Socialism in one State

[JAH23]

Do you think it would be possible to have Socialism in one 'state', like Oregon, Washington, or wherever? I don't think there are any federal laws prohibiting this. States already have public school, libraries, etc. I think it would be a lot easier to implement Socialism in one 'state', versus an entire nation.

Of course, it probably couldn't be moneyless, wageless, or anything like that.

[AK]

Do you mean through reformism or revolution?

[Muzk]

Are there any ways to produce enough food to feed the population of washington in washington? Medicine? Water?

[AK]

It would appear logical to think that most of an American state's food is produced interstate. There would need to be massive agricultural reforms before any socialist system is set up in an individual state.

[JAH23]

Do you mean through reformism or revolution?

I would think reformism would be the easiest way. Get a Socialist governor elected, and voila. Revolution would attract attention to the Federal Government and Military, and we probably wouldn't want that.

And, as far as food, and other necessary resources go, create state institutions which produce these with tax dollars.

I guess this really isn't "Socialism", but it's a start. No?

[AK]

I would think reformism would be the easiest way. Get a Socialist governor elected, and voila. Revolution would attract attention to the Federal Government and Military, and we probably wouldn't want that.

And, as far as food, and other necessary resources go, create state institutions which produce these with tax dollars.

I guess this really isn't "Socialism", but it's a start. No?
It's a start :rolleyes:

[JAH23]

Too bad I'm in Texas...

[Zeus the Moose]

I would think reformism would be the easiest way. Get a Socialist governor elected, and voila. Revolution would attract attention to the Federal Government and Military, and we probably wouldn't want that.

And, as far as food, and other necessary resources go, create state institutions which produce these with tax dollars.

I guess this really isn't "Socialism", but it's a start. No?

Electing a socialist governor would attract the attention of the Federal Government and military about as quickly, if world history is any indication.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Sure, it could be possible. Socialism in one country has been tried so I guess this could possibly work too. It would certainly get alot of attention from the rest of the United States though, especially the Republican states. "Let's put an embargo on that evil socialist state!"

[JAH23]

Electing a socialist governor would attract the attention of the Federal Government and military about as quickly, if world history is any indication.

How would this attract federal and military attention? Sure, the event would make headlines on fox news, and Glenn Beck would probably kill himself (which I'm not opposed to), but if citizens of a state elect a socialist governor, there's nothing the federal government can do about it.

[Bilan]

Do you think it would be possible to have Socialism in one 'state', like Oregon, Washington, or wherever? I don't think there are any federal laws prohibiting this. States already have public school, libraries, etc. I think it would be a lot easier to implement Socialism in one 'state', versus an entire nation.

No, it couldn't work; just as it cannot work in "one country".
Socialism necessitates expansion onto an international level, due largely to the nature of the economic system it is born into.

Further, whether there are any laws prohibiting this or not isn't really important: the important aspect is whether is it possible.

Would one state in the US be able to provide absolutely all of the material needs for it's 'citizens'? And how would it get others that it did not have? How would it continually progress? The answer is it couldn't, considering it would require a means of exchange with it's neighbours, which would mean a return to commodity-exchange, and naturally, the creation of capital.


Of course, it probably couldn't be moneyless, wageless, or anything like that.

Well, there's your answer. What value does money, or wages have in a socialist society? Money is a medium of exchange for commodities: commodities are exchangeable objects, which exist only within the peculiar economic system known as capitalism.
Commodities, as such, will not be created under a socialist economic system - meaning that, *things* wont be created through wage labour, nor will they be *sold*, nor will they be sold for a price that is above what their costs were to create so that an owner can create profit.

[Bilan]

How would this attract federal and military attention? Sure, the event would make headlines on fox news, and Glenn Beck would probably kill himself (which I'm not opposed to), but if citizens of a state elect a socialist governor, there's nothing the federal government can do about it.

You want to make a bet on that?
America is notorious for removing democratically elected leaders: legally or otherwise. And the American state is no sympathiser of socialism.

[JAH23]

No, it couldn't work; just as it cannot work in "one country".
Socialism necessitates expansion onto an international level, due largely to the nature of the economic system it is born into.

