Why has leftism not caught on in America?

[L.A.P.]

I was reading this thing about leftism in the United States and there was section that said that scholars have studied for a long time why there has never been a prominent socialist party or leftist movement in the United States. The United States is really one of the few developed countries in the world that never had a prominent leftist movement and this really concerned Lenin and Trotsky since it challenged the marxist theory that the most developed capitalist countries were supposed to be the most likely to have a revolution. Some scholars say it's because traditional values of most Americans aren't compatible with leftist ideology and other say it's because America didn't exist during the feudal era, do the rest of you have any ideas?

[Jazzhands]

The modern state of American leftism is due to the legacies of the Cold War, McCarthyism, two Red Scares, and the mass media COMMUNISM=EVIL DICTATORSHIP OH NOEZ reflex. I don't think it really has much to do with the lack of a feudal stage. America has always been ruled by the bourgeoisie. Even during the revolution, the bourgeoisie took a role as a vanguard. They were the only ones really affected by the Stamp Act, the tea taxes, etc. America was founded on the traditions of letting a representative do what he wants in order to stave off the "chaos" of democracy. So we vote, and we vote, and we vote, and we seem to think that something actually gets done because we can't be bothered looking into it ourselves. We also had the myth of the American Dream, which states that anyone can get rich by working hard enough. So we just chased the carrot held out in front of us and we didn't pay attention to the fact that nobody was actually getting it. It's self-deception. Plus we've never actually had an oppressive dictatorship at any point in history like most European countries, so we don't know when actual struggle is actually necessary, because we've never been in situations where that's literally the only option.

[Stand Your Ground]

Anti-leftist propaganda in the U.S. is strong and constant. It may happen someday but it will take some time. The shit economy may help open some eyes, it helped mine.

[La Peur Rouge]

Well, feudalism was alive in Russia until the late 1800's and the US certainly existed before then. Plus there are many nations that didn't exist during the "feudal era", Venezuela and Cuba for example. These scholars need to get a bit more scholarly.

[Robocommie]

The United States is the belly of the beast.

[Amphictyonis]

I was reading this thing about leftism in the United States and there was section that said that scholars have studied for a long time why there has never been a prominent socialist party or leftist movement in the United States. The United States is really one of the few developed countries in the world that never had a prominent leftist movement and this really concerned Lenin and Trotsky since it challenged the marxist theory that the most developed capitalist countries were supposed to be the most likely to have a revolution. Some scholars say it's because traditional values of most Americans aren't compatible with leftist ideology and other say it's because America didn't exist during the feudal era, do the rest of you have any ideas?

There was a viable socialist movement in the US during the industrial revolution when exploitation was most obvious and during the great depression when material conditions were experiencing sharp decline. It's true Marx always thought the advanced capitalist nations were the 'seed' for socialism but he envisioned socialism taking hold during a period of sever crisis. This is why we now see a new era of soft McCarthyism taking hold in the bourgeois US MEDIA (because we're in a period of crisis).

The neo anti communist sentiment in the US is some what of a preemptive strike at the potential for a strong socialist movement to manifest. Look at US history and you'll see it's an objective fact socialism was strongest when capitalism was at it's worst (for workers). When the crisis become worse and worse, as Marx predicted, on a global scale, we'll see socialism take hold. Right now, during this crisis we're dropping the ball. The bourgeoisie have done a good job of using their MEDIA for mass manipulation in America.

[L.A.P.]

There was a viable socialist movement in the US during the industrial revolution when exploitation was most obvious and during the great depression when material conditions were experiencing sharp decline. It's true Marx always thought the advanced capitalist nations were the 'seed' for socialism but he envisioned socialism taking hold during a period of sever crisis. This is why we now see a new era of soft McCarthyism taking hold in the bourgeois US MEDIA (because we're in a period of crisis).

The neo anti communist sentiment in the US is some what of a preemptive strike at the potential for a strong socialist movement to manifest. Look at US history and you'll see it's an objective fact socialism was strongest when capitalism was at it's worst (for workers). When the crisis become worse and worse, as Marx predicted, on a global scale, we'll see socialism take hold. Right now, during this crisis we're dropping the ball. The bourgeoisie have done a good job of using their MEDIA for mass manipulation in America.

I do feel like we as leftist are not doing enough to take advantage of the fact that this is the best time for us get out our message which is when I turn 18 I seriously want to start a leftist party.

[Reznov]

Fast-food and T.V.

[~Spectre]

The early history of U.S. leftism is a story that ends with plenty of dead leftists, who had the police, pinkerton thugs, the FBI, and even the Army mobilized against them. These continued until fairly recently, when you had COINTELPRO in the 1960s.

The largest propaganda industry in the world takes care of the rest.
bgec9WX21ik

[The Douche]

I do feel like we as leftist are not doing enough to take advantage of the fact that this is the best time for us get out our message which is when I turn 18 I seriously want to start a leftist party.

Parties exist (lots of them), why will yours make a difference?

[RadioRaheem84]

The United States has been subject to the most massive anti-communist/leftist campaign in the history of the world and this includes third world nations.

We're dealing with mountains of corporate money to defeat not only socialists in the States but even liberals. They cannot even tolerate them anymore. They want a decidedly center-right country.

Read David Harvey's A Brief of History Neo-Liberalism.

[Robocommie]

Generally throughout history when a society reaches a crucial point where the people become fed up with conditions and recognize that change must occur, then the ruling class is confronted by the masses. One of two things then occur; either the ruling class realizes they're on the verge of losing everything and they allow limited reform, or they stubbornly dig in and a revolution occurs. The last days of the Qing dynasty in China are one example of the latter, (reforms were attempted but the ruling class did all they could do sink them, and Sun Yat Sen and later Mao Zedong were the result) and the French Revolution is another. Throughout the history of the US, however, periodic reform has acted as a sort of steam valve. I would quote FDR's speech:


The true conservative seeks to protect the system of private property and free enterprise by correcting such injustices and inequalities as arise from it. The most serious threat to our institutions comes from those who refuse to face the need for change. Liberalism becomes the protection for the far-sighted conservative.

Never has a Nation made greater strides in the safeguarding of democracy than we have made during the past three years. Wise and prudent men — intelligent conservatives — have long known that in a changing world worthy institutions can be conserved only by adjusting them to the changing time. In the words of the great essayist, "The voice of great events is proclaiming to us. Reform if you would preserve." I am that kind of conservative because I am that kind of liberal.

[Amphictyonis]

The early history of U.S. leftism is a story that ends with plenty of dead leftists, who had the police, pinkerton thugs, the FBI, and even the Army mobilized against them. These continued until fairly recently, when you had COINTELPRO in the 1960s.

The largest propaganda industry in the world takes care of the rest.
bgec9WX21ik

I have gotten to the point, in the past, of near insanity when confronted by the amount of misinformed people we have in America. He's a veteran? He gets 'socialized medicine'. He doesnt pay out of pocket to 'fix his wounds'.

