Challenge: What is Communist in the US?

[DontTreadOnMike]

We're not a communist country like a lot of republicans say. Communism is a VERY SPECIFIC THING and America doesn't fit the bill. But it's no stretch to see how some things about our government do resemble the ten planks of communism. Is that because they're secretly trying to turn us into soviet russia? No, it's just what governments do. They try to control as much about our lives as they can and they back up their power with force. For that reason, every government is going to resemble each other because all government is about control and force. Here are the ten planks of Communism:

1.Abolition of property in land and of all rents of land to public purposes.
America hasn’t overtly strayed down this path but legally speaking, you don’t own your home. You don’t hold what is known as an “allodial title” which is why the government is allowed to charge you rent (property tax) and to kick you out of your home if you don’t pay. They can take your home even if you DO pay your taxes using eminent domain.

2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Obviously we have a progressive/graduated income tax. More wealthy people pay more just because they are wealthy even though they use government services less.

3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Sort of. The government doesn’t take all of your stuff when you die but they take a good chunk of it. It’s called the estate tax but some people call it the “death tax”.

4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Yup. In fact you don’t even have to be a rebel. Ever heard of Asset Forfeiture? Basically up until about the year 2000, all the government had to do was establish probable cause that a piece of your property was used in a crime and YOU had to defend it as a third party. Yes you read that right. The government would sue an inanimate object and you had to defend it. Now how did this play out? If you were carrying a large sum of money in your car, the cops could assume it was used in a drug crime and seize it. Even if they don’t suspect YOU of buying or selling drugs, it’s still up to you to prove that the money was never used in a crime. Thankfully that changed a little bit in 2000. Now the burden of proof is on the government. But they still are technically suing an inanimate object and can take it from you if the object is found guilty EVEN IF YOU COMMITTED NO CRIME.

5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Well duh. The Federal Reserve.

6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
The Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the fact that all roads are funded and maintained (just barely) by the State.

7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
The Federal government recently purchased General Motors. But they have their fingers all over industrial production and farming even if they don’t legally own all of it outright.

8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Minimum wage, labor unions, labor laws, etc…

9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
The abolition of a distinction between town and country is certainly happening but not for the reason cited here. Mostly it’s because the Federal government has more and more control over local governments.

10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Well ignoring the fact that there’s no such thing as free education, yes we do have public schools.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Support your statement, or sit back down Potsy.

You made the original assertion that Obama was a communist. You support your statement. This is not guilty until proven innocent time.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

1.Abolition of property in land and of all rents of land to public purposes.
America hasn’t overtly strayed down this path but legally speaking, you don’t own your home. You don’t hold what is known as an “allodial title” which is why the government is allowed to charge you rent (property tax) and to kick you out of your home if you don’t pay. They can take your home even if you DO pay your taxes using eminent domain.

True. While eminent domain is necessary for the construction of publish works (the interstate highway system we take for granted could not have been done without it), it can be and sometimes is abused. Reform is needed. As for property taxes, I would like to see exemptions for primary residences below the median home value. Except that this would introduce a new layer of complexity...

2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Obviously we have a progressive/graduated income tax. More wealthy people pay more just because they are wealthy even though they use government services less.

True. Of course, I could turn that line of reasoning around and point out the wealthy benefit from the American capitalist system far more than I do, and thus should pay more into it. So I think progressive income tax is good.

3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Sort of. The government doesn’t take all of your stuff when you die but they take a good chunk of it. It’s called the estate tax but some people call it the “death tax”.

Eh...in some cases.

4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Yup. In fact you don’t even have to be a rebel. Ever heard of Asset Forfeiture? Basically up until about the year 2000, all the government had to do was establish probable cause that a piece of your property was used in a crime and YOU had to defend it as a third party. Yes you read that right. The government would sue an inanimate object and you had to defend it. Now how did this play out? If you were carrying a large sum of money in your car, the cops could assume it was used in a drug crime and seize it. Even if they don’t suspect YOU of buying or selling drugs, it’s still up to you to prove that the money was never used in a crime. Thankfully that changed a little bit in 2000. Now the burden of proof is on the government. But they still are technically suing an inanimate object and can take it from you if the object is found guilty EVEN IF YOU COMMITTED NO CRIME.