Further, whether there are any laws prohibiting this or not isn't really important: the important aspect is whether is it possible.

Would one state in the US be able to provide absolutely all of the material needs for it's 'citizens'? And how would it get others that it did not have? How would it continually progress? The answer is it couldn't, considering it would require a means of exchange with it's neighbours, which would mean a return to commodity-exchange, and naturally, the creation of capital.



Well, there's your answer. What value does money, or wages have in a socialist society? Money is a medium of exchange for commodities: commodities are exchangeable objects, which exist only within the peculiar economic system known as capitalism.
Commodities, as such, will not be created under a socialist economic system - meaning that, *things* wont be created through wage labour, nor will they be *sold*, nor will they be sold for a price that is above what their costs were to create so that an owner can create profit.

Take a state like Texas (I know the odds of this happening in Texas are very slim, but just bear with me) and develop state-owned co-ops which produce food and clothing and shelter. Texas has tons of crops and cattle. We could use the almost limitless cotton supply to produce clothing. Make a state-wide effort to produce free and efficient housing for the poor. With heavy taxes on the wealthy, make college education free.

This model isn't Socialism at its purest, but it's better than the way things currently are.

I am trying to think realistically. There have been Socialist candidates run for mayor in New York (Frances Villar, Party for Socialism and Liberation), why couldn't there be a governor?

[JAH23]

You want to make a bet on that?
America is notorious for removing democratically elected leaders: legally or otherwise. And the American state is no sympathiser of socialism.

I could see this happening if a Socialist candidate ran for president, but not governor.

Do you have evidence of any democratically elected governor being removed from office after being elected? I am curious to know.

[Bilan]

Take a state like Texas (I know the odds of this happening in Texas are very slim, but just bear with me) and develop state-owned co-ops which produce food and clothing and shelter. Texas has tons of crops and cattle. We could use the almost limitless cotton supply to produce clothing. Make a state-wide effort to produce free and efficient housing for the poor. With heavy taxes on the wealthy, make college education free.

This is merely welfare capitalism, which wouldn't be tolerated.
You can't just heavily tax the rich and expect no retaliation: that is sheer naivety.

And to think nothing would be done reflects that same naivety. America doesn't respect democracy like you seem to think it does. In fact, it does the exact opposite: even with bourgeois democracy, the American state has no qualms about undermining it completely.

Further, you're forgetting the actual structures of power within a capitalist society. Power isn't in the ballot box, it's in the bank. The most powerful class, the bourgeoisie/the rich/the capitalist class, whatever you want to call them, don't just sit back when workers try and level the playing field. They never have, and they never will. Too much is at stake for them.

Consider for a minute that you stopped importing food into Texas, and instead grew you're own, and on top of this, presume that you closed down the companies in Texas which exported food (whether meat, vegetables, or whatever).

Now, note that by and large, these companies you have closed down are national companies, or multi-national companies. By closing them down you have immediately taken away part of their capital. Tolerated? Unlikely.
By no longer importing food, you have also caused a rupture in the circulation of capital.
This sort of thing does not go unnoticed. Ever.

Do a bit of research into American history, and their role in the expansion of capitalism, and ensuring its hegemonic domination. I think you may get a little surprise.



This model isn't Socialism at its purest, but it's better than the way things currently are.

Well, it isn't socialism at all.



I am trying to think realistically. There have been Socialist candidates run for mayor in New York (Frances Villar, Party for Socialism and Liberation), why couldn't there be a governor?

There could be a governor, it just isn't going to make things any better. Socialist candidates have been elected in numerous places all over the world, but it didn't ever "soften the blow".
Too improve things, the fundamentals of this economic system need to be uprooted and replaced.

[Bilan]

I could see this happening if a Socialist candidate ran for president, but not governor.

Do you have evidence of any democratically elected governor being removed from office after being elected? I am curious to know.