Obamacare is socialist? So a mandate to buy insurance from a PRIVATE corporations is now socialism? The only thing that results from the bourgeois democrat/republican propaganda campaigns is mass confusion- and when the smoke clears, at the end of the day, it's the profit motive that wins the day.

I wonder how many more generations are going to fall for this parlor trick? It's fucking embarrassing to watch.

[~Spectre]

I have gotten to the point, in the past, of near insanity when confronted by the amount of misinformed people we have in America. He's a veteran? He gets 'socialized medicine'. He doesnt pay out of pocket to 'fix his wounds'.

Obamacare is socialist? So a mandate to buy insurance from a PRIVATE corporations is now socialism? The only thing that results from the bourgeois democrat/republican propaganda campaigns is mass confusion- and when the smoke clears, at the end of the day, it's the profit motive that wins the day.

I wonder how many more generations are going to fall for this parlor trick? It's fucking embarrassing to watch.

I love the applause after "THE ONLY GOOD COMMUNIST IS A DEAD COMMUNIST!" and the "he's was right you know" after someone called the crazy teabagger a McCarthyite.

[Blackscare]

The modern state of American leftism is due to the legacies of the Cold War, McCarthyism, two Red Scares, and the mass media COMMUNISM=EVIL DICTATORSHIP OH NOEZ reflex.


Don't forget the generally contemptible ineffectiveness of the 60's radical left in the US that basically squandered a huge chance to make lasting gains, and the fact that today our movement is dominated by the old guard of said shitty generation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Two questions need to be asked in this thread: one pertaining to a historically weak American left, the other pertaining to a historically weak American labour movement. HINT: They're both related.

[The Douche]

Two questions need to be asked in this thread: one pertaining to a historically weak American left, the other pertaining to a historically weak American labour movement. HINT: They're both related.

Thats because in europe labor got its muscle by forming political parties/ties with political parties, in the US when labor did that it was attacked violently/members deported (see IWW/the purges of communists from the AFL and CIO), so it got its muscle from organized crime. This is probably an irreversible situation.

[Barry Lyndon]

Don't forget the generally contemptible ineffectiveness of the 60's radical left in the US that basically squandered a huge chance to make lasting gains, and the fact that today our movement is dominated by the old guard of said shitty generation.

I am very cynical in that I think that if a 60's radical was assassinated, left to rot in jail, or escaped into exile(like some of the Black Panthers that still live in Cuba), they were doing something right. That's a clear indication the ruling class saw them as a real threat.

I think that those who remain are mostly well intentioned but stuck in a rut and unable to devise new strategies for the 21st century.

[Ele'ill]

Liberal progressives buy into the idea that a victory means keeping the same policies intact but getting to decide what charity to support. I mean this from a civic stance and am not just referring to liberal progressive citizens.

They'd allow a company to absolutely decimate a community somewhere and then applaud when that same company gives t-shirts to some middle class people of the area affected.

I think the grossly mis-educated hype surrounding pacifism and 'slow reform' has to go- soon- and I think that likewise- the more militant left needs to rethink diversity of tactics and be way way way way way way way way way way way more critical of current tactics being used- their application- their timing- and of what was accomplished.

How about less street tactics and more door to door campaigns- perhaps knowing the labor issues in your area would be a start before engaging in anything else.

I hear a lot of anarchists talking a lot of shit regarding a vanguard when in action they're probably one of the worst examples of it themselves.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

there has never been a prominent socialist party or leftist movement in the United States.

That's highly disputable.

[KurtFF8]

Two questions need to be asked in this thread: one pertaining to a historically weak American left, the other pertaining to a historically weak American labour movement. HINT: They're both related.

Indeed. The Left has been historically weak in America (here's one, seemingly non-Marxist analysis http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548)

I even had a professor argue that it was because America was just "big and new" so there was room for the class struggle to be silenced and expanded (thus make it not as intensified and confined, historically and geographically).

I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the development of the US brand of capitalism, the historical reasons, but we should develop an analysis that doesn't agree with the idea of American exceptionalism of course.

[Barry Lyndon]

That's highly disputable.

Indeed. One could look at the Socialist Party under the leadership of Eugene V. Debs. At the height of the party's strength in 1912 Debs won nearly a million votes in his run for president-the winning candidate Woodrow Wilson won six million votes. So while they were obviously not a leading party, they were a major political force, particularly in the West and Midwest.

Obviously this was a long time ago, but it is misleading to say that there was never a strong socialist movement in the United States. What it comes down to IMHO is that the weakness of the radical Left in the US is directly tied to the weakness of organized labor, of all the industrialized countries American labor is the least unionized. How it got to that point is a long story but that is the clearest connection I can see.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Indeed. One could look at the Socialist Party under the leadership of Eugene V. Debs. At the height of the party's strength in 1912 Debs won nearly a million votes in his run for president-the winning candidate Woodrow Wilson won six million votes. So while they were obviously not a leading party, they were a major political force, particularly in the West and Midwest.

Obviously this was a long time ago, but it is misleading to say that there was never a strong socialist movement in the United States. What it comes down to IMHO is that the weakness of the radical Left in the US is directly tied to the weakness of organized labor, of all the industrialized countries American labor is the least unionized. How it got to that point is a long story but that is the clearest connection I can see.
To be fair, just because the Socialist Party in 1912 gained 6% of the vote (over 900,000 votes) doesnt mean it was necessarily class-struggle orientated. Debs and Haywood were leading figures in the left-faction of the party, but the center (Morris Hillquit) and right (Victor Berger) factions were by far the stronger forces. It's amazing they elected Debs at their conventions (despite Debs himself not wanting to run), but Debs was so popular as a speaker and passionate person, he won with ease. Even his fiercest political opponents couldn't deny loving the guy on a personal-level. To say the Socialist Party USA was radical is misleading, considering their thousands of other elected officials (two congressmen, hundreds of mayors, many lower positions) were social democrats who later had their own ideas usurped to the Democrats and Republicans. The Socialist Party USA had a strong rank-and-file presence, but an even stronger middle-class presence I would say. Hence why the Communist Party was eventually built, because the right-wing finally got tired of having a left-wing in "their" party.

Not to paint a bad picture of the ol' Socialist Party, they did some great things while they had a left faction (mainly huge support for unions and strikes).

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Indeed. One could look at the Socialist Party under the leadership of Eugene V. Debs. At the height of the party's strength in 1912 Debs won nearly a million votes in his run for president-the winning candidate Woodrow Wilson won six million votes. So while they were obviously not a leading party, they were a major political force, particularly in the West and Midwest.

Obviously this was a long time ago, but it is misleading to say that there was never a strong socialist movement in the United States. What it comes down to IMHO is that the weakness of the radical Left in the US is directly tied to the weakness of organized labor, of all the industrialized countries American labor is the least unionized. How it got to that point is a long story but that is the clearest connection I can see.

