What are the obstacles to socialism in the US?

[Solid_Choke]

What laws currently on the books would prevent a socialist society from forming in the US? I don't mean converting the entire country to socialism, but why aren't there more communes and small scale neighborhood sized socialist groups?

Is it taxation that is the problem? How would those in a commune file taxes?

Would courts not uphold contracts made between socialist people about voting and the use of resources?

Somehow the Amish seem to be able to seclude themselves and use their own economic system. Why not socialists? What is stopping socialism from working inside the current system?

[Q]

Communes don't work, the economic laws of capitalism will strangle it. There is a reason why almost all of the communes of the 1960's died.

[OriginalGumby]

Yeah I agree with Q. You can't win socialism without confronting capitalism at some point and it better be on your own terms in mass organizations and movements. Today I live in a place with many grocery co-ops and while they have in some ways carve of niche in the middle class they don't have social power and some are going out of business because of competition with other companies. Just wanted to note that my home town has some Amish folks on the outskirts. They may have been secluded at one point but now they get van rides to walmart to buy supplies...

[Solid_Choke]

Communes don't work, the economic laws of capitalism will strangle it. There is a reason why almost all of the communes of the 1960's died.

I understand that communes don't work, but what is the primary reason they don't work? Is it a legal issue that could be resolved with a change in law or legal practice?

What do you mean the economic laws of capitalism strangle it?

[Q]

I understand that communes don't work, but what is the primary reason they don't work? Is it a legal issue that could be resolved with a change in law or legal practice?

What do you mean the economic laws of capitalism strangle it?

To put it simply: communes cannot compete with capitalist firms on the basis of capitalism, like OriginalGumby pointed out. So you need to address the social order itself. To put it the other way around: I don't mind competing with capitalist within the context of socialism. In fact, they would be totally unable to.

Is it a legal construction? Not quite, although it is obvious that all laws are laws made by capitalists in their interest. But these laws are a result from the social order of capitalism, not a cause.

[Solid_Choke]

To put it simply: communes cannot compete with capitalist firms on the basis of capitalism, like OriginalGumby pointed out. So you need to address the social order itself. To put it the other way around: I don't mind competing with capitalist within the context of socialism. In fact, they would be totally unable to.

Is it a legal construction? Not quite, although it is obvious that all laws are laws made by capitalists in their interest. But these laws are a result from the social order of capitalism, not a cause.

Why must communes compete with capitalist firms? Why not cut yourself off from the rest of the economy and create a socialist society? I mean, why would you want to compete with capitalist firms over profit anyway?

If you can have socialism in one country before another country, can't you have socialism in one neighborhood before another neighborhood?

I am interested in the actual constraints that are preventing small scale socialism in countries like the U.S. If we don't even know what these constraints are how can we be sure they are even there, and perhaps many are just wasting time living in a system they don't believe in when they could go out and make their dreams a reality.

[Q]

Why must communes compete with capitalist firms? Why not cut yourself off from the rest of the economy and create a socialist society? I mean, why would you want to compete with capitalist firms over profit anyway?
Communes cannot exist outside society. Unless you want to revert back to a primitive society at the dawn of civilisation, you'll need the bigger context of society to provide in your needs. To give one example: a car is assembled from parts that are fabricated all over the planet.

From this interdependency also flows the logic that you have to operate in. That is the logic of capitalism. And like was said before, bigger capitalist firms are simply going to compete your communes' services out of business.


If you can have socialism in one country before another country, can't you have socialism in one neighborhood before another neighborhood?
Socialism in one country is a fantasy for pretty much the same reasons as communes are. Nationstates are not living in a vacuum but act within the context of a capitalist state system, competing for dominance over one another.


I am interested in the actual constraints that are preventing small scale socialism in countries like the U.S. If we don't even know what these constraints are how can we be sure they are even there, and perhaps many are just wasting time living in a system they don't believe in when they could go out and make their dreams a reality.
Socialism in a pure economic sense starts when we can supersede capitalism in production. This is to enable superabundance, which can shorten the working week, which can in turn free people to do whatever they like. After a while of this progressive shortening of the working week, we will see a qualitative change somewhere along the line, where we won't consider work as "work" anymore, i.e. something we have to do in order to get a wage to survive. Instead our own genuine self-actualisation and creativity will be the very thing that drives society forwards. This is communism.

Another fundamental aspect, this one on the political plane, is of course the democratic aspect. Workers can only self-emancipate themselves, thus a direct democracy is absolutely necessary for socialism to even start.

These issues might look a bit cut loose from eachother, but my thesis is this: without the ability to supersede capitalism on a level of production, the working class cannot hold power and thus won't be able to emancipate itself.

Now, superseding capitalism has to happen in two ways. The first is to put an end to the chaos of the "free market" by having a planned economy, directly managed by workers themselves. Secondly we need an international system of planning in order to link up the economy into a global plan of production.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First off, communes can not work on a grand scale without industrialization. So while it may be possible to maintain a pocket of communes just as it is possible for some family farms to survive for a while, it can not (and should not) be the mode to transform all of society.

Essentially we need industrialization in order to produce enough food and goods for our population - if everyone was on communes then eveyone would be producing only for personal consumption and so there would be little time to do much else besides live and work. Some people are willing to give up other pursuits just to get away from the system, but I think that democratizing industrial production and putting it into our own hands is the only viable way to liberate ourselves.

Second, if communes actually did begin to challenge the system in that people were leaving the workforce for the hills, then the communes would be invaded and destroyed like peasant commons or native American communities. If US capitalists freak out and try and overthrow someone like Chavez for nationalizing 2 industries, how would they treat a threat that's causing the workforce to abandon the labor pool.

