American Socialism?

[BlackMarx]

This question has been bothering me greatly. Is socialism even practically possible in the U.S currently? When you look at our structure of government, the racial issues that make white proletariat inclined towards reactionary politic, the worship of American exceptionalism; I feel as if the light at the end of the tunnel is another train. Any thoughts?

[Mr. Contradiction]

Any left movement that would really be effective in the US would have to be aggressively populist and tap into some right-wing people's sentiments about corporations, the 'little guy' getting shafted by the government, etc. It would have to be less oriented around eliminating racism and sexism and focus on grittier class and labor issues that would resonate with Obama's clinging-to-guns-and-religion people, the ones who don't want to listen to someone from Berkeley, etc., but still want forceful changes to the system as they see it.

The difficult question to ask is whether anyone on the American left today has the cojones to turn back the clock on 20th century academic leftism and return to the imagery and resonance of early twentieth-century socialist and anarchist arguments. At least, that's what I would tell you.

[Jose Gracchus]

The only choices I'm afraid are socialism or barbarism.

[Nolan]

I don't think white workers are inclined at all to reactionary politics.

[#FF0000]

This question has been bothering me greatly. Is socialism even practically possible in the U.S currently? When you look at our structure of government, the racial issues that make white proletariat inclined towards reactionary politic, the worship of American exceptionalism; I feel as if the light at the end of the tunnel is another train. Any thoughts?

It's the ebb and flow of class struggle, boyo. Nothing is permanent and nothing is certain. America's got a great history of open class struggle where people united and fought for their rights as workers, regardless of race. Homestead, Blair Mountain, etc. etc.

One day. Probably not in our lifetimes, but I'm definitely willing to bet on one day.

[FreeFocus]

Not currently, and not anytime soon.

[Rafiq]

We aren't asking to jump from Capitalism to Socialism. If a revolution were to occur, the best option is probably several transitional phases.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

The US actually has the largest history of Union member deaths in the first-world. We have a long and bloody history of class struggle and it comes in gigantic tsunamis which eventually crest and fall, lasting a short amount of time relatively but building a huge and militant movement. Study some labor history, it'll make you feel a bit better about the average American worker.

[Fulanito de Tal]

It is difficult considering the media in the US is owned by five guys. Everyone could be unemployed and FOX would be running stories on how progressive taxes are hurting the economy. The BEST socialist revolution would happen in another country and CNN would focus on how not being able to own a factory is a violation of rights.

Another major issue, with everyone in debt to credit cards, cars, student loans, and their house, no one can afford to strike, quit, or even worry about changing the system. If somehow an avenue to coordinate a movement -- maybe the internet -- came to use in a socialist movement, the workers in the US are going to have a real "gut check" and put aside lots of consuming in order to effect change.

Hopefully, a socialist revolution in the US is possible because the other alternative would be death.

[Amphictyonis]

This question has been bothering me greatly. Is socialism even practically possible in the U.S currently? When you look at our structure of government, the racial issues that make white proletariat inclined towards reactionary politic, the worship of American exceptionalism; I feel as if the light at the end of the tunnel is another train. Any thoughts?

You should send this guy a friends request and ask him- NGNM85 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?find=lastposter&f=53). We should all put our efforts behind reform/the Democrat party. Revolution is impossible. Obama's health bill is a fantastic improvement for the working class. It shows we can make huge gains through the Democrat party. Militant trade unionism and direct action is counterproductive. We need to focus on corporations and leave the fiery anti capitalist rhetoric in the past where it belongs.

[MarxSchmarx]

The problem really is one of socialism in the first world in general. Variants of "American exceptionalism" that mitigate socialist movements exist in every developed country.

I think any serious understanding has to begin with the recognition that there are a lot of creature comforts that capitalism does, for all its faults, manage to provide to in some sense a majority of the population. These are the outcome of the class struggle, to be sure, but they are reasonably widespread.

So when people compare that to what people living under feudalism (or worse) in the global south or "communism" in the eastern bloc, there is a real material basis for the mass support of capitalism.

Still, folks throughout the global north are wisening up, especially as the welfare state gets dismantled by a thousand cuts. There are generations coming of age for whom downward mobility will be the rule rather than the exception. It will take time for things to get worse, but I don't see how they will get much better for the "average first world worker".


It would have to be less oriented around eliminating racism and sexism and focus on grittier class and labor issues
...
The difficult question to ask is whether anyone on the American left today has the cojones to turn back the clock on 20th century academic leftism and return to the imagery and resonance of early twentieth-century socialist and anarchist arguments. At least, that's what I would tell you.

Your core message - that we are obviously doing something wrong - something that our forebears in some real sense got right, is basically true.

Yet I think there is a tendency to not appreciate early 20th century leftism in America for its denunciation of racism and sexism. This is especially so given the times - and groups like the IWW and the early CP were strident in there anti-racism. Arguably its failure to tackle racism seriously was one of the greatest weaknesses of the Socialist Party ideologically but also tactically.

The issue with much of "academic leftism" (by which is often meant leftists becoming identified with the concerns minority groups) is that it often shifts the focus of critique from class. There are ironically economic reasons for this. And obviously it doesn't help our claim that the most widely acclaimed and engaging leftists in America (as in most developed countries) are not organizers activists or even politicians, but almost invariably professors.

[Toppler]

*Sigh* the "Eastern Bloc sucked" Western belief again...it did provide for the common people better, and gave them more sense of purpose than capitalism http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2009/10/goulash-and-solidarity-as-happy-as.html

(and no, I am not basing that on that single article, but on the experiences of my parents and relatives, as they lived in the CSSR, an Eastern Bloc country).

And the "Global South" is not feudal, it is mostly on the recieving end of the neoliberal capitalist stick.

[Mr. Contradiction]

*Sigh* the "Eastern Bloc sucked" Western belief again...it did provide for the common people better, and gave them more sense of purpose than capitalism
[ed: link which I had to delete in quoting you]
(and no, I am not basing that on that single article, but on the experiences of my parents and relatives, as they lived in the CSSR, an Eastern Bloc country).

And the "Global South" is not feudal, it is mostly on the recieving end of the neoliberal capitalist stick.