To add to the 1912 comment, it's also when Roosevelt ran as an independent under the banner of the 'progressive party' which split the non Dem/Rep vote. Conceivably Debs' share of the vote could have been even higher.

Around the same time organised labour (labor I guess in this context...) was gaining a lot of traction in the USA which was intrinsically linked to the growth of the left as a political force. Sadly the conflict between the IWW and the SP over syndicalism vs. socialism ended up fragmenting an unprecedented level of left unity (especially given modern standards). The SP's membership never recovered after Haywood's expulsion and the IWW had its' own reasons for decline - mass imprisonment, particularly circa. WWI and their fight against conscription. Obviously suppression of both by the state is as important to explicate the decline of the movements as it is unsurprising.

The IWW at its' peak was about 100,000 members, I'm not sure on the SP. But, more important was the level of organisation shown by the IWW in using the railways to transport workers all over the country to pickets et al, as well as the fact that it could call on support from workers far exceeding the actual membership of the union.

So really the question is why did the left decline in America rather than why it never 'caught on'. For more depth on the subject (which I highly recommend pursuing) I'd have to recommend Howard Zinn's "Peoples' History of the United States". You could get the full edition or just the abridged version dealing with the 20th Century if you're only interested in this specific point in time - although I think getting a broader knowledge of the 'total history' of the USA would be better. The chapters on "The socialist challenge" and "self-help in hard times" being most poignant to what I've been discussing in this post. Following from those, the chapters on Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement are also good documents on the American left. I might be guilty of false particularism here, as the entire book is dedicated to the idea of protest and dissent which have delivered any semblances of liberty and democracy that can be found in the US - hence the title.

Oh and NB: "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair is a great piece of working class literature documenting the struggles of migrant workers coming in to the USA around the turn of the century and may also help to understand the situation around the time of the ascension of the Socialist Party etc etc.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

So really the question is why did the left decline in America rather than why it never 'caught on'. For more depth on the subject (which I highly recommend pursuing) I'd have to recommend Howard Zinn's "Peoples' History of the United States". You could get the full edition or just the abridged version dealing with the 20th Century if you're only interested in this specific point in time - although I think getting a broader knowledge of the 'total history' of the USA would be better. The chapters on "The socialist challenge" and "self-help in hard times" being most poignant to what I've been discussing in this post. Following from those, the chapters on Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement are also good documents on the American left. I might be guilty of false particularism here, as the entire book is dedicated to the idea of protest and dissent which have delivered any semblances of liberty and democracy that can be found in the US - hence the title.

Oh and NB: "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair is a great piece of working class literature documenting the struggles of migrant workers coming in to the USA around the turn of the century and may also help to understand the situation around the time of the ascension of the Socialist Party etc etc.
Actually, I think another book that is just important on how the Socialist Party grew so tremendously and then suddenly declined (and how their internal conflict lead up to it) is "The American Socialist Movement: 1897 - 1912 (http://www.amazon.com/American-Socialist-Movement-1897-1912/dp/1931859124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288749413&sr=8-1)" by Ira Kipnis. Of course the book covers the earlier years before 1897 (the arrival of Marxian German immigrants, and the SLP) and I don't know why it says 1912 when it really goes up to 1920.:rolleyes: But anyway, it's a good read as well if you want to brush up on your history of the most successful socialist party in the U.S.

[Ele'ill]

Because of John Stewart

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thats because in europe labor got its muscle by forming political parties/ties with political parties, in the US when labor did that it was attacked violently/members deported (see IWW/the purges of communists from the AFL and CIO), so it got its muscle from organized crime. This is probably an irreversible situation.

So what do you think about the prospects of redder "unionism" as the basis of a proper, more class-based "labour" movement in the US?

[KC]

So what do you think about the prospects of redder unionism as the basis of a proper, more class-based "labour" movement in the US?

Does the US have a significant enough industrial base to even warrant such "class based" unions?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Still making fetishes out of manual workers as The One True Proletariat, eh?

[KC]

WTF are you talking about? What do you mean "still"? What are you even talking about?

I just don't think the US has a significant enough industrial base for broad industrial unionism to become the backbone of a worker-class movement.

Maybe instead of being a nonsensical esoteric douche you can for once engage the discussion, as I have previously, like a grownup?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Given your Economics uni background, when I read "industrial base," the fetishes for manual workers came up. I hear that word too much in Bastard Keynesian discussions.

I wasn't talking about any form of "industrial unionism" at all. Sociopolitical syndicalism is meant to be flexible on scale of internal division.

[KC]

Given your Economics uni background, when I read "industrial base," the fetishes for manual workers came up. I hear that word too much in Bastard Keynesian discussions.

Okay, so you heard some Keynesians use the term "industrial base," and then, because I have an econ major and used the same word, you automatically applied your interpretation of their position to me?

How in the fuck does your mind work to make such an absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical leap? Seriously, this is just beyond ridiculous.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Okay, so you heard some Keynesians use the term "industrial base," and then, because I have an econ major and used the same word, you automatically applied your interpretation of their position to me?

How in the fuck does your mind work to make such an absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical leap? Seriously, this is just beyond ridiculous.

Not just some Bastard Keynesians. It's in populist talk too.

You could have used a different term that doesn't have connotations with the manual worker.

Exactly how, then, does the US lack what you consider to be an "industrial base'?

Oh, and by the way, my conclusion is the same as Macnair's about the emphasis on party-building beyond the limits of small-business shops. The Sociopolitical Syndicate is a complementary party-movement, and is not meant to be the primary party-movement.

[The Douche]

So what do you think about the prospects of redder "unionism" as the basis of a proper, more class-based "labour" movement in the US?

I think its unlikely, the union as revolutionary vehicle is a memory. At least, in the first world. They have only served as mediators and have constntly sold out the people they claim to represent. All the recent major uprisings have been outside the control of labor, and labor has attempted to reign them in, I don't think that is a coincedence.

So sure, I guess it might be possible to build new unions, but meh, why? Why not other forms of social organization? If we have to start from scratch anyway I don't see the benefit of using something like unions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"They have only served as mediators"

I'm pretty sure you read my commentary on the immediate solution to the mediation problem (the one on private-sector collective bargaining as a public monopoly).

[Amphictyonis]

Still making fetishes out of manual workers as The One True Proletariat, eh?

Bargaining power. Service sector employees have no bargaining power. Too replaceable which is why we can't unionize the service sector in the first place. Why do you think the IWW just lost Jimmy Johns?

I suppose we don't need unions to facilitate a general strike. Just solidarity. But to what end? If the US is to go socialist we must bring industry back or we'll be sitting on the sidelines of the revolution. A general strike to take over the means of production? What means of production, in the US there is largely only means of distrobution. In fact, the US will be the one nations standing in the way of global revolution. The nations actually producing goods are the most likely to have successful socialist revolutions- in Marx's time they are what he considered 'advanced capitalist nations'.

