Is communism still a big taboo in america? if so why?

phinds

The clear implication of that statement is that there are forms of communism that HAVE been shown to work. Please provide references.

russ_watters

Meh - most communists and socialists I've come in contact with will begrudgingly acknowledge that no forms/incarnations of communism have been shown to work. But they will say that that doesn't preclude the possibility that there could be ways to make it work and that statement doesn't preclude that possibility.

lisab

Perhaps on a small scale it could work. I've often heard reference to Israeli Kibbutz used as examples of successful communist communities. But those are very small communities -- protected by a government with a strong military.

chemisttree

Yes, I believe so. There is a Congressional Progressive Caucus but, as far as I know, there isn't one that identifies itself as Liberal.

Does it add anything to the discussion? I think so. You want to demonstrate just how taboo Communism is in America? Liberals are avoiding even that label (liberal) and calling themselves 'Progressive'. This has nothing to do with cowardice.

That's right.

Ken Natton

This, it seems to me, is the heart of the point. I am unconvinced that Communism, as envisaged by Marx, has ever actually been practiced. The Soviet Union and China certainly never did. But that doesn’t mean that I think that, if it ever were practiced in line with Marx’s vision that it would work. The fundamental reasons cited why the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe failed, and why China has now embraced an essentially capitalist approach whatever the claims it may make to the contrary, are true. Fundamentally, human nature is, essentially, selfish. We won’t work in the interests of a collective as we will work for ourselves. That’s the reality. And the whole point about white elephant industries producing products that nobody wants also holds true. Whatever the materialistic self-interest of capitalism, the reality is that open competition is what makes lean, efficient industries that make products that improve people’s lives, not to mention generate wealth. I don’t mean to shout the praises of capitalism, it has it faults too, but unfortunately, it has proven to be the best of the alternatives.

But all of that doesn’t really address the OP’s question, which was about communism being taboo in America. I also would not have chosen the word taboo. To me, the word that best sums up the USA’s relationship with communism is paranoia. Has the USA really got over its paranoia about communism or has it just gone quiet because the apparent threat has receded? I cannot escape the feeling that it is the latter case. Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Maybe it never will return as a serious political force. But if it did…

Pythagorean

Ah, so I guess by "now", you mean since 1991? I thought you meant more recently.

That doesn't sound like a legitimate argument to me. Help me with your premises and conclusions here:

P1. Liberals are running from the word liberal

C. therefore communism is taboo in America

Goodison_Lad

I don't think that follows at all. Somebody saying that only X has been shown not to work does not neceassarily imply that they think Y has been shown to work.

The statement is also consistent with only X having been tried, and therefore only X having been testable. It is also consistent with both X and Y have been tried, but only X has been subjected to testing, and found to have failed.

The triumphalist 'Communism has failed' assertion is interesting, as is the statement 'Capitalism has failed - if you're poor'.

Greg Bernhardt

Only that in Capitalism it's often the case that people fail themselves rather than the monetary system failing you. In Communism, you don't even get the chance to fail yourself, the system does it for you right off the bat.

Goodison_Lad

Possibly - but it's an argument that all too many would find attractive to blame the disadvantaged for their circumstances - a nasty trait among us humans.

In capitalism you have the system whereby wealth, and hence unearned and unmerited advantage, is transferrable. All too often we're encouraged by the undeserving rich to swallow the myth that 'successful' people are purely self-made.

Pythagorean

Greg, how do you quantify who's fault it is that somebody is failing in different systems, or do you just mean that that was the ideal? It seems that practices in the US has (twice now) caused lots of failures globally with risky monetary practices, the latest fad being risky derivative markets practiced by "too big to fail" financial institutions.

Many economists think the financial institutions should be broken up (or regulated) so all the eggs aren't in one basket because it gives them too much control over global economy, but many economists doubt that politicians will ever actually see that through.

Greg Bernhardt

I would never blame the handicapped for their circumstances.

Yes there are problems with Capitalism. It is a system of winners and losers. A lot like life in general. If you have a better idea then please share. Communism has failed. My grandfather was truly dirt poor. He had to steal coal from a train car just to keep warm in winter. Then he ended up orphaned for several years. Long story short, he joined the navy, got educated, built an electronics business and now lives a very comfortable middle class retirement.

Greg Bernhardt

As an ideal yes. Capitalism is far from perfect, as is democracy. But they've gotten us further than any other known system could have. Just look at history. I agree there should be serious reforms.

Everything seems to be fixable, but there is a severe lack of leadership and "will" to do what is right. I'm reading a booked called "Republic Lost" and it explains how even congressmen with the best of intentions are "unconsciously" influenced by money on a systematic level.

russ_watters

Someone at some point had to earn it. Regardless, this is inheritance you're talking about. Though I hear the sentiment a lot, I really don't understand why people would be so against the idea that parents can provide for their children by giving their possessions to them when they die. That's not a bad thing, it is a good thing! Some are self-made and some aren't. So what? Why does any of this matter?

Greg Bernhardt

It can be a very bad thing. Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. If anything these two fine ladies have helped destroy an entire generation :D

Ken Natton

The principles of liberal democracy are perfectly comfortable with the fact that some people are wealthier than others. It is not about blaming the poor for their circumstances or crediting the rich with theirs. Those principles only require that the opportunity to improve your own circumstance is available to all. The actual reality falls well short of that ideal, but any liberal democracy worthy of the name strives towards a utopia where that opportunity is universally available, not to a utopia where all wealth is evenly distributed.

Jimmy Snyder

The reasons given for the inheritance tax are well known. Do you mean to say that you haven't heard them, or that you heard them but didn't understand them?

Greg Bernhardt

This is very well said. I need to remember it!