I think perhaps what MarxSchmarx was saying was that the capitalist West is indeed realizing (and, of course, needs to realize) that what it has traditionally understood as better standards of living are either not really signs of the superiority of capitalism and thus not to be leveraged against socialism, or illusory benefits which mask deeper flaws, or what have you. Either way I think he confirms your idea that while capitalist countries are able to flaunt honestly their high levels of development and abundance of things that guarantee quality of life, there are other measures of success which capitalist countries are terribly slow to take hold of.

btw Toppler I greatly enjoyed the links from your other thread about life in Eastern Europe. :)

[Jose Gracchus]

You should send this guy a friends request and ask him- NGNM85 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?find=lastposter&f=53). We should all put our efforts behind reform/the Democrat party. Revolution is impossible. Obama's health bill is a fantastic improvement for the working class. It shows we can make huge gains through the Democrat party. Militant trade unionism and direct action is counterproductive. We need to focus on corporations and leave the fiery anti capitalist rhetoric in the past where it belongs.

You are a creep and a douchebag.

In other news, I summarized the challenges of American Socialism (though many of the factors can be First World generalized):


There are several factors at work. First of all this question must be poised, like all truly leftist analysis, from a historical point of view. Why is it that Kansas and Oklahoma were insurgent bases of left-wing agitation and third party insurgency - including the agrarian People's Party and the Socialist Party of America of Eugene Debs - and today are backward and right-wing in many cases? Well I think it can be reduced to several major factors:



The collapse of an oppositional political culture and communities of struggle. Factories, slums, poor farming communities were actively political, and people perceived themselves socially and as belonging to a maligned or oppressed social group. This naturally suggests popular action. Compromises by some sectors of white industrial male labor through labor unions and left-liberal policies diffused some resentment and palpable marginalization. The farming communities were destroyed by agro-business. By the point the tide rolled back in the 1970s, the urban blight and abandoned communities had a racial angle, and left-liberal co-option has served to continue to frame this as a 'black' or 'minority' issue, rather than a 'poor labor' issue with 'people of color' shades to it. The 1950s spelled a mass purge and repression of the CPUSA and other major left-wing parties from unions and schools and government. Institutions were already purified for the Establishment by the time the New Left came around, and its failed to make a major institutional impact aside from maybe some changes in academia. However it made major ideological impacts. Riding on this trend is the end of 'community life' and 'civil society' in many ways. Consumerism and entertainment culture eroded traditional communities and their functions, and as hours at work increased, so did bowling leagues, union locals, and other major institutions slip away. People may feel a lot of ways about themselves and their neighbors struggling - however they are unlikely to infer this in a broadly social, much less class or class-political, way. A major sociological work on this in the late 20th century is Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam. In the place of authentic and social communities, we have the rise of niche consumerism and obsessions, all kinds of pathologies - porn addiction, crazy cults, etc., etc. - we're a lonely culture of lonely people relatively isolated in a sea of social life that offer you no role other than consumer or follower or worker. A major side-effect of this is the triumph of well-organized religion revivalism in the U.S., especially in the South and ruralities nation-wide. Only thing left of the community other than the Super Wal-Mart. Corporate and far-right nationalist co-option is also a major ancillary problem developing from this.
Mass propaganda. The United States invented modern public relations and mass media technology and industrial techniques. Correspondingly, the U.S. population is the most passively and actively business-state-propagandized population, dollar per head, in the world. The consumer and pop and media culture is all-encompassing, and regardless of people's 'individualistic' ethos or skepticism, simply crowds out all other potential sources of information. Therefore, without intensive work and study and effort, it is very hard to even have the opportunity to construct counter-narratives. When in conjunction with the fact that social and community life is so evacuated of authenticity or even existence in many people's lives, and what you get is just crude conformity in small groups all propagandized by the very narrow, very well-funded mass media center. Passive propaganda refers to the thorough social and ideological information apparatus; it is the consumer and pop culture, alienating and often nihilistic and encourage hero and wealth worship. Commercials, mass media stereotyping, broad narratives of culture - the message today is most problems are questions of pop psychology, enthusiasm, New Age touchy-feely; your problems are anything so long as they are not social, political, class. Furthermore, the active apparatus propagandizes both the disaffected right with near-fascist propaganda and agitation and tawdry yellow journalism on the other hand. The well-off, well-educated, cosmopolitan political class is serenaded by Orwellian liberal propaganda like the New York Times or dry science of exploitation from the Wall Street Journal. There is near zero room for truly subversive narratives and values in the mass information society. So far informal connections through social groups, workplaces, colleges, and the Internet is the only place one can even hope to see presentation of our ideas.
Electoral Constraints. The U.S. is unique in having retained without substantial modification, basically an 18th century radical Whig constitution. The system conforms to Duverger's Law more thoroughly than any other advanced 'capitalist democracy' that I know of. Furthermore, the courts and statute have tended to raise barriers yet further to any possible insurgent candidacies, third party insurgencies, or fusion tickets. Only once has an insurgent party legitimately came to power, and that was the Republican Party in the 1850s and 1860s. The problem of this stacks even higher barriers on the other problems. It is simply extremely difficult to organize any visible alternative or opposition against the two party establishment; therefore very difficult to organize in a way that self-propagandizes, as well as has reasonable likelihood of making substantial gains, much less actually ever winning. It would be a major step forward merely to create a responsible executive, instant-run-off or multi-member proportional representation versus single-member plurality elections. Lower barriers to entry. A more passive means of restriction is via the investment model of party competition, whereby due to funding sources and the weakness of labor/rigidness of the two-party system, the parties basically cannot be anything but the competitive fanclubs of corporate donors, representing different policy "baskets" for different "clubs" of capital, within the framework of a class consensus on politics between both "parties".
Repression. Active repression has abated considerably, but it still a problem, especially following 9/11 and with the arrest of the Palestinian and Colombian solidarity activists. Still, things are not as bad as they were when Fred Hampton and comrades were executed in their sleep (having been drugged by a spy) by a Chicago PD-FBI death squad. Passive repression is considerable though. Provided organized labor or left-wing activists or community organizations actually do anything, then massive corporate spending, media flacks, "patriotic" groups and PACs, often with corporate funding, and astroturfing will be directed on them to repudiate, isolate, and disrepute them. University professors excessively radical will be show-trialed like Ward Churchill or simply denied tenure and pauperized and humiliated like Norman Finkelstein. Keep in mind, both of those professors great crime was impugning the nobility of our imperialism and our complicity in our client's imperialism, not even direct assaults to the class society and state. Look at even a group like ACORN - it paid dearly for trying to make the United States even a real bourgeois democracy, where working people and urban poor and people of color actually are registered and encouraged to vote. After all, in our fake popularity-poll-based-on-corporate-financed-PR type elections - substantially so even relative to European bourgeois democracies -, you can't offer people real choices, and if too many poor people petition the apparatus, and one party can't win anymore since its victories are more or less a function of working people's demoralization (Republicans), it might undermine things.