The economies in 'advanced capitalist nations' have changed quite a bit. If the US service sector workers, tomorrow, facilitated a socialist revolution how would we provide material abundance? What goods would we trade with other nations? What are we producing? How would we sustain our booming population?

I wouldn't overlook the importance of industry in a socialist revolution. If a US revolution were to happen we'd have to economically depend on a socialist China/Russia in order to make the transition back to an industrial society, so, perhaps China is key at this point? Right now I would consider China just about the only advanced capitalist nation in existence (according to Marx's classical definition).

I'm thinking out loud. Sorry

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bargaining power. Service sector employees have no bargaining power. Too replaceable which is why we can't unionize the service sector in the first place.

I suppose we don't need unions to facilitate a general strike.

I really need to send you a copy of my programmatic work at some point. Everything from zero unemployment policies to far-reaching policies on private-sector collective bargaining to workweek policies is addressed there.


If the US is to go socialist we must bring industry back or we'll be sitting on the sidelines of the revolution. A general strike to take over the means of production? What means of production, in the US there is largely only means of distrobution. In fact, the US will be the one nations standing in the way of global revolution. The nations actually producing goods are the most likely to have successful socialist revolutions- in Marx's time they are what he considered 'advanced capitalist nations'.

The economies in 'advanced capitalist nations' have changed quite a bit. If the US service sector workers, tomorrow, facilitated a socialist revolution how would we provide material abundance? What goods would we trade with other nations? What are we producing? How would we sustain our booming population?

I wouldn't overlook the importance of industry in a socialist revolution. If a US revolution were to happen we'd have to economically depend on a socialist China/Russia in order to make the transition back to a industrial society so perhaps China is key at this point? I would consider China just about the only advanced capitalist nation in existence (according to Marx's definition).

Some form of socialist primitive accumulation might be necessary for "re-industrializing," but I hope it won't be as terrible as what the former Soviet Union had to go through under Stalin.

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

You guys have to understand that its not just that nobody wants to. On top of the mass campaign to slander leftism to its very core and manipulate the public's thoughts of the idea, the policing and militarization of America makes it very easy to be punished for any type of resistance and they remind us of this daily. People not only know of the reward, but to some the risk would still be too high to chase the reward. Absolutely nobody wants to waste away as another number in an American prison.

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

Also you have to take into account that these wars are fought primarily by the youth of the world, and today's American youth is too concerned with facebook, iPhone's, and oral sex to want to fight, let alone lose those commodities.

[Noinu]

I was reading this thing about leftism in the United States and there was section that said that scholars have studied for a long time why there has never been a prominent socialist party or leftist movement in the United States. The United States is really one of the few developed countries in the world that never had a prominent leftist movement and this really concerned Lenin and Trotsky since it challenged the marxist theory that the most developed capitalist countries were supposed to be the most likely to have a revolution. Some scholars say it's because traditional values of most Americans aren't compatible with leftist ideology and other say it's because America didn't exist during the feudal era, do the rest of you have any ideas?

I think it might derive from as early as the 17th century, when the European settlers (well particularily the puritan ones around Boston) thought that the Grace of God was given to those who are rich and successful, so basically if you're rich and successful, you're a saint.
Even if the core idea of the Grace has long passed, the idea of people who are rich and successful being somehow exceedingly good, has for some reason stuck around.

[Delenda Carthago]

Once again,the mighty revleft on the rise...


USA had lots and lots of leftist movements for the last 150 years.Why would you say that there NEVER was?Its insane that you people are even having a converstation about it.Just a few hints:



Class struggle up until 1930s.Read the fuckin "Dynamite" book for more.
Black Panthers,influenced by Mao
Antiglobal movement,Seattle
Hippies(yes,hippies godamned.We might not like them,but they tryed to change the world)
Anti war movement
2006 mayday
All the anarchist intelexuals for the last 10 years have come out of USA(Chomsky,Bookchin,Zinn etc)
Martin Luther King and Malcolm X have both been killed just around the time that they truned from race struggle to class and social struggle

Read your fuckin history americans.If you dont,nobody will.

Other than that,its difficult to have a movement inside the heart of the beast.Firstly because the system is not going to let someone to take over easily,and secondly,well,economy works in the US.Maybe not for all,but it works.

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

Once again,the mighty revleft on the rise...


USA had lots and lots of leftist movements for the last 150 years.Why would you say that there NEVER was?Its insane that you people are even having a converstation about it.Just a few hints:



Class struggle up until 1930s.Read the fuckin "Dynamite" book for more.
Black Panthers,influenced by Mao
Antiglobal movement,Seattle
Hippies(yes,hippies godamned.We might not like them,but they tryed to change the world)
Anti war movement
2006 mayday
All the anarchist intelexuals for the last 10 years have come out of USA(Chomsky,Bookchin,Zinn etc)
Martin Luther King and Malcolm X have both been killed just around the time that they truned from race struggle to class and social struggle

Read your fuckin history americans.If you dont,nobody will.

Other than that,its difficult to have a movement inside the heart of the beast.Firstly because the system is not going to let someone to take over easily,and secondly,well,economy works in the US.Maybe not for all,but it works.

Damn, made people look like fools up in this *****.
If you were talking about me though I was just talking in present terms.
Not a very big leftist movement happening today in America.
At least not any i've heard of.

[Delenda Carthago]

Damn, made people look like fools up in this *****.
If you were talking about me though I was just talking in present terms.
Not a very big leftist movement happening today in America.
At least not any i've heard of.
First of all,I m not talkin about you or anyone in specific.I m just sayin that having a converstation like that in motherfuckin REVLEFT is only gonna ideologise defeat.And what kind of revolutionary you are when you dont know your own fuckin history?Forgeting about the past is a victory of the System.Dont do the the favor for them...


Other than that,yes,I know there is not an organised movement in US right now.Yes,I know that on the contrary the far right is doing things.Thats your bussiness.How you let in a progressive country like the US this happened for the first time in decades,specially in this time that we could actually make a difference,I dont know.But,please,if you want to read more about "the situation in Greece" and "solidarity with the workers in France",please do something!Its all connected,you know...

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

First of all,I m not talkin about you or anyone in specific.I m just sayin that having a converstation like that in motherfuckin REVLEFT is only gonna ideologise defeat.And what kind of revolutionary you are when you dont know your own fuckin history?Forgeting about the past is a victory of the System.Dont do the the favor for them...


Other than that,yes,I know there is not an organised movement in US right now.Yes,I know that on the contrary the far right is doing things.Thats your bussiness.How you let in a progressive country like the US this happened for the first time in decades,specially in this time that we could actually make a difference,I dont know.But,please,if you want to read more about "the situation in Greece" and "solidarity with the workers in France",please do something!Its all connected,you know...

