Pro Communism in America

I am currently attending 10th grade at a high school in Florida and today I have been assigned to write a speech, and I was given the chance to choose my topic. I chose to base it off of the statement:

Communism (in a more generalized sense) would be beneficial to America as a whole, i.e Economically and Socially.

Now I know this is an extremely controversial issue and I would like to address several issues in my speech pertaining to what exactly Communism is. I would also like to perhaps introduce an alternative Communism-based plan of government in which to give my class a little more insight as to the cause and effect of such a situation in which America were a classless society.

The purpose of this post is for me to gather opinions and other people's thoughts on the subject matter so that I can better formulate my own opinion.

How would communism benefit the growth of America on the whole as opposed to any other governmental plan?

Thank you for that bit of advice.

I think I am going to go buy the Communist Manifesto at Borders or something to get into the theoretical sense of the subject.

Communism is the work, to me, of rebels disliking the way things are on the basis that capitalism is essentially a form of a pyramid economy where the place is dictated by luck, i.e. into what social class or culture you find yourself in.

The premise is to create equal citizens working for a common good - equal wages. In paper its alright. But it is the product, to me, where someone's thought process has been cut short.

We are born on a scale of luck. Our history is FACT, by that I mean a product of nature. And nature carves out both diversity and favours the fitter. We are like the cogs in the machine. We produce work to finish the plan. To do this well, workers need incentive and inspiration.

Now, with natural leaders, or independent doers, it is somehwat natural (for some) to promote the idea of everyone working to a common goal. However, those wiser than their own wills realise that society isn't naturally like this. To work and to keep us alive, we have to have competition. Without this our desire burns up and this promotes laziness; or what I would call sterility.

The focus is on winning, rather than losing. Communism naturally helps the weaker. To me, I would always side with capatalism because it clearly makes us work. Those who fall by the wayside I really feel sorry for. To me, I can't be a harsh capatalist because of that. It is a weakness in reality. That feeling is the motive behind communism - but one ultimately, that lets heart rule over the truth.

I constantly remind myself of being a kid and seeing the guy go down in a ferrari and me wanting one. I didn't see that as greed then; I naturally saw it as a desire. And that is what we should all have the freedom to feel - take a look at the posts in this forum where people compare cars. If this were a true communist society - there'd be one post with one car. That's about as fun as a graveyard in winter.

Communism to me is essentially leaders leading a people but pretending not to be. Capatlism is the same but the leaders don't pretend. And on that basis, there is more truth in capitalism. Its just a shame that it has been focused too much on personal wealth rather than personal gain.

On the other hand you have to favour small goups. Competition works to keep things diverse and maximises individual achievement. And so I see the downside of a mcdonalds in every country!

Strictly, I should compare communism with democracy, and on this note I'll quote Churchil 'democracy is the worst form of government; except all the others that have been tried'.

You might do well to pick two or more countries, one democratic and one communist say and compare and contrast their history, economies, societies, culture, national demographics, economic wealth, miltary strength and then make a conclusion. Be careful if you only pick two countries on being fair - I'd suggest chosing by similar natural resources, geography, and population density.

If you want to write the article right (as in, the way the teacher wants you to write it ) the listen to Decius. If you want to know the truth behind it all, Jimbobby is the guy to go with.

Also, don't waste your money buying it! It's all over the web:

http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/261/2448/frameset.html

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/61

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/inde
x.htm

http://reactor-core.org/communist-manifesto.html


Enjoy the read!

quote:

---

Communism to me is essentially leaders leading a people but pretending not to be. Capitalism is the same but the leaders don't pretend. And on that basis, there is more truth in capitalism. Its just a shame that it has been focused too much on personal wealth rather than personal gain.

---

Don't know about you, ArtAmend I found jimbob's statements a bit confusing or perhaps contradictory? Does he mean that Bush isn't putting forth some pretense for war
I tend to see De's answer as being more to the point. Excuse the use of biblical reference but note the threads dealing with the perception of the glass being half full or half empty . . . yet this preception is countered by the Christian preception of the cup being so full that it forms a stream that other come to slake their thirst. Capitalism tends to promote the perception that the value of something is directly proportional to it's monetary value. Which tends to develop into a sense of low self-esteem & vague feeling of lacking fulfillment Even among those who have obtained material wealth (power & possessions). A more communal outlook (opposed to the individual aspect) find greater satisfaction (sense of well-being) providing a life of fulfilled.

quote:

---

Strictly, I should compare communism with democracy, and on this note I'll quote Churchill 'democracy is the worst form of government; except all the others that have been tried'.