Right-wing beliefs among the working class are just one more weird fad or lifestyle or clique or cult that the disaffected mass, left only to consume and pick between two choices allowed by the finance and propaganda committees called "the two parties" every couple years. It just another amount of pablum served up by the passive and active propaganda system, finding fertile ground where real revolutionary or even real reformist movements are outright repressed, authentic communities obliterated, and any cultural memory other than Forrest Gump-style media sentimentalism over Americana totally obliterated from public memory.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Wait for globalization to force the wages of working people down from petit-bourgeoise levels and down to the levels of the international proletariat.
Wait for the "Third World" to become more competitive in the Capitalist market.
Wait for the children of immigrants to grow up and start voting.
Wait for the effects of "peak oil" and global warming to hit the US economy.
Wait for the public and private debt to drag down the economy.
Wait for the next crisis of American capitalism.
Wait for inflation to skyrocket.

Just wait for the contradictions inherent in the system to unfold, and socialism will be possible. Until then, just support revolutions elsewhere. Unfortunately, domestically there's not much else to do but vote for center-left social dems like obama, or let sociopathic warmonger republicans in office. Either way, not very "socialist" I know.

the problem is, Capitalism works for most Americans, I'd argue because a sizable portion of the "Working Class" (and much of the least skilled sectors) in America is actually in China, Mexico, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc. As long as America is able to export its proletarian jobs and expand its petit bourgeoise, the appearance of good living standards will be at least a possibility for enough of the voters to make Capitalism seem ideal.

[MarxistMan]

Hey my friend, another tactic that US media uses so well, is to raise the terrorism card, the Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or jihadist terrorist card behind a socialist revolution in America. If there is a rebellion the US media and US government will find a way to label them as "Terrorism". Remember that the USA has a "War on Terror". which is a lie really, it's really a war on oil and resources while labeling nationalist anti-US imperialism insurgents of the Middle East as terrorists and a war against the anti-war movement and the left in America to label the left and anti-war activists as terrorists so that the dumb brainwashed masses would side with US government and not support the Socialist revolution and riot

So its real hard to see a revolution in USA when we got a government and a media with a "War on terror" propaganda.

.



It is difficult considering the media in the US is owned by five guys. Everyone could be unemployed and FOX would be running stories on how progressive taxes are hurting the economy. The BEST socialist revolution would happen in another country and CNN would focus on how not being able to own a factory is a violation of rights.

Another major issue, with everyone in debt to credit cards, cars, student loans, and their house, no one can afford to strike, quit, or even worry about changing the system. If somehow an avenue to coordinate a movement -- maybe the internet -- came to use in a socialist movement, the workers in the US are going to have a real "gut check" and put aside lots of consuming in order to effect change.

Hopefully, a socialist revolution in the US is possible because the other alternative would be death.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Workers have to deal with their own reality and that transforms them (http://www.marxists.org/archive/glaberman/1997/xx/workersreality.htm)

[MarxistMan]

Shiva: I think that the cause of why there is no revolution in America is conformism, and not because capitalism is working for americans. If you think about it the living standards of most americans is real low, millions of americans do not have access to health, and because of neoliberalism they are working in neoliberal low-wage service-economy jobs like waitress, delivery drivers, and other blue collar dirty jobs (The USA has become a hell of third world jobs with real low labor conditions and standards for most americans)

Another consequence of neoliberalism in the last 10 to 20 years is the very expensive university tuition fees. Because of that americans are unable to join a college. And without a university millions of people are unskilled and are forced to be floor cleaners, delivery drivers and low-wage jobs.

And according to an article i read in Globalresearch.ca 10% of US citizens own 90% of the wealth of America, so wealth spreading and high living standards to the majority of americans is a myth. In fact there are 6 million American families who live with food-stamps as only source of income.

Watch this video by Economist Fred Goldstein of The Workers World Party talking about how 6 million american families live with food stamps as only source of income, and many of them are forced to sell their food stamps at the bodegas, 7-11s and grocery stores so that they can buy school supply and medicines for their children. The majority of americans are poors and beating the bullets:

http://workers.blip.tv/file/3345574/

.



Wait for globalization to force the wages of working people down from petit-bourgeoise levels and down to the levels of the international proletariat.
Wait for the "Third World" to become more competitive in the Capitalist market.
Wait for the children of immigrants to grow up and start voting.
Wait for the effects of "peak oil" and global warming to hit the US economy.
Wait for the public and private debt to drag down the economy.
Wait for the next crisis of American capitalism.
Wait for inflation to skyrocket.

Just wait for the contradictions inherent in the system to unfold, and socialism will be possible. Until then, just support revolutions elsewhere. Unfortunately, domestically there's not much else to do but vote for center-left social dems like obama, or let sociopathic warmonger republicans in office. Either way, not very "socialist" I know.

the problem is, Capitalism works for most Americans, I'd argue because a sizable portion of the "Working Class" (and much of the least skilled sectors) in America is actually in China, Mexico, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc. As long as America is able to export its proletarian jobs and expand its petit bourgeoise, the appearance of good living standards will be at least a possibility for enough of the voters to make Capitalism seem ideal.