I think you're attacking the wrong guy, I probably shouldn't post this on the internet but I have been looking for like minded people, but all I seem to find is braindead kids who really don't give a shit. Most of my friends are right wing, but more in a "I support Ron Paul because my parents do" way. I dont really have any friends that are into any political platform. Although the guy who lives next door to me is in my public policy class.

[Delenda Carthago]

I m not talkin about you or anyone in specific.

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

You just word your posts funny I guess.

[Delenda Carthago]

http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=1220976

How about this?

Students did an activist action against some IDF soldiers.You have to organise your counter info in order for things like that to really get the message across and be known.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What about the Great Rail Strike and the St. Louis Commune (1877), the Homestead Strike (1892), the Seattle General Strike (1919), the Battle of Blair Mountain (1921), the Flint Sit-Down Strike (1936-1937), DRUM and affiliated groups (1968), rolling wildcat strikes in the coal fields (1970's), etc.?

[lines]

The lack of a feudal stage has something to do with it in that Americans never really developed a "class consciousness". Instead of identifying with ones social class Americans have historically identified with their race.

And so leftist ideologies in America have historically been more popular among black people and hispanic people than white people. White working class people in America consistently support policies that are not in their best interest, they sabotage the interests of their own social class because they identify more with the interests of the white bourgeoisie(a social class that also contains people that aren't white) than the interests of their own class.

Another reason is that Americans are often uneducated. They don't know what the word socialism actually means but they hear it used on the media to describe the policies which are presented as bad and they have heard definitions of socialism that are nonsense.

[RadioRaheem84]

Going along with the theme here, I think everyone should check out the new article in Monthly Review about the "Americanization" of the Oklahoma uprising in 1917 where members of a trade union called the Workers Class Union rebelled against the State.

Historians are now trying to paint the rebellion as an American tradition. They're making it seem like it had no connection to the rest of the world that was likewise rebelling against capitalism and imperialism. There are PBS documentaries already in the works that will try to paint union socialism and syndicalism as "American" things or a positive outgrowth the capitalism system.

This is another factor that is troubling America. Every gain the workers make, historians and capitalists attribute the reactions against capitalism as the ingenuity embedded within the system to change for the better.

For instance, when Milton Friedman tries to apologize for the Pinochet regime, he always tries to paint the image of the free market eventually costing him the dictatorship and opened up room for democracy. This is the ingenuity of capitalism and the "freedom" that it brings.

Right Libertarians stretch this idea to sweatshops too. When people rebel against sweatshop labor practices and gain rights, they attribute those rights to the free market because without those sweatshops there, they wouldn't have earned those rights in the first place! I kid you not I have heard libertarians make this argument.

Now, with all the workers self management coming out of the woodwork, the cappies are coming out full force to claim that again this is not a response to capitalism but another face of the ingenuity embedded within the system and a show of it's superiority over socialism!

When I mention the anarcho-syndicalist movements from Spain circa 1936, they tell me, well they were capitalists without even knowing it and just because they called themselves anti-capitalists it didn't make them so. They were capitalists! Capitalism is superior.

That explains the American mindset. Every progress made by workers is a sign that the system is working, not flawed. If things are going wrong, they believe it's a sign of too much government oppression and too much government means "socialism".

You give them examples of third world countries being capitalists like Haiti or the Dominican Republic, they'll look at you and say, well that's because they do not have enough capitalism, and they're socialist????

Apparently, socialism = poverty. They look at the sieged nations of North Korea and Cuba who are under constant threat of annihilation, suffered devastating wars and sabotage, suffer from internal corruption and bureaucratization, autarky, etc. and they think that the problem must all be internal and not external. And then they compare NK and Cuba to the differing poverty of third world countries.

But as soon as they see internal contradictions in the system here at home, then it must be outside forces and those outside forces must be socialist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Going along with the theme here, I think everyone should check out the new article in Monthly Review about the "Americanization" of the Oklahoma uprising in 1917 where members of a trade union called the Workers Class Union rebelled against the State.

Historians are now trying to paint the rebellion as an American tradition. They're making it seem like it had no connection to the rest of the world that was likewise rebelling against capitalism and imperialism. There are PBS documentaries already in the works that will try to paint union socialism and syndicalism as "American" things or a positive outgrowth the capitalism system.

This is another factor that is troubling America. Every gain the workers make, historians and capitalists attribute the reactions against capitalism as the ingenuity embedded within the system to change for the better.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. In the McCarthyite era the rebellion would have been seen as un-American.

It's not a "lack of feudalism" that's the problem. It's the need for some sort of American flavour. More exposure needs to be given to "closet socialists" like MLK JR. and Einstein as figures for an American-flavoured worker-class movement.

[Robocommie]

That's not necessarily a bad thing. In the McCarthyite era the rebellion would have been seen as un-American.

It's not a "lack of feudalism" that's the problem. It's the need for some sort of American flavour. More exposure needs to be given to "closet socialists" like MLK JR. and Einstein as figures for an American-flavoured worker-class movement.

Certainly, after all in the height of the socialist movement Americans frequently saw socialism as some kind of foreign evil brought in with the immigrants. But I think there's always been a heart of proletarian rebellion in American society that's been either ignored or cast as something else. I've always been interested in the idea of using fictional characters with wide appeal, like Tom Joad and John Henry, as very American and domestic symbols of anti-capitalism. John Henry in particular, who I must confess, I'm fascinated by.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, feudalism was alive in Russia until the late 1800's and the US certainly existed before then. Plus there are many nations that didn't exist during the "feudal era", Venezuela and Cuba for example. These scholars need to get a bit more scholarly.

What the theory posits is that feudalism never existed in the lands that constitute the USA, that it was bourgeois from get go. This is sort of true, depending on how we define feudalism. If we include within it other methods of tying people to the land and providing free labor (debt peonage, share cropping, etc), then clearly the U.S. had feudalism, at least in certain area and times. Much of Latin America also had such conditions, post slavery. However, this country was founded as a capitalist country, and so, aside from the South (and a few other areas), it has generally been "classless."

A (true) story from Chicago might be instructive. The Prince of Wales was touring the United States. The mayor took him to meet a bunch of people. He brought the PoW out and said, "Guys, this is the Prince of Wales. Prince, meet the boys." In other words, there hasn't really been a lot of respect for class in this country, so ideologies based on class don't go as far.

The main problem for the left in the U.S. is twofold. 1., overall, life has continued to get better for most working people, and even in prolonged periods of economic trouble, like the one we are in, the expectation is that things will get better. Don't fight, wait.

Two, and this should not be discounted, the United States has a plentiful meat supply. As Thoren Veblen wrote, workers who can eat steak aren't going to overthrow the government. Even poor people in America have access to plenty of meat.

[Crux]

Hippies(yes,hippies godamned.We might not like them,but they tryed to change the world)I like Yippies better.

[RevLeftist]

The U.S.A. is like a dictactorship with everyone brainwashed. You can't "start" your own Leftist propaganda or party, because, first of all, no-one will ever support you, because you are a "commie", and second, there's only a few Partys that you can vote, and all are the same shit, same smell, but diferent names.

