.

[edit on 6/18/05 by EastCoastKid]

Choice and freewill are part of human nature. We certainly do choose a lot of what occurs in our lifes and other thinks are just nature and God. Even people who where raised like heck and who you think will never be good for anything have something to contribute and sometimes do turn theirselfs around. Try and give the human race a little bit more credit and don't always underestimate mankind, we can do good when we want to.

Communism is dead subject in the US and will never make a comeback. A dictatorship has more possiblity of occuring than communism ever will.

(and that avatar is spooky OD but flashy).