Communism good for US?

[ReB]

I think if the US were going by a Socialist / Communism government, it will not only get the economy in better shape, but end the 9.10% of Americans without jobs. With factories being built (for jobs), and more exports (from factories) will slowly get the US out of its $14.71 trillion dollars in public debt. This also will turn the US into a classless nation, this means, equality. That can solve healthcare issues. Agree, or no? Why or why not?

---

I forgot to mention... Heres your proof
Comparison of all-in-all debts owed
US: About 250%
Russia: 79%
You see where I'm going with this?

[Anomalocaris]

1. Which is it, socialism or communism? The two are not the same thing.

2. No, do not agree that anything that can seriously be called communism could avoid immediately and savage conflict with deeply ingrained American culture and tradition to produce anything like a stable result, much less a good result.

3. In fact, I do not agree that anything that could seriously be called communist in any Marxist sense could provide sustained improvement to any country that is not already a failed state. No, china is not a communist country.

4. Classlessness is impossible in any society which needs to inculcate motivation to attain competitively efficient resource allocation required to achieve competitive rates of progress and material prosperity.

5. Which communist country ever managed sustain a competitive export industry? Again, china is neither communist, nor classless, nor as equal even as most capitalist countries.

[Minimalist]

This also will turn the US into a classless nation

The US is already a classless nation. For evidence I submit the cretins who applauded Rick Perry's bragging about executions.

[Erinome]

Communism isn't the same thing as Socialism.

We are already a socialist nation, if you're rich.

Communism- no. Not good for anyone.

I can't deny that I'm a socialist.

[Anomalocaris]

We are already a socialist nation, if you're rich.

That's like saying any dictatorship is socialist if you are the dictator, or any autocracy is socialist if you are the czar, or any absolute monarchy is socialist if you are the king, or any slavery is socialist if you are the slave owner.

[Minimalist]

When the banks were failing they came running to the government with their fucking hands out pretty fast.

As someone noted: "profits are private - losses are socialized."

[Erinome]

We are already a socialist nation, if you're rich.

That's like saying any dictatorship is socialist if you are the dictator, or any autocracy is socialist if you are the czar, or any absolute monarchy is socialist if you are the king, or any slavery is socialist if you are the slave owner.

I was referring to all the bailouts for the rich.

[Anomalocaris]

When the banks were failing they came running to the government with their fucking hands out pretty fast.

As someone noted: "profits are private - losses are socialized."

I think you can't deny that the losses would be socialized regardless of whether the banks are bailed out. If the banks collapsed, the whole financial system would have collapsed, and the productivity of the economy would decline by a large margin, and the loss of wealth will be absorbed by the society across the board.

It's not like if your tax money didn't go to bail out the banks, your future earning potential would not have declined by at least that much Due to the consequences of the failure of the banks on the entire economy.

That the profits may be excessively privatized I agree. But it's the nature of vital economic institutions that their losses are inevitably socialized.

[ReB]

I guess I didn't make it clear. I forgot that Communism is a... party in Socialism. Much like Democrats are to Capitalism.

[Minimalist]

that their losses are inevitably socialized.

Apparently what matters most is, "who" is doing the losing.