[RadioRaheem84]

Certainly, after all in the height of the socialist movement Americans frequently saw socialism as some kind of foreign evil brought in with the immigrants. But I think there's always been a heart of proletarian rebellion in American society that's been either ignored or cast as something else. I've always been interested in the idea of using fictional characters with wide appeal, like Tom Joad and John Henry, as very American and domestic symbols of anti-capitalism. John Henry in particular, who I must confess, I'm fascinated by.

But at the same time, what kind of internationalism is that? There was nothing American about people going against the system. People all over the world were doing that and giving each other international solidarity.

It would be nice to see the rebellions as American but most people already attribute that to a special period in America where Americans were experiencing new things or importing foreign ideas. Socialism before WWII was seen as "OK" if it was seen in a progressive light.

After WWII it was seen as unnecessary as the contradictions were "solved" in the eyes of many because of labor gains, unions and high wages.

[syndicat]

What do you mean by "leftism"? A major difference between the U.S. and Europe is that in the European countries the majority of the working class came to support some form of socialist ideology, program or politics. The main labor federations in Europe, at least in the past, had embraced some form of socialism. In some countries syndicalism was strong, and others not. In some countries there emerged large Communist parties that controlled unions (CGIL in Italy, CGT in France, CCOO in Spain etc), and in others not, and so on.

The only time in the history of the labor movement in the USA when the dominant labor federation embraced an anticapitalist ideology was the Knights of Labor in the 1870s-80s. The Knights advocated the "cooperative commonwealth"...a market economy of worker cooperatives. But the Knights were crushed in the red scare that followed the national general strike of May 1 1886...the only official national general strike in the history of the U.S.

Gompers and the leaders of the AFL believed that a strategy based on opposition to capitalism and class wide solidarity was "unrealistic." Unrealistic for several reasons: 1. it would be repressed, 2. constant waves of immigrants speaking many languages made it too hard to organize the unskilled, 3. racism against non-white peoples made it unfeasible to build an organized movement on class wide solidarity.

I'm not sure why the absence of feudalism should explain low level of working class consciousness. In the French revolution, the attack on the feudal regime required working people to ally with the emergent capitalists. How does a cross class alliance help develop a sense of being an oppressed class? The American revolution wasn't really a revolution...rather a war for independence by one faction of the elite, who were successful to some extent in rallying mass support (but of only about a third of the population).

The American political system also does not make it easy for an oppositional party to emerge gradually and gain more support. The socialist organization that was most successful in terms of electoral politics historically was the SPA in 1900-1920. They elected thousands of local officials, quite a few state legislators, a couple congress people. They were somewhat less successful than European socialist parties in that era but they were also much more left wing than most European socialist parties. This is shown by the fact that few SPers quit when the party opposed World War 1. Most European socialist parties supported their respective governments in World War 1. Exceptions were the Italian Socialist Party and the Serbian Labor Party.

The SPA defined itself as a class party, that is, as a party of the working class. They were able to build some strong local political machines based on labor union support, in places such as Milwaukee, Los Angeles, and some smaller towns. The party continued to have a syndicalist left wing even after the split that formed the Communist Party. in 1924 when the CP tried to capture the IWW, they failed due to an alliance between anarchists and left-SPers in the IWW.

Racism was a critical factor in limiting the potential for class solidarity, class consciousness, and socialist ideas. That's because class solidarity on a broad scale is needed to gain more power for the class and is essential to a belief in socialism as a class politics. That said, it is way too simplistic to say that white workers were simply racist. It would be more accurate to say that many white workers, to varying degrees, were racist, and even tho there were those who were not racist (to varying degrees), the white working class was divided by racism.

I think the period when socialism made the biggest headway in the working class was in the 1900 to 1920 period, and the fact that the SPA and other radical groups like IWW were explicitly attacking and challenging capitalism was important to that. Also, that was a period of two massive waves of strikes, which made some significant gains, and this helped workers to see the potential of changing things through worker solidarity....hence the increase in class consciousness.

Altho many veterans of that era were around in the workplaces in the '30s and were important to helping to guide the even larger working class rebellion of the '30s, explicit critique of capitalism was actually less prevalent in the practice of the left...especially after the CP's Popular Front turn in 1935. The CP basically capitulated to the Democratic Party and the New Deal...allowing the capitalist Dem party to coopt the radical thrust of the worker rebellion. Also, allowing the business union bureaucracy of the CIO to consolidate its hold on the new worker movement.

Finally, the CP's Marxist-Leninist politics and subservience to Moscow made them vulnerable to attack because they were not defending a viable vision of a democratic, worker-run socialism.

After World War 2 there was thus a third red scare that had the effect of pushing out radical ideas from the labor movement, and helping to conservatize and bureaucratize the labor movement. So the pro-capitalist AFL ideology, which goes back to the late 1800s, has always been able to retain its dominance in the labor movement in the USA. also, the capitalist elite made a number of concessions in the wake of the mid-'30s rebelliion...Wagner Act (existence of unions), widespread union contracts (outside the south), Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, pattern bargaining, unemployment insurance, legal minimum wages. During the post WW2 boom, the enhanced bargaining position of workers meant they could force increase in wages as productivity rose from capitalist investment.

beginning in '70s-80s, capitalist elite went on offensive to rebuild their profit rate, and shifted the balance of power to their favor.

Now, as to changing mix of jobs. "Manual" workers are today about 60 percent of workforce as they were in the '60s. Manufacturing, transportation, public utilities, mining and agricultural labor are more than one-fourth of the workforce. Workers who do not boss others, who are not high end professionals assisting management, but are subordinate to management are 3/4 of the economically active population. So it's not the absence of an oppressed, exploited working class that is the problem.

On the contrary, real wages and conditions of work, conditions of life, for the American working class have been in decline since the early '70s. This is the longest slide in the real wage rate and in material conditions in the entire history of the American working class. But this occurs in the absence of any rooted anti-capitalist or socialist movement of consequence.

[RadioRaheem84]

For some reason I am sure that workers in the States would go ga-ga over syndicalism, libertarian socialism, workers self management if explained to them in a rational manner.

[Ele'ill]

People in the states trust power. They trust people put at the top even if they didn't contribute to putting them there

Workers will trust a reporter, talk show host or guest analyst over a door to door activist organizer, labor organizer within their work place or an independent media source- even if the person in a position of power is telling the person something they don't necessarily want to hear.

How do we tear this down- or use it to our immediate advantage?


Sometimes within the leftist community I think there's far too much reference to historical events- too much in-depth theoretical analysis and circular conversation regarding 'parties' that don't even exist.

There's a door that needs to be opened and a killer coming at us with a knife- do we hold councils to discuss what we should be holding councils to discuss- do we become analytically incompetent or do we start throwing ourselves against the door and getting it done.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't get it.

