What are the prospects of socialism in USA?

[Sosa]

Is a socialist society possible in the United States considering that the majority of the population is pro-capitalist?

Should leftists aligned themselves with progressive politicians (like Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator) to bring social reform? (for the short term)

[syndicat]

A majority isn't procapitalist according to recent polls, at least not among the younger generation. you may be confusing vote for pro-capitalist political parties with being pro-capitalist. about half the working class in the USA doesn't vote, partly because they don't see the politicians as being for them, partly because they view politicians as lying snakes.

also, consciousness changes if and when large scale oppositional action, such as strikes, take place. so that's why i'd say that actual self-activity, collective activity by working people, on the job, against landlords etc is the most important thing, more than voting.

that said, if there is some real benefit to be gained by voting for candidate A, there is no reason not to do so.

[Aurora]

Im not sure if this is what you wanted really but i found it interesting anyways http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm its an article called 'If america should go communist'

Short answer anyway is yes a socialist society is possible in the USA but only with the decay of capitalism worldwide and the spread of a revolutionary wave globally, in regard to the population being pro capitalist,well,peoples views change all the time for example as a member of the IWW im sure your aware that in the 1930's millions of americans were active in socialist and worker organisations.
Even more recently you can see the class struggle playing out on the streets with various anti-war and pro-immigrant movements etc which just show you that workers can break with the mainstream ideology.

[Sosa]

A majority isn't procapitalist according to recent polls, at least not among the younger generation. you may be confusing vote for pro-capitalist political parties with being pro-capitalist. about half the working class in the USA doesn't vote, partly because they don't see the politicians as being for them, partly because they view politicians as lying snakes.

also, consciousness changes if and when large scale oppositional action, such as strikes, take place. so that's why i'd say that actual self-activity, collective activity by working people, on the job, against landlords etc is the most important thing, more than voting.

that said, if there is some real benefit to be gained by voting for candidate A, there is no reason not to do so.

Can you give me a source for such a poll? Even among those who do not vote, they aren't particularly Anti-Capitalist. Out of 300 million americans, how many do you think are actually anti-capitalist?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

On Voting:

Worldwide, voting is a habit that's been in a protracted decline for decades now. It has only been briefly and nominally revitalized in America due to rather extraordinary crises in recent years. But the ruling class in this country has already used its trump card: identity politics. Black people being the most oppressed demographic group within America's borders, this trump card can never be played again with the same degree of effectiveness as we saw in 2008.

Voter turnout beginning this year will resume its long-term pattern of decline. I believe we should support that decline politically rather than by trying to register more voters -- more believers in the bourgeois-democratic system -- in any way, whether it be fielding our own candidates for office or, worse, endorsing others. In any event, the possibilities for communist candidates emerging victorious in any field of American parliamentary life are, as explained above, today few and decreasing, not many and increasing. One factor is that the cost of campaigning is skyrocketing (especially in light of the court ruling earlier this year rescinding all limitations on the size of corporate (and labor union) campaign donations (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/cash-o07.shtml)), revealing campaigning efforts on our part to be a wasteful and unnecessary drain on already minimal resources. Another factor is that the majority of the populace doesn't vote anyway and that the percentage that does will gradually get smaller and smaller, though not necessarily in an uninterrupted way. Hence supposed electoral opportunities for a (communist) revolutionary message to get out will tend to decrease with time, not increase. Another level of argument, which is more absolute, is that registering people to vote and telling them to do so is a tactic that cannot but advance precisely the principal illusion we are seeking to discredit: the lie that these elections provide a positive alternative to the status quo. Whereas there are so many good arguments against American Maoist participation in the electoral arena and no particularly compelling arguments I've seen for said participation, I'd argue that we shouldn't bother, but rather, vis-a-vis the question of parliamentary agitation, should seek to utilize our resources (as they hopefully build) to promote election boycotts.

On Openings for Socialist Revolution

I don't think there are many good options available to the American communists. We have very little in terms of people that have a material interest in revolution to start with, plus this being the headquarters of the mightiest military force in the world as another factor, and furthermore still there is no possibility here (as contrasted with the third world) of uniting with any domestic bourgeois forces because they're all imperialist and hence represent the main enemy of the people of the world. Put all this together and you're almost inevitably left with the conclusion that we authentic communists have very little meaningful maneuvering room. I mean, unless we want to just copy the CP model and scrap all principles, effectively becoming social-imperialists, or something like that. I think our main work should be that of providing ideological (and, if possible, material) support to revolutions in the third world, where there is the real, meaningful possibility of victory at this stage. Proletarian revolution will likely come to countries like this last, rather than first as Marx had envisioned.