[MarxistMan]

You know something? A progressive liberal deleted me from her friends list in Facebook because i wrote a bunch of leftist quotes of the signatures of many members of this site, like quotes of Deleon, Mao, Luxemburg, Durruti etc. She used to post articles from websites such as Commondreams, The Nation Magazine, Truthdig.com, Alternet, Counterpunch, Democracynow.org and other social-democrat progressive-liberal news websites, where people such as Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, Michael Parenti, and Paul Krugman write articles.

The progressive liberal left in USA is so anti-socialism

.



The problem really is one of socialism in the first world in general. Variants of "American exceptionalism" that mitigate socialist movements exist in every developed country

[Hoplite]

This question has been bothering me greatly. Is socialism even practically possible in the U.S currently? When you look at our structure of government, the racial issues that make white proletariat inclined towards reactionary politic, the worship of American exceptionalism; I feel as if the light at the end of the tunnel is another train. Any thoughts?
It would be long and extremely difficult...but yes I think it could work. You would have to present something that other parties did not and I think you'd have to avoid populism at all costs lest you fall into the same pitfalls that our current pair of parties have.

The American public is largely ignorant of real politics and as such having a party ostensibly FOR the people that is being led around by the nose by the very same people who are not educated enough to know where they need to go seems like a bad idea.

[Sixiang]

Hopefully, a socialist revolution in the US is possible because the other alternative would be death.

Spoken like a revolutionary.

[Victus Mortuum]

Wow talk about an American hate thread

[Jose Gracchus]

Why do you say that?

[MarxistMan]

I think that socialists love USA, and are more nationalists and patriotic than right-wingers and pro-capitalism voters (Democrat voters, Republican voters and Tea Party voters), because socialist party voters, are in favor of more wealth for the majority of americans and are more nationalists because socialist party voters are against Multinational Corporations and the International Capitalist Bankers ruling the country

.



Wow talk about an American hate thread

[Victus Mortuum]

Why do you say that?

It was an inaccurate statement. I saw this:


The American public is largely ignorant of real politics and as such having a party ostensibly FOR the people that is being led around by the nose by the very same people who are not educated enough to know where they need to go seems like a bad idea.

and made some assumptions which led to me thinking this thread was about how ignorant the people were to 'true socialism' or something.

My apologies, most of the thread is great.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Any left movement that would really be effective in the US would have to be aggressively populist and tap into some right-wing people's sentiments about corporations, the 'little guy' getting shafted by the government, etc. I agree here. But I think a left-wing movement can win people with left-wing populist demands that are more progressive. Right-wing populism generally only offeres people scapegoats to blame for their very real daily problems (like while most politicians pretend that things are great, the right-populists have an edge because they are the only ones with a voice in the mainstream that actually acknowledges how bad things have been for many people). For socialists/anarchists specifically, I think we want to be able to address those same real problems, but from a working class perspective, not scapegoating pensioners, unions, immigrants, or even bad-apple CEOs or "greed" in the abstract.


It would have to be less oriented around eliminating racism and sexism and focus on grittier class and labor issues that would resonate with Obama's clinging-to-guns-and-religion people, the ones who don't want to listen to someone from Berkeley, etc., but still want forceful changes to the system as they see it. Here I strongly disagree. Race and class are bound up together in the US and our ruling class has always used divide and rule to keep working class movements weak.

As I see it any working class movement that does not seriously attempt to reconcile inequalities within the working class is doomed. I think one thing we need to be better at is promoting solidarity as a principle way to win, not just a "nice thing" or the "right thing" (although that is important). White workers should fight against racism not just because it is in the interests of their fellow black workers but because attacks on black workers also hurt the entire working class. When the ruling class demonizes "black thugs" they use this to argue that spending money on schools is unimportant because poor kids just want to be thugs and drug dealers... then they argue that money should be spent on prisons and the police should be given more powers. Does this hurt black workers? Obviously it has taken an incredible toll on a generation of workers. But look at California now, racism against blacks and latinos has allowed the state to de-fund education and increase it's repression on all of us. Solidarity with the LGBT struggle is also important for heterosexual workers too since homophobia also causes heterosexual people to feel pressure to conform to social norms, homophobia is also tied up in attempts to restrict sex-ed and reproductive rights. Attacks on Arabs has also made racial-profiling more acceptable and allowed the Feds to spy on anti-war socialists too.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This question has been bothering me greatly. Is socialism even practically possible in the U.S currently? When you look at our structure of government, the racial issues that make white proletariat inclined towards reactionary politic, the worship of American exceptionalism; I feel as if the light at the end of the tunnel is another train. Any thoughts?

My thoughts are Egypt. The major (population) country in the region and one with full backing of Israel and the US where opposition was repressed and many thought nothing would change. They even spoke of "Egyptian exceptionalism" and the idea that Egyptian culture is too passive for the regime to be overthrown.

A revolution in the US won't happen tomorrow, but I also wouldn't be shocked to see a major radical movement develop incredibly quickly. American workers are not very organized and struggle and consciousness have been low for a generation so that means we probably would have to build up movements and organizations and networks before our budget-cut movements start to look like Greece or France, but the working class there is coming from a more advanced starting point. But even in the UK, the left was lamenting that UK workers and students are not as strident as the French... then suddenly, protesters were taking over the Tories HQ and surrounding the Royals.

When it comes down to it, the basic conditions for a radical movement exist in the US - high and increasing inequality, instability in the lives of most workers (debt), repression, resentment of the police and courts by a large chunk of the population, and an economic crisis and austerity on top. Where we have been lacking is in organization (for at least a generation) and the US working class has typically lagged behind other countries in creating stable and long-lasting working class organizations and structures. But I think US society is a powder-keg and looking back at US labor history, there are many examples of how workers have fought back - hell, May Day started here.

[MarxistMan]

Jimmy: What a good explanation of the US situation. And indeed, the US workers and poor people need to be more united. And like you said food, gas and most basic goods and services are rising real fast in USA, as a result of inflation. Sooner or later gasoline in America will cost around 6 dollars a gallon and a pound of chicken will rise to 2 dollars a lb. or even to 3 dollars a lb. And who knows if gasoline might rise to 10 dollars a gallon and chicken to 4 to 5 dollars a lb.

.

.