Americans are willing to trust reporters, official documents, men of privilege, businessmen, etc.

Soviet citizens never trusted their media. On the downside they believed a lot of what was coming from Western sources sometimes.

So, how can the US be said to be "free" in comparison to the Socialist countries?

The level of propaganda, disparity of wealth, and marginalization of alternative voices seems to me worse than even in Soviet Russia. The lack of employment or underemployment if you're an avowed Marxist is astounding in the States.

Yet, even in the left's eyes, what makes this country more "free" than the former socialist ones?

[syndicat]

half the working class doesn't vote. many regard all politicians as lying snakes. the readership of the corporate papers has fallen in recent years.

where is the evidence of trust by working class people of businessmen, politicians, etc?

I think the problem is fatalism. lack of belief that anything else is possible.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that the cynicism came much later as Reagan and his crew brought "legitimacy" back to DC, and Clinton solidified it among the "left" for a while.

You're right that at this point there is more cynicism and fatalism. And this has brought more people to listen to conspiracy theories and right wing populist movements.

[Ele'ill]

Regardless if they believe in those powerful people they follow them- which implies some level of belief.

[L.A.P.]

Parties exist (lots of them), why will yours make a difference?

I feel like most leftist parties now just sit there and do nothing if any party were to influence mine it would be the Black Panther Party because they went out and got involved. I believe this would be the most efficient way to gain members, by helping the community and then get your message out. Also, if I were to start a party it would be a Pan-Leftist party of all far left tendencies to join.

[Burn A Flag]

I think the media is the biggest reason for the retarded growth of the left in the USA. Living in the USA, I know that Television, movies, radio. and other forms of popular media reach an extreme amount of people, and even if they don't have anti left propoganda, they still offer things to keep the people complacent and keep them sucked into their tv instead of focused on problems and the real world. It doesn't help that the television is dominated by the capitalist. Also commercials basically glorify capitalism as well by saying how great their product of company is and how trustworthy they are.

[L.A.P.]

I also believe that part of the problem is the fact that in American culture most people would agree that the United States is a classless society because the poor are supposedly not discriminated against for being poor. Therefore, according to them they have achieved a classless society.

[~Spectre]

I also believe that part of the problem is the fact that in American culture most people would agree that the United States is a classless society because the poor are supposedly not discriminated against for being poor. Therefore, according to them they have achieved a classless society.

I would disagree. Syndicat's post nailed it.

Most working people I speak to are perfectly aware that our foreign policy is hypocritical and imperialistic. Most of them are perfectly aware that their is a ruling class and that politicians lie to them.

[CartCollector]

I find it interesting that no one's brought up the fact that May Day came about because of a strike in the US.

Also, it is true in some sense that Americans put race ahead of class. But despite this it is interesting how negatively white supremacy/white nationalism is viewed in the US (at least today). Even though you might criticize the events of the 60s for not delivering a political revolution, they were quite effective in leading to a widespread denunciation of racism. However to be fair this denunciation was backed by the national government, starting with Brown v Board of Education, continuing with Eisenhower bringing in the military to forcibly desegregate a school, and continuing even further with Johnson's backing of the Civil Rights Acts, Voting Rights Acts, and the 24th Amendment. I suspect this was because racism in the US looked really bad to other nations (especially ones without lots of white people) and could lead to them going communist.

Anyways what's also interesting about America, and that I haven't seen brought up despite how important it is, is how the relationship between the government and the economy is viewed. In America, the government and the economy are seen as separate. That is, whatever helps the "big government bureaucrats in Washington," as they are called, is viewed as harming business, and whatever helps business is inherently anti-government. Unless those businesses are recieving bailouts or subsidies, in which case they're tied to the horrible, freedom removing government. Interestingly, however, tax cuts don't count as largesse.

I think the reason that many have missed it here is because it is so anathema to the radical left way of thinking. Once you understand this, though, the American perspective falls neatly into perspective. This is why America is home to so many "libertarians" (voluntarists) and "anarcho"-capitalists while the rest of the world doesn't. This is also why if you tried to bring up such a thing as libertarian socialism or anarcho-communism in America, they'd think you're insane. From what I can gather, of the few Americans who know who Chomsky is, most think he's just really liberal and not an anarchist.

[Peace Sells..]

you'd be surprised at how effective american propaganda really is.

[RadioRaheem84]

American anti-communist propaganda is probably the most expansive and expensive venture a business class has ever engaged in.

We're talking about a level of propaganda that convinces people that Grenada might be a threat!

[Victus Mortuum]

I think two incredibly important material aspects of American history that have dramatically affected the development of ideologies here:

1) Slavery
2) Massive Stolen and Free Land from the Native North Americans

1. Slavery in the US was so pervasive, and the ideological justifications that developed were so embedded, that the racial constructs that it generated were being fought against even into the 1970s. Unions in the 20th century were incredibly racist and nationalist, and many unions were by race brandishing slogans of "keep jobs for whites from blacks" or chinese or irish or mexicans or whoever. This has been an incredibly difficult thing for Americans to overcome and is certainly one reason why historical unions were not more effective.

2. The enormous amount of free land that existed in the midwest and west because of american "manifest destiny" was the cause of the "American dream", namely because it really existed. They literally would draw a line, have hundreds of people line up, fire a gun, and have everybody race to claim their new massive free plots of land. The stolen land created millions of peasants in the U.S. that believed strongly in this "American dream". Being peasant farmers, these families were aligned with libertarian capitalism. These families have only slowly been eroded (and in fact there is still a massive lobby here to protect them). Even where these peasants have been eroded, their ideology has still been passed to their kids, who are only slowly realizing that their parents were wrong (that is, their ideology doesn't match their material conditions).

There is strong potential for revolution in the U.S. There is incredible distrust of the bourgeois state and general dislike of corporations and government. People just are unaware of a radically-democratic alternative. This is why there must be a Worker-Class Party-Movement in the U.S.! We are in the perfect times, and American leftists mustn't miss these opportunities!

[William Howe]

Generally lazy society, the majority of voters are brainwashed Rightists, and it has a corrupt government.

[syndicat]

The enormous amount of free land that existed in the midwest and west because of american "manifest destiny" was the cause of the "American dream", namely because it really existed. They literally would draw a line, have hundreds of people line up, fire a gun, and have everybody race to claim their new massive free plots of land. The stolen land created millions of peasants in the U.S. that believed strongly in this "American dream".

sorry, but this is a fiction. most of the land giveaways were to the railroads, mining and timber companies. the railroads and land speculators then sold the land. there was never a "peasantry" in the U.S. Farmers were always indebted, partly due to price of purchase of land. So they were forced to be totally commercially oriented. This meant they were forced ever more into debt, to merchants, grain companies, railroads, banks. This is why there was a huge farmers' rebellion in the U.S. in the late 1880s-1890s, the Populist Movement.

my great-great-grandparents homesteaded a farm in southwest Iowa after the Homestead Act was passed. but their family was always in debt and their daughter and her husband lost the farm in the great depression of the 1890s, as did many others. she then moved to Council Bluffs where she rented a house and made a living taking in boarders.