I agree...and asset forfeiture laws need to be slashed back down to what they were originally intended for: to allow government to seize the assets of criminal syndicates. Not take some guy's car for having a roach in his glove compartment. Way too much of a profit motivation there. In fact, one of the biggest opportunities for improvement in the American legal system today.

5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Well duh. The Federal Reserve.

Yes and no. Mostly no. True, we have a central bank. However, credit is still doled out by private lenders...albeit with a significant degree of government involvement (mainly loan guarantees). I would support trimming the Fed's role in the economy. And the housing market needs to be left to find a bottom and begin to recover.

6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

The Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the fact that all roads are funded and maintained (just barely) by the State.

I think this is your first major miss. Airlines are privately owned. Radio and television are privately owned. Railroads and trucking companies are privately owned. The infrastructure they use is publicly owned (as a pure matter of practicality in the case of the aviation and highway systems). I support the current system for the most basic of reasons: it works. U.S. aviation, for instance, is about the safest means (in terms of risk of injury/fatality per miles traveled) of any means of getting human beings from Point A to Point B.

7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

The Federal government recently purchased General Motors. But they have their fingers all over industrial production and farming even if they don’t legally own all of it outright.

I think you're off here. The hallmark of communism is the seizure of healthy industries so that the government can use/distribute their assets. Cf. Hugo Chavez. GM was dying anyway. One could make the argument that it would have been better for the long-term health of the economy to let it die, of course, but I'd have to disagree with the assertion it was communistic.

8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Minimum wage, labor unions, labor laws, etc…

Not exactly an "industrial army."

9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

The abolition of a distinction between town and country is certainly happening but not for the reason cited here. Mostly it’s because the Federal government has more and more control over local governments.

Well, American agriculture certainly has been mechanized and industrialized to a degree seen nowhere else on Earth, but that's purely an outcome of capitalism and corporate farming.

10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Well ignoring the fact that there’s no such thing as free education, yes we do have public schools.

We have public schools, which is good. We need some reforms. And to the extent education is combined with industrial production, well, that's because of corporate influence.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Yep, the government doesn't really fit the communist model like I said. Some things may resemble communism but not all planks fit very well at all like you pointed out. I only have a few points of contention with some of your opinions but your facts are all correct as far as I can tell.

True. Of course, I could turn that line of reasoning around and point out the wealthy benefit from the American capitalist system far more than I do, and thus should pay more into it. So I think progressive income tax is good.

Well we don't have a capitalist economy in the original sense of the word. But "capitalism" has taken on some negative connotations so I don't like to use it anyway. I prefer "free-market" which we DEFINITELY don't have. In a free market, the only way to benefit from the market would be to work hard and to provide a service for other people. If you don't have something of value to offer, you won't be successful. But in our system, many wealthy people run corporations which are government constructs that wouldn't exist in a totally free market. Corporations enjoy artificial legal protections that shield the real people running them from the consequences of their actions. So yes, in general, wealthy people may have benefited more from the government system (and some of them might have made their wealth fairly and without help) but those little government boosts and handouts wouldn't exist in a free-market, which we don't currently have.

Yes and no. Mostly no. True, we have a central bank. However, credit is still doled out by private lenders...albeit with a significant degree of government involvement (mainly loan guarantees). I would support trimming the Fed's role in the economy. And the housing market needs to be left to find a bottom and begin to recover.

I agree with you. Especially in reducing (i.e. eliminating ) the fed and letting the housing market bottom out. And it's true that banks doll out the credit, but where do they get THEIR credit? And who owns the (fiat) money?

I think this is your first major miss. Airlines are privately owned. Radio and television are privately owned. Railroads and trucking companies are privately owned.

Yep but all heavily HEAVILY controlled. That's why we don't quite fit the communist model like I said at the beginning.

I think you're off here. The hallmark of communism is the seizure of healthy industries so that the government can use/distribute their assets. Cf. Hugo Chavez. GM was dying anyway. One could make the argument that it would have been better for the long-term health of the economy to let it die, of course, but I'd have to disagree with the assertion it was communistic.

Again, just a resemblance of communism. But America isn't actually a communist country...not even close. And my friends who grew up in communist eastern Europe are offended by the claim that we are haha. Don't get me wrong, I don't support our current set up, but people who think this is communism should be happy they didn't live in Czechoslovakia a few decades ago like a friend of mine did haha.