[Sosa]

Is it necessary to have a large working class to bring about a revolution? The USA is unique in that there is a very large middle-class, small upper-class, and small working class (small in relation to the middle-class)

[syndicat]

there was a Rasmussen poll that found that only 53 percent of Americans found capitalism superior to socialism. in that same poll the same percentage (43 percent) of Americans under 30 favored socialism as favored capitalism. there is more about this poll on the Kasama site:

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/05/24/20014/


Is it necessary to have a large working class to bring about a revolution? The USA is unique in that there is a very large middle-class, small upper-class, and small working class (small in relation to the middle-class)

sorry, but this is complete nonsense. class is defined by position in social production. the working class are those who (1) have no independent source of llivelihood and must seek jobs, (2) work jobs where they are subject to management power and (3) do not manage or control other workers. by my estimate, this is about 3/4 of the population (when you include those who would work such jobs if they weren't unemployed, their family members, retirees who worked in working class jobs).

there are "classes in between" the capitalist elite and the working class. the plutocracy, or major capitalist investor/owner class, is only about 2 percent of the population. the smaller capitalist employers are about 6 percent of the population. the bureaucratic class, as I call it, of managers and high-end professionals (lawyers, doctors, industrial engineers etc) are larger in the USA than in some other capitalist countries but are, by my estimate roughly 17 percent of the population. some people call this class the "upper middle class."

there is also controversy on the left about what class lower-level professionals are in...programmers, RNs, teachers, librarians, etc. This group is about 15 percent of the population. I view them as part of the skilled section of the working class, since they have no significant power over other workers, but if you want to treat them as the "lower middle class", that still means the working class is 60 percent of the population.

i would advise reading "The Working Class Majority" by Michael Zweig. he puts the lower level professionals into the "middle class" but he still tallies the working class as the majority...fully 62 percent of the population by his count.

the bureaucratic class tends to be larger in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist countries but lower on the continent of Europe. but in some continental European countries, the small business class is quite a bit larger than it is in the USA. so the "middle classes" are roughly similar...a minority in all the developed capitalist countries.

[Sosa]

there was a Rasmussen poll that found that only 53 percent of Americans found capitalism superior to socialism. in that same poll the same percentage (43 percent) of Americans under 30 favored socialism as favored capitalism. there is more about this poll on the Kasama site:





sorry, but this is complete nonsense. class is defined by position in social production. the working class are those who (1) have no independent source of llivelihood and must seek jobs, (2) work jobs where they are subject to management power and (3) do not manage or control other workers. by my estimate, this is about 3/4 of the population (when you include those who would work such jobs if they weren't unemployed, their family members, retirees who worked in working class jobs).

there are "classes in between" the capitalist elite and the working class. the plutocracy, or major capitalist investor/owner class, is only about 2 percent of the population. the smaller capitalist employers are about 6 percent of the population. the bureaucratic class, as I call it, of managers and high-end professionals (lawyers, doctors, industrial engineers etc) are larger in the USA than in some other capitalist countries but are, by my estimate roughly 17 percent of the population. some people call this class the "upper middle class."

there is also controversy on the left about what class lower-level professionals are in...programmers, RNs, teachers, librarians, etc. This group is about 15 percent of the population. I view them as part of the skilled section of the working class, since they have no significant power over other workers, but if you want to treat them as the "lower middle class", that still means the working class is 60 percent of the population.

i would advise reading "The Working Class Majority" by Michael Zweig. he puts the lower level professionals into the "middle class" but he still tallies the working class as the majority...fully 62 percent of the population by his count.

the bureaucratic class tends to be larger in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist countries but lower on the continent of Europe. but in some continental European countries, the small business class is quite a bit larger than it is in the USA. so the "middle classes" are roughly similar...a minority in all the developed capitalist countries.

Thanks for the source on the poll, now that you mention it I vaguely remember hearing about this poll a while ago.

I will check out that book you recommend as well. I'm still learning :)

[apawllo]

Most of those who explicitly claim to be socialist don't actually know what it means. They might mean democratic socialist at best...probably more likely, they support some existing social welfare programs and/or voted for Obama.

[syndicat]

Most of those who explicitly claim to be socialist don't actually know what it means. They might mean democratic socialist at best...probably more likely, they support some existing social welfare programs and/or voted for Obama.


it's important, nonetheless, because it expresses an openness to a critique of capitalism and an awareness of some of the nasty aspects of American capitalism. to put it another way, it is an index of the decline in the system's legitimacy in the eyes of many people.

[apawllo]

it's important, nonetheless, because it expresses an openness to a critique of capitalism and an awareness of some of the nasty aspects of American capitalism. to put it another way, it is an index of the decline in the system's legitimacy in the eyes of many people.

I don't doubt that many people see the system as a failure. However, labeling oneself a socialist doesn't magically rid of false consciousness, which continually causes more to blame those at the bottom for systemic failures rather than those who are actually at fault.

[syndicat]

However, labeling oneself a socialist doesn't magically rid of false consciousness, which continually causes more to blame those at the bottom for systemic failures rather than those who are actually at fault.

how do you know? have you do exhausive interviews?