I'll have a look into whether any governors per se have been removed, but presidents is definite. I'm judging by their 'track-record', so to speak
Take for example, Chile. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende)

[JAH23]

I appreciate your detailed and impressive response. This was simply a thought exercise, and you seem to have analyzed it much more than I have. I do agree that this would not be possible, but that does not mean I do not wish for it to happen. (Which is why I support revolutionary change overall).

But, I still hold the position that if a socialist governor were to be elected, he/she would make changes which would benefit the the Socialist Cause.

[Misanthrope]

You think socialism can exist inside the biggest capitalist empire to date? For socialism to be achieved the united states and other imperialist regimes must be neutralized

[JAH23]

You think socialism can exist inside the biggest capitalist empire to date? For socialism to be achieved the united states and other imperialist regimes must be neutralized

No, I don't think that a true Socialist society can exist in a Capitalist nation.

But you have to start somewhere, right?

[Tatarin]

By the time any socialist government can be created and placed in action the state of things will already be pretty grim. Either the US will spiral down to another civil war (or a state similar like it), a large economic depression or the rest of the world somehow managed to quarantine it.

I'm just saying, you'll notice it. :)

[JAH23]

By the time any socialist government can be created and placed in action the state of things will already be pretty grim. Either the US will spiral down to another civil war (or a state similar like it), a large economic depression or the rest of the world somehow managed to quarantine it.

I'm just saying, you'll notice it. :)

In your opinion, if the U.S. has another civil war, what do you think it would be about? Haves/Have-Nots? Glenn Beck Followers/The Rest of Society? The General Left Revolution/The Conservative Reactionaries? Just curious. I thought about this earlier today.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't think there are any federal laws prohibiting this.

Oh yes there is. Three words.

Interstate. Commerce. Clause.

Apart from being practically/economically impossible, the federal government can override any socialist measure of any state that it deems even remotely interferes with "interstate commerce".

[JAH23]

Oh yes there is. Three words.

Interstate. Commerce. Clause.

Apart from being practically/economically impossible, the federal government can override any socialist measure of any state that it deems even remotely interferes with "interstate commerce".

Alright then, how about our supposed society still has money and goods and capital, but all capital and means of production are worker owned, and state wide economic and educational decisions were democratically made?

I'm trying to see how this would possibly work...

[MarxSchmarx]

Oh yes there is. Three words.

Interstate. Commerce. Clause.

Apart from being practically/economically impossible, the federal government can override any socialist measure of any state that it deems even remotely interferes with "interstate commerce".Alright then, how about our supposed society still has money and goods and capital, but all capital and means of production are worker owned, and state wide economic and educational decisions were democratically made?

Sure at that point state innovations won't matter, but then I don't see why at the federal level these changes can't be instituted.

[Revy]

If hypothetically, sometime in the future, the socialists become so popular they gain support from the majority, isn't it conceivable they could get elected to some very prominent positions? Of course it is. And if, as is likely inevitable, the capitalist governments seek to repress the democratic election of these socialists, what would happen? A revolution would happen anyway.

Socialist revolution is global. The ultimate end goal is a world socialist federation uniting the entire planet. Of course, that doesn't happen all at once and there will be some revolutions happening first and some happening later. But revolutionaries should attempt to create the building blocks of that future federation. Now a state or province is not sufficiently autonomous in order for there to be a genuine socialist revolution. I think that, although there are political differences between different regions, that if a genuine socialist was elected to the position of Governor due to the support for socialism expressed by the majority of the state's residents then certainly all other states would not be far behind.

[pcm]

Socialism can't be achieved except through revolution. Not only would the federal government repress any overt moves in the direction of socialist economic relations, but socialism simply wouldn't work in the heart of world imperialism. The two systems, like the classes that they represent, are not compatible or reconcilable.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that we can't win battles over progressive legislation. We can, and we should always fight for reforms that benefit our class. But as long as capitalist economic relations exist, our reforms will be temporary and we'll have to guard them against assaults from the ruling class. This is one important reason why we need to smash the bourgeois state and replace it with one that defends our interests--the interests of the vast majority of humanity.

In the context of a capitalist system, establishing socialism would be illegal. Expropriating capital, the first step of building socialism, is known as theft according to bourgeois law.