---

PS: Oh, by the way don't fall into the ploy of thinking that Capitalism & Democracy are synonymous, they aren't.

quote:

---

Communism to me is essentially leaders leading a people but pretending not to be. Capitalism is the same but the leaders don't pretend. And on that basis, there is more truth in capitalism. Its just a shame that it has been focused too much on personal wealth rather than personal gain.

---

Its not contradictory, cturtle. Communism is where you have a classless society - where people share, in principle the same thing. If you read Animal Farm by George people, you'll sense the failing of the Russian government in acting it out in reality. Basically, we all need competition and communism drives it out of us. More, any society must be led for it to exist and so the only contradiction is communism itself.

Whilst the idea is sound to pursists and idealists, teh notion doesn't work - just go to the older eastern german block and you'll see run-down buildings all looking the same, although you may look ot Cuba to be the antidote. Still then - I doubt the country is really working like a communist state!

I agree that capitalism and democracy are not the same. I'd like you to show me though, a country where these two do not co-exist. And I also agree that the downside of capitalism is the interest in materialism. Materialism is the death of the organic man - machines and technology only really serve to make us less aware, focused and enriched. But - short of reinveting something - what can we do?

Communism is the idea that the profit that workers generate goes to the workers as oppose to the corporations. They divide the money under the saying to each according to your ability and to each according to his needs. So a accountant with a family would earn more than a laborer who is single.
I am a Political science/Economics major so I will give you some advice to writing your article. To argue that Communism is in fact economical you should use the example of Japan. Japan is the second largest economy in the world and by the Gini curve has the smallest income inequality in the world(they have also been communist for many years). You can use this to compare to America who is the largest economy in the world but has a very large income inequality(as bad as Mexico). I would also argue that Communism has not worked for places like Russia, North Korea and Cuba because they are in authoritarian regimes where as Japan is a democracy and has less government involvement. I would also bring up the fact that the United States has no real left wing candidates running for president. The Left wing candidates, democrats, are all by Canadian and European standards right wing, but are just a little less right wing than the Republicans who are far right. There is actually only one socialist senator in the entire senate and I forget his name but he is from Vermont. You can check out where the US presidential candidates lie on the political spectrum and where you lie at politicalcompass.org. Also it is important to remember you will receive much scrutiny because people do not fully understand what communism really is. Hope this helps!

Japan doesn't have a communist economic system...???

That really is a very interesting,if broad topic. And on the note of it being a broad topic I think any report worth doing on the subject would help make it clear to people that most notions about communism are preconceived and ultimately flawed in various ways.

For instance, I think any report on communism should make it clear that communism is many things including:
a theoretical ideology
a political system
an economic system
a religion.

Moreover, I would think a brief overview (I'm assuming that since this is a class assignment and so a certain time limit is in effect, though this is a topic that could conceivably be stretched into several semester long class lectures) of each point is in order so the students are made aware of the implications of each one.

Also, if you have time you might delve into the Constitution and determine how communism would fit into that, as a political or economic system for America (sadly too many Americans don't seem to care much about the Constitution anymore and it's rather unfortunate). I guess I'll leave it at that for now due to time constraints and vast research areas. There are all kinds of websites devoted to the subject and the research alone could take a lifetime to go through. Good luck on the assignment and I'll be curious to see what subtopics you hit, if you don't mind sharing it on this site. Otherwise, just good luck.

quote:

---

Whilst the idea is sound to pursists and idealists, teh notion doesn't work - just go to the older eastern german block and you'll see run-down buildings all looking the same, although you may look ot Cuba to be the antidote. Still then - I doubt the country is really working like a communist state!

I agree that capitalism and democracy are not the same. I'd like you to show me though, a country where these two do not co-exist. And I also agree that the downside of capitalism is the interest in materialism. Materialism is the death of the organic man - machines and technology only really serve to make us less aware, focused and enriched. But - short of reinveting something - what can we do?