My thoughts are Egypt. The major (population) country in the region and one with full backing of Israel and the US where opposition was repressed and many thought nothing would change. They even spoke of "Egyptian exceptionalism" and the idea that Egyptian culture is too passive for the regime to be overthrown.

A revolution in the US won't happen tomorrow, but I also wouldn't be shocked to see a major radical movement develop incredibly quickly. American workers are not very organized and struggle and consciousness have been low for a generation so that means we probably would have to build up movements and organizations and networks before our budget-cut movements start to look like Greece or France, but the working class there is coming from a more advanced starting point. But even in the UK, the left was lamenting that UK workers and students are not as strident as the French... then suddenly, protesters were taking over the Tories HQ and surrounding the Royals.

When it comes down to it, the basic conditions for a radical movement exist in the US - high and increasing inequality, instability in the lives of most workers (debt), repression, resentment of the police and courts by a large chunk of the population, and an economic crisis and austerity on top. Where we have been lacking is in organization (for at least a generation) and the US working class has typically lagged behind other countries in creating stable and long-lasting working class organizations and structures. But I think US society is a powder-keg and looking back at US labor history, there are many examples of how workers have fought back - hell, May Day started here.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Shiva: I think that the cause of why there is no revolution in America is conformism, and not because capitalism is working for americans. If you think about it the living standards of most americans is real low, millions of americans do not have access to health, and because of neoliberalism they are working in neoliberal low-wage service-economy jobs like waitress, delivery drivers, and other blue collar dirty jobs (The USA has become a hell of third world jobs with real low labor conditions and standards for most americans)
.

Saying "The living standards of Americans is high"/"low" says more about what we're holding those living standards in relation to. There are no absolutely high or low living standards, only relatively high or low living standards (in other words, 3,000 years ago the chief would have "high living standards" but tribal chiefs back then had lower living standards than even most working class people here. Really, what is most relevant is the chief's standards in relations to "common people".

Now, a waiter in America may have worse living conditions than most Americans, but compared to most other people in the world, (especially most working class people), the American waiter has relatively good living standards.

Consider the Median Income in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States). This is considerably higher than the GDP per capita of many other states, including capitalist or "market socialist" states in Western Europe, Asia and Latin America. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita) Therefore, for at least 50% of Americans, their household income is substantially better than in much of the world (even if you count the fact that "household income" often includes two wage earners, it's still very high by global standards).

If you want to see an example of why Americans have it easy from an economic point of view compared to people in the rest of the world, consider the case of Foxconn workers. In China, there is a Taiwanese-owned factory which makes iPhones for Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Controversies). Most American households, at least according to the data on median income, could afford an iPhone or two if they saved. Now, this Foxconn factory was infamous for working its over 100,000 employees (yes, over 100,000 at one factory) work 13 hour days with strict work schedules, for a couple hundred dollars a month.

In other words, a middle class youth in America can buy an iphone with the money he saves making coffee a few hours a day, while this iphone is made by someone who makes the price of the iphone after several months of working 13 hours a day (and presumably needs to spend his income on more immediate needs). He can only buy this iphone because the labour put into it by the Chinese workers is so much cheaper than his labour, even if he is working some horrible job at a coffee shop.

Now, if this factory was making iphones in America, people would be outraged by the working conditions and demand change and reform. As is, thanks to globalization, America can get away with having a comparatively tiny proletariat within its own borders as it can import goods from parts of the world where labour is cheap. This keeps inflation low, living conditions moderate, and maintains the popularity of the Capitalist system in the American imagination. On the other hand, as China develops, wages do stagnate here in America as more and more jobs are opened up to "competition", thus reducing the relative gap between China and America, but that is a process which is still going on and has yet to complete itself.



Another consequence of neoliberalism in the last 10 to 20 years is the very expensive university tuition fees. Because of that americans are unable to join a college. And without a university millions of people are unskilled and are forced to be floor cleaners, delivery drivers and low-wage jobs.


I agree. But one of the things is that millions are going to do those jobs as floor cleaners, delivery drivers and low-wage workers. The difference is that with an expansion of education, the young workers no longer want to do jobs like that, and immigrants are needed to do the work (both legal and illegal). In fact, I would argue that the same incentives which cause illegal immigration are the same factors which allow Capitalism to "work for" many Americans, in that wages are disproportionately higher in America, as in most developed countries, for a wide range of historical, social and economic reasons.



And according to an article i read in Globalresearch.ca 10% of US citizens own 90% of the wealth of America, so wealth spreading and high living standards to the majority of americans is a myth. In fact there are 6 million American families who live with food-stamps as only source of income.

Watch this video by Economist Fred Goldstein of The Workers World Party talking about how 6 million american families live with food stamps as only source of income, and many of them are forced to sell their food stamps at the bodegas, 7-11s and grocery stores so that they can buy school supply and medicines for their children. The majority of americans are poors and beating the bullets:

http://workers.blip.tv/file/3345574/

I know about the extent of poverty and centralization of wealth in America. It doesn't really disprove what I'm arguing, which is why i didnt bring it up, but I could see how you'd think it would.

(1) I wasn't saying there aren't people on food stamps and in poverty. Just that the proportion of Americans on food stamps or in poverty compared to those that aren't is low. 6 million american families may live on food stamps mainly, but that's not most American families, and as such, "most American families" feel entitled to blame these poor families for their problems (no matter how unjust that is). If your main political constituency is "Americans on food stamps" or below the poverty line, you won't win.

(2) The extreme centralization of wealth is only one of many factors in how wealth and services are distributed in America. There's a massive petit bourgeoise in the United States, far larger than in many other places, and as Karl Marx himself argued (if I remember correctly), the Petit Bourgeoise is caught up in the belief that they are "well off" because they have spare income and potential to purchase land property (hence the term "little bourgeoise").

(3) The centralization wealth in America may be higher than in many other places, but it's pretty universal. Mukesh Ambani recently built a billion dollar house in Mumbai, the same city as the one which includes world's biggest slum. "Market Socialist" states like China are themselves seeing a huge surge in wealth inequality. And the richest man in the world is Mexican! So it's a problem endemic to developed Capitalism as such, not particular capitalist state, and so from a "global perspective," ie in comparison to other Capitalist states, American capitalism "works" (for how much longer it works is another issue).