Well, American agriculture certainly has been mechanized and industrialized to a degree seen nowhere else on Earth, but that's purely an outcome of capitalism and corporate farming.

Yep again, not owned by the government but heavily regulated.

We have public schools, which is good.

I disagree but I REALLY don't want to get into in this thread haha. That would hijack the whole thing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

f you don't have something of value to offer, you won't be successful. But in our system, many wealthy people run corporations which are government constructs that wouldn't exist in a totally free market.

Why wouldn't corporations exist in a totally free market?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Why wouldn't corporations exist in a totally free market?

A corporation is a very specific thing. It's not just a really big company, those would certainly still exist. But a corporation is a government construct with artificial legal protections. A totally free market is one in which government doesn't exist or doesn't interfere with the market in anyway. If that were the case, how could corporations (which, again, are government constructs) exist? If we had a free market with corporations it wouldn't really be a free market because as soon as the government offers special legal protection to a person or company, it has interfered in the market place. It's like asking why can't virgins who have had sex exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A corporation is a very specific thing. It's not just a really big company, those would certainly still exist. But a corporation is a government construct with artificial legal protections. A totally free market is one in which government doesn't exist or doesn't interfere with the market in anyway. If that were the case, how could corporations (which, again, are government constructs) exist? If we had a free market with corporations it wouldn't really be a free market because as soon as the government offers special legal protection to a person or company, it has interfered in the market place. It's like asking why can't virgins who have had sex exist.

Suppose for a moment that the Government did not interfere in the market at all. That is, it did not regulate, nor offer legal protections, to 'large companies'. Now, we would have anarchy. In this situation, without legal protections or penalties, what do you think a 'large company' would do if another large company, or even an individual, stood in its way? Would it (a) kindly ask them to step aside considering what is 'just' and 'fair', or (b) given that there are no legal protections or penalties, eliminate the large company or individual using any means necessary? Whether you call it a 'corporation' or not is irrelevant to what would happen without legal protections and penalties. It basically gives 'corporations' licence to seize their interests aggressively and with impunity (since no State actor will get involved to protect the smaller, weaker companies or individuals). It is pure foolishness to assume that corporations, or 'large companies' as you call them, wouldn't do as they please given the chance. The Anarchic Market allows the strong corporate body to rule over the weaker, with impunity - the rule of might prevails, and the State rendered impotent by these disastrous policies, gives way to Corporatocracy. Regardless of what name you give it, the outcomes are the same: rule by 'large companies'. At which point, enough power is concentrated in the 'large company' for it to declare its own legal protections: at which point it would become a corporation (by your definition of it).

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Suppose for a moment that the Government did not interfere in the market at all. That is, it did not regulate, nor offer legal protections, to 'large companies'. Now, we would have anarchy. In this situation, without legal protections or penalties, what do you think a 'large company' would do if another large company, or even an individual, stood in its way? Would it (a) kindly ask them to step aside considering what is 'just' and 'fair', or (b) given that there are no legal protections or penalties, eliminate the large company or individual using any means necessary? Whether you call it a 'corporation' or not is irrelevant to what would happen without legal protections and penalties. It basically gives 'corporations' licence to seize their interests aggressively and with impunity (since no State actor will get involved to protect the smaller, weaker companies or individuals). It is pure foolishness to assume that corporations, or 'large companies' as you call them, wouldn't do as they please given the chance. The Anarchic Market allows the strong corporate body to rule over the weaker, with impunity - the rule of might prevails, and the State rendered impotent by these disastrous policies, gives way to Corporatocracy. Regardless of what name you give it, the outcomes are the same: rule by 'large companies'. At which point, enough power is concentrated in the 'large company' for it to declare its own legal protections: at which point it would become a corporation (by your definition of it).

When I say "Artificial legal protections" I mean artificially giving a company legal personality and all that. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be laws against violence and coercion, I don't know where you got that from. You can have laws against murder and theft without interfering in free trade that is mutually agreed upon. I'm just saying that the fact that corporate status exists means the government interferes in the market. It's just a fact without any opinion on the ethics behind it.

Are you saying that without companies being granted legal personality, there would be chaos and violence all over the place?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When I say "Artificial legal protections" I mean artificially giving a company legal personality and all that. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be laws against violence and coercion, I don't know where you got that from. You can have laws against murder and theft without interfering in free trade that is mutually agreed upon. I'm just saying that the fact that corporate status exists means the government interferes in the market. It's just a fact without any opinion on the ethics behind it.