[apawllo]

Are you requesting interviews which show that a socialist label doesn't magically rid of false consciousness, or that false consciousness causes one to side with capitalists?

[syndicat]

you were talking as if you know what's in the heads and hearts of millions of people. you simply don't know.

obviously the process of class formation has a long way to go in this country. but it's a protracted process, and will require active struggle to advance.

[Armchair War Criminal]

how do you know? have you do exhausive interviews?
The same polls that show these surprisingly positive attitudes towards "socialism" also show something like 95% approval towards "small business." Maybe a huge contingent of mutualists secretly lurks in the heart of America, but it seems much, much, much more likely that they mean by "socialism" exactly what that term is used for in the popular press - marginally more social insurance, redistribution, &c.

Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't exploit the mainstreaming of the term as a wedge.

[JosefStalinator]

Do Americans even know what those terms mean

[Amphictyonis]

The only possible route to socialism is through a region which has been through the advanced capitalist stage of production. Global communism will not be possible so long as the US remains capitalist. We've seen the results of a quasi socialist state (Russia) competing with capitalism. We've also seen the results of a nation attempting socialism without first going through the advanced stages of capitalist production.

Marx said, and I agree with him, an isolated nation cannot make the jump to advanced communism nor can a nation which has yet to exhaust the capitalist mode of production. The only way he saw socialism taking hold in a nation which had yet to develop the means of production under capitalism was if the advanced capitalist nations had turned socialist and helped the non developed region on it's path to socialism.


Many people disagree with me but I think it's going to take seriously declining material conditions in America for a shift in social consciousness to take place which will be necessary to overthrow capitalism in the region and world at large.

[Amphictyonis]

Do Americans even know what those terms mean

By in large no, not really. That's where we come in :)

[Nuvem]

Can't, won't. People call me a defeatist when I say this but I honestly think there's no hope whatsoever for major Leftist success in America(Presently). The population horribly misunderstands Socialism. The worst cases equate it with Nazism, the best with welfare states such as Finland. I honestly think that the USA will never turn and that the entire world could shift and the USA would try to hold its stance.

While I hope to organize in the states and to educate people as much as I can and be politically active, I'm really just biding time until I have my degree and am financially stable enough to leave the country altogether. Our efforts are better spent elsewhere. Give it a couple hundred years and maybe the US will be on the right track. Until then, if we want to maximize our potential, we really need to work elsewhere.

[Amphictyonis]

Can't, won't. People call me a defeatist.
defeatist ^ ;) Actually, the advanced western capitalist nations are absolutely key to forming global communism. The USA is where the struggle matters most, where capitalism is strongest. It would be better if all socialists actually moved here, to the belly of the beast.

I think it was Thoreau who said- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil while one strikes at it's root".

[Nuvem]

I prefer "Internationalist".

[Amphictyonis]

I prefer "Internationalist".

Yes, the revolution must be global but it isn't going to happen so long as capitalism, the US and their NSA/CIA/Military is healthy or expanding. China is also important. China is the only nation I see thats close to or has the immediate possibility of actually going socialist. They've developed the industrial means of production under capitalism for a couple decades now. The US doesn't even have any industrial means of production to speak of anymore. I'm not sure how socialism taking hold in the US would look since it's a service sector economy. I think the US would have to get back to actually producing things.

China and the US are economically linked at the hip. When we see global socialism take hold China will also be at it's center.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is a socialist society possible in the United States considering that the majority of the population is pro-capitalist?

Should leftists aligned themselves with progressive politicians (like Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator) to bring social reform? (for the short term)

I enthusiastically agree with what Syndicat was saying on this subject.

Rather than pro-capitalist, the majority of the population accepts the idea that there is no alternative IMO. This is the case in most societies at most times and rulers always use inaction of the masses as evidence of support for their system. Slave owners in the US south constantly said that slaves preferred life on a plantation where they were "taken care of" and "part of the family"... but when you look at the structure of that society and the fact that there were tons of restrictions placed on the movement and associations of black people and there were laws and hired thugs to bring back-runaways and so on... well that doesn't seem to indicate a very satisfied enslaved population to me.

Now I think we can look at the amount of common theft, workplace demoralization, suspicion of both corporations and the government, random violence, gambling, substance abuse, and so on as general signs that people are not too happy with their lot in life. That doesn't mean that they will automatically draw radical conclusions, but I think is good general evidence of dissatisfaction in our society. Specifically, the polls syndicat cited (and that one was in 2008 and another one came out this year from another pollster with almost identical results) are pretty significant considering that there is a vacuum on the left in mainstream US politics and all parts of the establishment have now spent 20 years telling us that capitalism is the end of history and the best of all possible worlds.

IMO our job now is to try our best to organize out of this general class-frustration and anger so that we can hopefully help to turn that general sentiment into real class-consciousness and fight-back and ultimately a revolutionary consciousness among millions of US workers.