The main argument I'm making is that, thanks to globalization, much of the "American working class" are actually foreign workers in China, Mexico, India, and other parts of Southeast Asia and Latin America (the places from where we import many of our consumer goods). The main concern for American workers isn't that things are really that bad for them right now (at least not on average), at least relative to global conditions, but that things basically stopped improving for American workers some time ago. In other words, there will be an American socialist movement at some point, once the contradictions inherent in capitalist globalization are fulfilled and Americans no longer have the high living standards that make Capitalism politically viable.

[Vampire Lobster]

America is not really that exceptional. It means America is not the beacon of all things nice in the world, but it also means that situation in America isn't really beyond all hope so revolution there wouldn't be a possibility. The American working class is still being fucked over on a daily basis, they are realizing it and at one point they will act, even if they didn't do under a red flag and hammer and sickle, waving portraits of some guy who died a century ago and yelling all the communist clichés we all would like them to yell because that's what really makes you a true revolutionary, after all.

[Jose Gracchus]

America is not really that exceptional. It means America is not the beacon of all things nice in the world, but it also means that situation in America is really beyond all hope so revolution there is not a possibility. The American working class is still being fucked over on a daily basis, they are realizing it and at one point they will act, even if they didn't do under a red flag and hammer and sickle, waving portraits of some guy who died a century ago and yelling all the communist clichés we all would like them to yell because that's what really makes you a true revolutionary, after all.

You do get the impression around here that despite all the hate on 'lifestylism', workers could live in practice Marxism, but if they did not bring the red flags and poster-portraits of the Great Masters and defend their works, the self-appointed "real left" like around here would still hurl abuse at them for not "showing their colors". The First World left is a self-imposed insular cultural community.

Hence the relative perpetuation of the centrality of issues which have by now next to no immediate practical application. Like whether Trotsky lied about Hotel Bristol or not. Not that Revleft wouldn't find it fascinating.

[Queercommie Girl]

The idea that we should just ignore issues of "race, sex, sexuality" etc and go back to the strategies of the early 20th century is fundamentally flawed for one simple obvious reason:

Today, a large section of the working class in the United States is already non-white, female and queer. The days of "if you are a real worker, then you must be a white male heterosexual" are gone. If you wish to engage with real workers today, then you must seriously deal with the real concerns these people have, rather than retreat back to some dogmatic abstract paradigm where everyone is implicitly assumed to be a "white male heterosexual".

[Outinleftfield]

I was speaking with someone and they actually admitted that socialism would work out better for most people, but that he didn't care enough and wanted to get rich. My guess is that this is secretly the attitude of many Americans they just won't admit it.

That is the big problem. Capitalism is a casino and it presents itself as an easy win even though the vast majority, even people considered only slightly rich are coming out behind, not ahead as a result of capitalism.

[Amphictyonis]

This question has been bothering me greatly. Is socialism even practically possible in the U.S currently?

It's going to have to be sooner or later unless the USA looses it's military dominance of the globe. Right now if socialism started spreading it would be economically strangled by the US, not to mention the proxy wars waged and everything else we saw during the cold war. I've been of the opinion economic conditions need to sharply decline in America before socialism has a serious chance. The thing is, with periods of harsh economic decline (crisis) a sort of fascistic police state is also possible. Capitalists will pretty much do anything to maintain the current social/power relations. The next capitalist crisis is going to be a game changer- thats about the only prediction I'm willing to make.

[Outinleftfield]

The idea that we should just ignore issues of "race, sex, sexuality" etc and go back to the strategies of the early 20th century is fundamentally flawed for one simple obvious reason:

Today, a large section of the working class in the United States is already non-white, female and queer. The days of "if you are a real worker, then you must be a white male heterosexual" are gone. If you wish to engage with real workers today, then you must seriously deal with the real concerns these people have, rather than retreat back to some dogmatic abstract paradigm where everyone is implicitly assumed to be a "white male heterosexual".

These issues should not be ignored, but they are essentially byproducts of capitalism. We should focus more on the main problem-capitalism and it effects everybody and everything in our daily lives.

I think if it could be demonstrated to people, clearly demonstrated how capitalism is making their lives worse support for socialism would grow. Even middle class people, if they are working for a boss they are not getting the full product of their labor. If they knew this and knew that in socialism they would get the full product of their labor they would be conscious of their material interest for socialism. Making people aware of the alienation created by the social dynamics of capitalism would also help further support for socialism.

EDIT: More importantly we need to show people that "winning" the casino that is capitalism is a pipe dream.

[Amphictyonis]

Any left movement that would really be effective in the US would have to be aggressively populist and tap into some right-wing people's sentiments about corporations, the 'little guy' getting shafted by the government, etc.

Ralph Nader isn't winning many hearts and minds these days. The left has been doing this since the mid 1980's.

[Queercommie Girl]

These issues should not be ignored, but they are essentially byproducts of capitalism. We should focus more on the main problem-capitalism and it effects everybody and everything in our daily lives.

I think if it could be demonstrated to people, clearly demonstrated how capitalism is making their lives worse support for socialism would grow. Even middle class people, if they are working for a boss they are not getting the full product of their labor. If they knew this and knew that in socialism they would get the full product of their labor they would be conscious of their material interest for socialism. Making people aware of the alienation created by the social dynamics of capitalism would also help further support for socialism.

EDIT: More importantly we need to show people that "winning" the casino that is capitalism is a pipe dream.

I'm not advocating making social issues more central than class struggle itself.

However, my concern is much more pragmatic than it is abstract. We must oppose racism, sexism and queerphobia within the working class as well as the socialist movement in general not because these are more central than class struggle itself, but because these are a serious strategic liability that causes inevitable divisions among workers, which will certainly negatively impact on class struggle in every sphere.

P.S. many "middle-class" people are just "middle-income workers", because they have absolutely no ownership or control of the means of production. They just earn a bit more than many "blue-collar" workers.

The early working class struggles in America were obviously great events of significance, but objectively class composition in those days are different from the class composition of the working class in America today, so people have to base their strategy on the actual situation at the present time.