Are you saying that without companies being granted legal personality, there would be chaos and violence all over the place?

Why is it that the institution of corporate status represents government interference in the market, but the institution of laws that restrict what I can do in the market, does not (according to you)? Aren't both forms of 'interference' in the market? But perhaps the best way to think of it: why does corporate status even exist?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Why is it that the institution of corporate status represents government interference in the market, but the institution of laws that restrict what I can do in the market, does not (according to you)? Aren't both forms of 'interference' in the market? But perhaps the best way to think of it: why does corporate status even exist?

Really? You have to ask that? A market is a place for voluntary interaction between individuals. A transaction is mutually beneficial to both parties otherwise one or both parties wouldn't participate. Theft, coercion (forcing someone into a transaction that is not beneficial) and assault are detrimental to liberty and the free market and making them illegal isn't interference. You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. If you hurt someone you should have to pay the consequences. Corporate status makes it easier for individuals to avoid the consequences of hurting others.


Maybe we should make a thread for this. I don't want to hijack the conversation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Really? You have to ask that? A market is a place for voluntary interaction between individuals. A transaction is mutually beneficial to both parties otherwise one or both parties wouldn't participate. Theft, coercion (forcing someone into a transaction that is not beneficial) and assault are detrimental to liberty and the free market and making them illegal isn't interference. You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. If you hurt someone you should have to pay the consequences. Corporate status makes it easier for individuals to avoid the consequences of hurting others.


Maybe we should make a thread for this. I don't want to hijack the conversation.

And how does corporate status do that?
Do you think 'corporations' would behave any differently without said recognition from the Government? Sure, corporations would no longer exist by your definition of them, but how would their fundamental structure and behaviour be modified, if at all?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

And how does corporate status do that?
Do you think 'corporations' would behave any differently without said recognition from the Government? Sure, corporations would no longer exist by your definition of them, but how would their fundamental structure and behaviour be modified, if at all?

Not a whole lot. But there must be some reason that people form corporations or else they wouldn't would they? It affords them limited liability, corporate personhood etc. Corporations can be charged with crimes that the people running them are actually guilty of themselves. I'm not arguing for or against corporations, I was simply saying they wouldn't exist (at least as they exist today) in a free market since that would be an oxymoron. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other until you started asking so many questions. I was simply stating a fact. Not sure why you thought that statement was important enough to hijack the thread. It was said that rich people benefit more from the system and should therefore pay more taxes. I agreed but said that in a free market system, those mechanism of the current system that allow people to become successful wouldn't exist. the ONLY way to be successful in a free market system is to provide a product or service that people find valuable. And the ONLY things that should be crimes are those actions that create victims. If no one is hurt, there has been no crime. If there has been a crime, the perpetrator should be punished. Corporations often act as a buffer zone between perpetrators and their punishments since corporations can be charged with crimes, even manslaughter. Yeah the corporation looses money, but the ones actually responsible get off easier than they would if there weren't artificially protected from the consequences of their actions. Now can we please just go back to the topic. Make a new thread if you want to continue.


EDITED TO ADD:
Another thing that sucks about corporations is that they often times have MORE rights than we do. For example:

In areas where a person cannot acquire a Law Enforcement Signature because these people would rather violate your rights than let you own one of these items, there is another way. BATF allows Corporations and Trusts to acquire machine guns, silencers, etc. without having to complete the Law Enforcement Certification part of the form. If you have your own Corporation, or you are an Officer in a Corporation, the Corporation can acquire these items, and you, as a Corporate Officer, can keep the item at your home, take it to the range shooting, etc. just as if the item were registered to you. If the Corporation ever dissolves, the item must be transferred out of the Corporation to another individual or Corporation (or Dealer). Because a Corporation is not a person, an FBI fingerprint check is not required which reduces the transfer approval time to about 30 days.

http://www.internationalpolicesupply.net/ownmg.htm

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not a whole lot. But there must be some reason that people form corporations or else they wouldn't would they? It affords them limited liability, corporate personhood etc. Corporations can be charged with crimes that the people running them are actually guilty of themselves. I'm not arguing for or against corporations, I was simply saying they wouldn't exist (at least as they exist today) in a free market since that would be an oxymoron. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other until you started asking so many questions. I was simply stating a fact. Not sure why you thought that statement was important enough to hijack the thread.