[CAleftist]

I agree with the legacy of slavery being a big reason. The racism and xenophobia in America has confused the issue of class struggle.

Another big reason, which is more recent (1970s), is the rise of the "religious right." Spirituality and religion are exceptionally personal issues, and class struggle is not personal. There is a contradiction there-class struggle is about the haves vs the have nots, about power and access to resources. Spirituality and religion is about personal belief and self-expression.

And also, America becoming a major power-a superpower-means that America got the biggest brainwashing campaign in history, perhaps. The "American dream", the whole concept of a "middle class' that is neither rich nor poor, literally creates a barrier between the rich and the poor, and confuses class issues further.

It is for those reasons that America has been so hostile to leftism, historically. Even so, strong labor movements have occurred here at different times in history.

[The Author]

Propaganda and anti-communist bias in the media is the reason why. If people weren't fed such worthless lies and they had some command of the ideas of communism- and I don't mean reading the Manifesto once- perceptions would change exponentially politically and socially on the communist movement. That, and actually summoning the courage to be more willing to fight for better conditions than always taking everything for granted. Easier said than done, but a must.

[Diello]

I think the problem is fatalism. lack of belief that anything else is possible.

I felt this way before I found out what communism actually was.

[Robocommie]

I would disagree. Syndicat's post nailed it.

Most working people I speak to are perfectly aware that our foreign policy is hypocritical and imperialistic. Most of them are perfectly aware that their is a ruling class and that politicians lie to them.

Yeah, working class people don't need to be convinced that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, or that you need money to make money, not even in the US. They know it's that way because they have to deal with it every single day. An enormous number of American workers are living paycheck to paycheck. The problem is, they just generally don't believe there's a way to change it.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Generally lazy society, the majority of voters are brainwashed Rightists, and it has a corrupt government.
There are plenty of lazy people, but the U.S. is usually regarded as a place who holds high regards towards work and productivity. Compared to other places, I guess we "like work." :rolleyes:

my great-great-grandparents homesteaded a farm in southwest Iowa after the Homestead Act was passed. but their family was always in debt and their daughter and her husband lost the farm in the great depression of the 1890s, as did many others. she then moved to Council Bluffs where she rented a house and made a living taking in boarders.
Completely random: it's weird people know of Counciltucky's... errrrgghhh i mean Council Bluff's existence.

[Victus Mortuum]

sorry, but this is a fiction. most of the land giveaways were to the railroads, mining and timber companies. the railroads and land speculators then sold the land.

I don't believe that is true. What you said was only true in regions where the land was not very conducive to farming - such as the rockies and some other areas in the far west. In the Midwest, most went to random farming families, as is obvious if you have ever looked around at all the small farms in the Midwest that have 'been in the family' for generations.


there was never a "peasantry" in the U.S. Farmers were always indebted, partly due to price of purchase of land. So they were forced to be totally commercially oriented. This meant they were forced ever more into debt, to merchants, grain companies, railroads, banks. This is why there was a huge farmers' rebellion in the U.S. in the late 1880s-1890s, the Populist Movement.

There was indeed a peasantry in the U.S...well, it does depend on what you mean by peasant of course. Most small farming families did not have to purchase their land. They received it for free under the homestead act and the following homesteading acts after that.

Farmers fell into debt and lower income because of the falling prices of crops (particularly wheat and cotton) because of the improving means of production in agriculture. They were being driven out of business by larger and more productive farms and a recession.

In response to this they formed the People's Populist Party which advocated massive federal aid during the recession, federal curtailment of corporate abuses of farmers and workers, and prevention of poverty among farming and working-class families. The Democratic Party began to take all of these platforms to gain votes when they saw its success. Then, Teddy and FD Roosevelt passed numerous reforms that were very similar to the demands of the People's Party, including subsidies to farmers for certain crops and paying people not to grow crops on their land to keep prices up.


my great-great-grandparents homesteaded a farm in southwest Iowa after the Homestead Act was passed. but their family was always in debt and their daughter and her husband lost the farm in the great depression of the 1890s, as did many others. she then moved to Council Bluffs where she rented a house and made a living taking in boarders.

Okay...? Sucks for your family?

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Because they're stupid, they don't read and they want to believe everything they've been taught to believe, and to believe otherwise, that it was a lie is to hard to handle.They all have dreams of being a business owner, being rich,so how can you expect them to overthrow a system that they want to be a part of?

[~Spectre]

Because they're stupid


If you believe that, you probably have no business here.

[Robocommie]

If you believe that, you probably have no business here.

Anti-populist Marxist ftw?

[Kiev Communard]

As I am obviously not an American, I probably lack the complete understanding of the U.S. situation, but if anyone wants to hear my opinionm the failure of the Left in the United States can be attributed to two factors, i.e. the existence of wide spaces for the development of capitalism in the 19th - early 20th century that bred the widespread confidence that "anyone capable enough" could become "self-made man" (the cult of individual success) together with the spectacular growth of the American economy up to late 1970s (the period of Depression was averted from turning into revolutionary situation by union leadership and CPUSA's coalition with the New Dealers, confusing the workers and making them believe that Democrats were the "Left"), and the system of slanders and propaganda bolstered by the mighty media apparatus that for decades made everything to discredit even mildly social-democratic ideas in the eyes of many American workers. In addition, one may mention the multinational and multiracial character of the American proletariat that was used by the Right by inciting irrational racist beliefs into many white workers, thus shattering the intersectional unity of proletariat and instilling conservative ideology into its more privileged sections.

[CAleftist]

As I am obviously not an American, I probably lack the complete understanding of the U.S. situation, but if anyone wants to hear my opinionm the failure of the Left in the United States can be attributed to two factors, i.e. the existence of wide spaces for the development of capitalism in the 19th - early 20th century that bred the widespread confidence that "anyone capable enough" could become "self-made man" (the cult of individual success) together with the spectacular growth of the American economy up to late 1970s (the period of Depression was averted from turning into revolutionary situation by union leadership and CPUSA's coalition with the New Dealers, confusing the workers and making them believe that Democrats were the "Left"), and the system of slanders and propaganda bolstered by the mighty media apparatus that for decades made everything to discredit even mildly social-democratic ideas in the eyes of many American workers. In addition, one may mention the multinational and multiracial character of the American proletariat that was used by the Right by inciting irrational racist beliefs into many white workers, thus shattering the intersectional unity of proletariat and instilling conservative ideology into its more privileged sections.

The first factor is important. America became the living embodiment of capitalism, especially after WWII.

It is no coincidence that one of the crucial years and turning points in the history of American capitalism was in 1947, during the Red Scare and the time of the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.

Media brainwashing is a factor too, as well as white workers being pitted against blacks, Latinos, and other immigrants.