[Victus Mortuum]

In other words, a middle class youth in America can buy an iphone with the money he saves making coffee a few hours a day, while this iphone is made by someone who makes the price of the iphone after several months of working 13 hours a day (and presumably needs to spend his income on more immediate needs). He can only buy this iphone because the labour put into it by the Chinese workers is so much cheaper than his labour, even if he is working some horrible job at a coffee shop.

This aspect of what you said isn't true. The capitalist who gets the money spent on the iphone divides it up into three categories: wages, replenish/accumulate capital, and personal profit. Now, in "China" (Mexico has "taken" a huge number of "American" jobs - just look at the migration of car capital) there are no labor protections and there is no minimum wage so the capitalist can take significantly more as profit. In the U.S. the worker would be paid minimum wage and the capitalist would get less profit. The workers in the U.S. are not at fault and cannot help that the capitalist who has despotic control of the factory leaves little for his workers. The U.S. has a history of powerful labor struggles - this is why there are such protections in place (though the right is rapidly trying to remove these).


Now, if this factory was making iphones in America, people would be outraged by the working conditions and demand change and reform. As is, thanks to globalization, America can get away with having a comparatively tiny proletariat within its own borders as it can import goods from parts of the world where labour is cheap. This keeps inflation low, living conditions moderate, and maintains the popularity of the Capitalist system in the American imagination. On the other hand, as China develops, wages do stagnate here in America as more and more jobs are opened up to "competition", thus reducing the relative gap between China and America, but that is a process which is still going on and has yet to complete itself.

The U.S. does not have a tiny proletariat, unless you conceive the proletariat as strictly those who work in factories which would be inaccurate and an ideological vestige of the 19th century.

[BlackMarx]

Damn....All these responses are amazing and are giving me some new thoughts. The only real issue I have though is this rise of vulgar Libertarianism among other young people. Thanks for your replies! Hopefully I will be able to share some of my own enlightened views as you have shared yours with me!

Revolutionary love, comrades!

[Outinleftfield]

P.S. many "middle-class" people are just "middle-income workers", because they have absolutely no ownership or control of the means of production. They just earn a bit more than many "blue-collar" workers.

And that is the most deceptive division capitalism has imposed upon workers, even able to convince most Americans not to identify as working class even though they objectively are.

For socialism to have a chance people need to be educated on this.

[progressive_lefty]

I would say that the number of states is directly effecting the political landscape of the United States. Therefore it would be difficult for it to work.

[Red Bayonet]

The segment of the US population at the current time, with the most revolutionary potential, are the homeless, the poor, and the unemployed.

[MarxistMan]

Hello, you are so right about that. I think that the true revolutionary sectors in America willing to be part of a popular rebellion in America are the homeless, the very poors and the unemployed. Theoretically the working-class is supposed to be a socialist class who votes for socialist workers parties. But in most countries this is not the case. Because of a lot of factors like workers being to harassed and too mind-controlled in the places where they work among other factors.

But i've observed the behaviour of the working class in USA, like most low-wage employees and most of them don't seem desperate. It seems to me that TV brainwashing, TV mind-control and all that led the US workers to be very conformed to their shitty lifestyles of work, work, chores and no personal progress. I guess they conform to a life of basic need and pain, and not much else.

So i think that the workers parties in America will have to look toward the homeless, the lumpenproletariat, the people totally alianated like the illegal immigrants, the american indian communities, the black communities, the homeless, the gays, elderlies and unemployed, but not the stable high wage workers. who are happier than Bill Gates.

So we would have to look toward the people who are really really in pain in desperation and who are beating the bullets so much that they will be able to be great revolutionaries, but not bank workers, nurses, teachers and high wage employees of Shell, Exxon, Pepsi and many other Multinational Corporations where its working class are real happy and conformed and who even though are oppressed are conformed and are not desperate for change.

,

.



The segment of the US population at the current time, with the most revolutionary potential, are the homeless, the poor, and the unemployed.

[MarxistMan]

yrBfPLUm5so
Tom Morello can save USA, :-) !!


Cuba is poor but in health services is more developed than USA so are many European nations, a lot more than USA. Don't judge the living standards of people by their income. Because that i tricky. The income of US workers even if higher than other nations, is trickled back to the upper-classes thru taxes and bills. So at the end of the day US workers are a lot poorer and with a lot lower living standards than Cuba, European nations and other nations.

Another thing that i think is that american young people under 50 are capitalist right-wingers, because american young people under 50 are not very worried about their health, they dont need doctors. So they can live happy in the american capitalism of food, cars and toys, but no doctors. the capitalist-american system can only offer people food, cars and toys, but not college degrees or health services.

That's right in USA all you can do is eat a lot, play computer games but nothing else. How can you cure heart disease, diabetes and cancer with a video game or with a Golden Corral Buffet. Curing heart disease, tooth decay and cancer is more important than owning a playstation, or a toy bought from Wal Mart. That's why we need a revolution for socialism of cheaper health or free health services. with doctors appointments at 25 dollars, tooth-decay services at 30 dollars

And that's why young americans vote for Obama and Republicans because they dont need doctors and they don't need colleges, they are happy mowing lawns, and delivering pizzas, pushing supermarket carts at Wal Marts. Besides a nation without college degrees is a backward nation. Fredrich Nietzsche said that a University Profession is the backbone of life.
So how can that be a rich developed nation. They think that USA is rich, when the living standards of Cubans are a lot higher than Americans (because Cubans can go to college and doctors, not americans)

If USA had a socialist health service system, and a statetized university system USA would be almost perfect, of course there would also need a change of constitution, government philosophy and other things.

So again USA is really a rich country for a few americans, and a poor third world country, with lots of food, lots of cars, lots of toys, but with lots of cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and no health services at all and no opportunity to join a college for the majority of americans. That's why we need socialism to cure USA, as a medicine, socialism as a doctor to cure a country that is dying of cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes and many many other diseases and life-threatening conditions


.




Saying "The living standards of Americans is high"/"low" says more about what we're holding those living standards in relation to. There are no absolutely high or low living standards, only relatively high or low living standards (in other words, 3,000 years ago the chief would have "high living standards" but tribal chiefs back then had lower living standards than even most working class people here. Really, what is most relevant is the chief's standards in relations to "common people".