Because I see the point as false. In a free market, corporations would effectively continue to exist, even though they would not be called 'corporations'. They would simply be 'large companies'. But the outcomes would remain fundamentally the same. What's more, in an Anarchic Market, corporations (or 'large companies' as they would then be called) would harness enough power to dwarf the impotent State. It doesn't matter what you call it, the ends are the same.

But, returning to the OP, I think we can safely conclude that there is very little Communism in the United States. And whatever little Communism there is, it is barely significant.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Because I see the point as false. In a free market, corporations would effectively continue to exist, even though they would not be called 'corporations'. They would simply be 'large companies'. But the outcomes would remain fundamentally the same. What's more, in an Anarchic Market, corporations (or 'large companies' as they would then be called) would harness enough power to dwarf the impotent State. It doesn't matter what you call it, the ends are the same.

That's a whole other huge topic of discussion.

But, returning to the OP, I think we can safely conclude that there is very little Communism in the United States. And whatever little Communism there is, it is barely significant.

I agree. Now see the fascism thread haha

 

[DuneSoldier]

The TEA Party. If they ever switched to violent revolution I could see them setting up a communist government without even realizing what they are doing.

 

[Macx]

Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. - washingtonpost.com

Sorry, but many Socialists don't feel that Obama is their comrade. The idea of a Socialist Obama is a myth that has hatched in the brains of many disgruntled Conservatives who are prone to see Socialists under their beds at night and in their alphabet soup.

But this thread is about Communists, not socialists . ... besides, that tired WashPost article is a bit like the fox writing an article for the hens saying "oh, that wolf isn't a fox, so you should feel safe and warm in his everloving embrace. If he puts his mouth around you, it is just to carry you to a better place".

 

[Macx]

You made the original assertion that Obama was a communist. You support your statement. This is not guilty until proven innocent time.

I called support your statement on you first, come on every kid on the playground knows . .. you just failed.

 

[Macx]

Another thing that sucks about corporations is that they often times have MORE rights than we do. For example:

In areas where a person cannot acquire a Law Enforcement Signature because these people would rather violate your rights than let you own one of these items, there is another way. BATF allows Corporations and Trusts to acquire machine guns, silencers, etc. without having to complete the Law Enforcement Certification part of the form. If you have your own Corporation, or you are an Officer in a Corporation, the Corporation can acquire these items, and you, as a Corporate Officer, can keep the item at your home, take it to the range shooting, etc. just as if the item were registered to you. If the Corporation ever dissolves, the item must be transferred out of the Corporation to another individual or Corporation (or Dealer). Because a Corporation is not a person, an FBI fingerprint check is not required which reduces the transfer approval time to about 30 days.
​

It ain't a bad thing. A lot of us that are interested in Class III items, have found that forming a trust provides a good way of keeping NFA items within a family, establishing trust members across generations so we only have to pay for one tax stamp. We can file our notification forms when we want to pass an item across state lines, but it isn't changing ownership and it isn't in the hands of someone unauthorized to posess, while being passed around the family.

There is plenty to complain about, and I advocate repealing the 1934 NFA altogether, but the provisions for corporate and tryst ownership of NFA items is not something we want to touch while the 1934 law is on the books.

 

[Edmund Burke]

I called support your statement on you first, come on every kid on the playground knows . .. you just failed.

Are you going to support your comments in post #2.

You made a statement it appears you are well aware that you cannot support. What is the difference between this and lying?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But this thread is about Communists, not socialists . ... besides, that tired WashPost article is a bit like the fox writing an article for the hens saying "oh, that wolf isn't a fox, so you should feel safe and warm in his everloving embrace. If he puts his mouth around you, it is just to carry you to a better place".

If Obama is not a Socialist then you can be relatively certain that he is not a Communist either. That aside, I'd be more likely to trust a devout Socialist to identify fellow Socialists then a disgruntled Conservative who is prone to believe that there is a monster in his closest called 'Socialism.' And that is exactly what calling Obama a Socialist (or a Communist) is: a myth conjured in the imagination of the Far Right, which is unsurprising... after-all, when you're so Far Right it's not hard to see Communists everywhere.