Third, the laws of capitalism: When you have a commune within capitalism, it can sidestep much of the pressures of capitalism, but essentially is still playing by the same rules. If you have an agricultural commune, you need to buy grain and fuel and if there is a bad harvest you will end up in debt and before you know it, the bank owns your communal land just like with small family farms. If you have an urban commune like a cooperative, then if you are making profits, you all get to share, but if profits are down, then you still have to take wage cuts (imposed on yourselves) or kick some people out in order to compete with capitalism. Essentially if you have to deal with capitalism you have to deal with production where profits are made from exploitation. If you have a family owned and run business or a worker cooperative, you are exploiting yourself, but it's still exploitation and this will eventually cause the commune to go under or become too labor intensive for too little reward.

Capitalism is big and powerful and seemingly totally accepted by everyone - because of this people find a million and one ways to bend themselves into pretzels trying to find an alternative to capitalism that accommodates to it (or at least doesn't challenge it). This is understandable but it is also like people during the French revolution trying to keep the king around - yeah no one wants direct confrontation, but if you let the king sit on the throne while trying to get rid of the feudal order, he's going to call in the Prussian troops to crush you.

[hefty_lefty]

As was already alluded to, communes can't last because the resources just aren't there. A country like russia, a true giant, can almost pull off socialism because it has nearly every resource it needs to be self-sufficient.
But the smaller the country, region or area, the less of a variety of resources that can be found there.
So the commune would have to reach out of it's borders to supplement it's needs, and who without strings will be there to supply them?

[Solid_Choke]

Socialism in one country is a fantasy for pretty much the same reasons as communes are. Nationstates are not living in a vacuum but act within the context of a capitalist state system, competing for dominance over one another.

Does this mean that real socialism can't happen unless a revolution is simultaneous all over the world? Is there really no way to move gradually into socialism or to create a socialist society without first converting the entire planet? Must it be Boolean choice?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Does this mean that real socialism can't happen unless a revolution is simultaneous all over the world? Is there really no way to move gradually into socialism or to create a socialist society without first converting the entire planet? Must it be Boolean choice?

Well this gets into some other contentious issues - good questions by the way. I don't think the comrade was saying that everyone has to revolt all in unison all at the same time. Most likely there will be a revolution in one region that topples the governmnet and then workers can replace it with instruments of their rule. In my opinion, if that country is pretty advanced and has many resources, like Brazil or something then they will be able to hold out for a long time - if the country is not very industrialized or has few resources, the prognosis is pretty bad unless the revolution spreads quickly to other regions too.

The good thing is that every time in history that there is a revolution, it creates a kind of momentum. After the Russian Revolution there was a whole series of crisis and revolutions from a coalition of Democratic Socialists and radicals winning in France to worker councils and Social Democratic governments in eastern Europe and Germany to mass strikes in Northern Italy in 1919 and even a general strike in Seattle in 1919. This is part of the reason capitalists can't stand even phoney socialists like Hugo Chavez thumbing their nose at the bourgeois status quo - it shows that there is an alternative to all the BS propaganda.

Yes, capitalism/socialism is one or the other - no inbetween can exist just as industrial capitalism in the North couldn't prosper as long as there was chattle-slavery in the south (and vica versa) or French capitalists couldn't exists within a French aristocratic feudal system.

We can win some stale-mates with capitalism, but the pressure will be to push it forwar or push it back. Just look at the welfare state in the US or Europe - people fought for reforms through militant strikes or civil rights movements and the governmnet felt it had to step in and grant these reforms or risk an all-out revolt. The union and liberal movements were fine with that and now it's all been taken away piece by piece.

[heylelshalem]

i have a few friends that live on a communal collective near the town that i live in. I aspire to be a part of this. They manage to grow enough food for themselves to eat and to sell at the local farmers markets (100 percent organic), they also all drive alternative bio-fuel cars grease/biodiesel hybrids
that brings their gas expenses to almost nil...besides potential prices of car repair.

One can join the commune and build your own house there. Their electricity is produced by solar panels and they often sell it back for a profit. Heat is provided by woodstoves that can also burn homemade pellets.

I dont see how communes dont work. I've seen an example of a commune that does work. Its a defacto independant community that manages to do quite well outside of the whole capitalist meme.

[hefty_lefty]

Interesting, but where do their building materials come from? Or their clothes, toys, water?
Maybe you could explain further their level of self-sufficience, and how they achieved it?

[Q]

Interesting, but where do their building materials come from? Or their clothes, toys, water?
Maybe you could explain further their level of self-sufficience, and how they achieved it?

Or the cars that run on their self-made fuel.

[Omegared]

i have a few friends that live on a communal collective near the town that i live in. I aspire to be a part of this. They manage to grow enough food for themselves to eat and to sell at the local farmers markets (100 percent organic), they also all drive alternative bio-fuel cars grease/biodiesel hybrids
that brings their gas expenses to almost nil...besides potential prices of car repair.

One can join the commune and build your own house there. Their electricity is produced by solar panels and they often sell it back for a profit. Heat is provided by woodstoves that can also burn homemade pellets.

I dont see how communes dont work. I've seen an example of a commune that does work. Its a defacto independant community that manages to do quite well outside of the whole capitalist meme.

\This is very interesting! I have had an interest in different Communes in the past and how they developed and why did they cease to exist.
Maybe establishing communes can help solve many problems such as homelessness, etc... Can you post more information on the commune and how did it get established.

-thanks