---

The dikes broke & New Orlean floods, corrusions destroy bridges forming cracks in their foundations, etc (such as dam) are alll in serious need of repair because capitalism will to make the world safe for capitalism rather than use tax dollars to provides for the needs of the people?
Watched some reality (?) show, where the 'end of the world' man's society ( isnstitution of government fails & people are left to fend for themselves. It was interesting to see how ingeniously they approached problems but I did note that the best solutions seem to come from shared efforts between those who intellengence to understand the relics of our technologies & those whom understood the mechnical aspects to produce (build) neccessary items effectively.
Of course, the theme of sch action was these labors where done to serve the groub as a whole, not the individuals. Yes they were separated into small groups so the question arise to whether they will share (extend) the information (technology) or secure it to barter with the goods produced?

If I may input a simple idea that Communism is the intended goal of a perfect society working together. The closer, as a society, we can work in this manner the more we can achieve; Such as hosting a larger population, efforts towards research, infrastructure development whatever you could imagine humanity accomplishing.

Anarchy would be the opposite, money = power ect. However the ability to achieve great things such as landing on the moon may be nonexistent due to everyone competing for power.

As such, the balance of how we allow ourselves to be governed depends squarely on the development level of humanity. Paranoid/ greedy individuals will hold on to every scrap of power they can. Trusting team oriented people will give to achieve.

quote:

---

If I may input a simple idea that Communism is the intended goal of a perfect society working together. The closer, as a society, we can work in this manner the more we can achieve; Such as hosting a larger population, efforts towards research, infrastructure development whatever you could imagine humanity accomplishing.

---

I am a little vague on the point you are expressing but I am not sure of your point?

quote:

---

Anarchy would be the opposite, money = power etc. However the ability to achieve great things such as landing on the moon may be nonexistent due to everyone competing for power.

---

For instance, "Anarchy would be the opposite"? The opposite of what, "money = power etc."? Rich => educated => privileged class are not politically anarchist. Point is they want a strong governing body which they can control . . . "the ability to achieve great things", I for one don't particularly see "landing on the moon" as anything particularly great advancement but then it was done as a competitive task, capitalism vs communism.

I'll make it easy. This is in reference to the practiced system of economy. (I'm sorry for the long post, it's also a bit of a rant. Mail me your thoughts)

In short, corruption is bad, privatization supports corruption more than a transparent government.


In a communist society (all resources are governed by few) there is less waste and more is accomplished (whatever you consider accomplishments are). In an anarchist society (total free markets) you will have needless redundant actions and waste (commercials, advertisements lobbyists, privatization ect).

The point of landing on the moon was an achievement because it was a goal set that seemed highly improbable. I personally want humanity to explore the stars and our children to prosper. If you like to be content with war, poverty and petty bickering that's up to you. The push to going to outer space has lead to the development of a wide array of technologies and understanding as well as a chance for humanity to become better.

With a great deal of taxes and government spending the USA landed on the moon first. However the victor wasn't capitalism, it was a communistic idea (taxes and centralized control, standardization ect). If capitalism won the race, then a private company would have beaten the two global powers. Landing on the moon was actually a victory for the push for organization and unity (Communism) and not a victory for capitalism (Privatization). Also, because of privatization different standards and quality was used which cause a multitude of issues and problems. The government stepped in and created standards to adhere too which fixed many problems.

I'm sure you'll start saying that communism is corrupt, just like any other government can be. Answer this, what is looking out for the greater good? A government that understands the better its people do, the better it is or a bundle of private corporations seeking raw temporary profit. Insurance companies are probably the single greatest example of how reliable privatization is. And, has been stated, to be the single worst product in history, due to corruption.

People need to be held accountable for their actions. Privatization is a system of compartmentalization and promoting corruption, you know, like a terrorist cell. A transparent government however is capable of holding corrupt officials accountable for fraud waste and abuse. That's a government term btw.

A government built and managed car breaks wouldn't fail. It may not be the nicest of vehicles but it gets the job done. A privately built car? well you just wouldn't know if breaks had a chance of erratic failure due to quality issues they could get away with it would you?

One question first. Show me a communist country where the PEOPLE of the nation have more average wealth than the U.S.

You can't find one.

The reason is that communism sounds good in theory to the underprivileged, ignorant and jealous.

However..I do agree that if the U.S. got serious about cutting waste and focusing on prosperity as a nation as apposed to instant personal consumer driven satisfaction we would be much better off and put ourselves back on top.