Now, a waiter in America may have worse living conditions than most Americans, but compared to most other people in the world, (especially most working class people), the American waiter has relatively good living standards.

Consider the Median Income in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States). This is considerably higher than the GDP per capita of many other states, including capitalist or "market socialist" states in Western Europe, Asia and Latin America. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita) Therefore, for at least 50% of Americans, their household income is substantially better than in much of the world (even if you count the fact that "household income" often includes two wage earners, it's still very high by global standards).

If you want to see an example of why Americans have it easy from an economic point of view compared to people in the rest of the world, consider the case of Foxconn workers. In China, there is a Taiwanese-owned factory which makes iPhones for Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Controversies). Most American households, at least according to the data on median income, could afford an iPhone or two if they saved. Now, this Foxconn factory was infamous for working its over 100,000 employees (yes, over 100,000 at one factory) work 13 hour days with strict work schedules, for a couple hundred dollars a month.

In other words, a middle class youth in America can buy an iphone with the money he saves making coffee a few hours a day, while this iphone is made by someone who makes the price of the iphone after several months of working 13 hours a day (and presumably needs to spend his income on more immediate needs). He can only buy this iphone because the labour put into it by the Chinese workers is so much cheaper than his labour, even if he is working some horrible job at a coffee shop.

Now, if this factory was making iphones in America, people would be outraged by the working conditions and demand change and reform. As is, thanks to globalization, America can get away with having a comparatively tiny proletariat within its own borders as it can import goods from parts of the world where labour is cheap. This keeps inflation low, living conditions moderate, and maintains the popularity of the Capitalist system in the American imagination. On the other hand, as China develops, wages do stagnate here in America as more and more jobs are opened up to "competition", thus reducing the relative gap between China and America, but that is a process which is still going on and has yet to complete itself.



I agree. But one of the things is that millions are going to do those jobs as floor cleaners, delivery drivers and low-wage workers. The difference is that with an expansion of education, the young workers no longer want to do jobs like that, and immigrants are needed to do the work (both legal and illegal). In fact, I would argue that the same incentives which cause illegal immigration are the same factors which allow Capitalism to "work for" many Americans, in that wages are disproportionately higher in America, as in most developed countries, for a wide range of historical, social and economic reasons.



I know about the extent of poverty and centralization of wealth in America. It doesn't really disprove what I'm arguing, which is why i didnt bring it up, but I could see how you'd think it would.

(1) I wasn't saying there aren't people on food stamps and in poverty. Just that the proportion of Americans on food stamps or in poverty compared to those that aren't is low. 6 million american families may live on food stamps mainly, but that's not most American families, and as such, "most American families" feel entitled to blame these poor families for their problems (no matter how unjust that is). If your main political constituency is "Americans on food stamps" or below the poverty line, you won't win.

(2) The extreme centralization of wealth is only one of many factors in how wealth and services are distributed in America. There's a massive petit bourgeoise in the United States, far larger than in many other places, and as Karl Marx himself argued (if I remember correctly), the Petit Bourgeoise is caught up in the belief that they are "well off" because they have spare income and potential to purchase land property (hence the term "little bourgeoise").

(3) The centralization wealth in America may be higher than in many other places, but it's pretty universal. Mukesh Ambani recently built a billion dollar house in Mumbai, the same city as the one which includes world's biggest slum. "Market Socialist" states like China are themselves seeing a huge surge in wealth inequality. And the richest man in the world is Mexican! So it's a problem endemic to developed Capitalism as such, not particular capitalist state, and so from a "global perspective," ie in comparison to other Capitalist states, American capitalism "works" (for how much longer it works is another issue).



The main argument I'm making is that, thanks to globalization, much of the "American working class" are actually foreign workers in China, Mexico, India, and other parts of Southeast Asia and Latin America (the places from where we import many of our consumer goods). The main concern for American workers isn't that things are really that bad for them right now (at least not on average), at least relative to global conditions, but that things basically stopped improving for American workers some time ago. In other words, there will be an American socialist movement at some point, once the contradictions inherent in capitalist globalization are fulfilled and Americans no longer have the high living standards that make Capitalism politically viable.

[NewPartyTendency]

How about the Bouragiose give Americans 1 million dollars and then that's only 310 million dollars spent, the government taxes it and gives you 2/3s of that $600,000.

That's a real good idea. :D

[Fulanito de Tal]

P.S. many "middle-class" people are just "middle-income workers", because they have absolutely no ownership or control of the means of production. They just earn a bit more than many "blue-collar" workers.

In slavery time, blue-collar workers were field slaves and middle-class workers were house slaves.

[MarxistMan]

My friend, the bourgeiose are not Jesus, Che Guevara or Ghandi, they dont care about the lower class US citizens

.


How about the Bouragiose give Americans 1 million dollars and then that's only 310 million dollars spent, the government taxes it and gives you 2/3s of that $600,000.

That's a real good idea. :D

[Amphictyonis]

You are a creep and a douchebag.

In other news, I summarized the challenges of American Socialism (though many of the factors can be First World generalized):

Wow. Do tell, why so? Because I mad a satirical post in part explaining whats wrong with socialism in America whilst making fun of posters who are liberal reformists? How creepy! And on a revolutionary socialist forum ta-boot. How inappropriate!

[Toppler]

I think perhaps what MarxSchmarx was saying was that the capitalist West is indeed realizing (and, of course, needs to realize) that what it has traditionally understood as better standards of living are either not really signs of the superiority of capitalism and thus not to be leveraged against socialism, or illusory benefits which mask deeper flaws, or what have you. Either way I think he confirms your idea that while capitalist countries are able to flaunt honestly their high levels of development and abundance of things that guarantee quality of life, there are other measures of success which capitalist countries are terribly slow to take hold of.

btw Toppler I greatly enjoyed the links from your other thread about life in Eastern Europe. :)

Well, the material standard of living was also good. Full employment, big holiday trip every year, everybody had more than enough food. It was definitely more of a "West's stricter, but more fair brother" than anything like the "Global South".

There were 2 "industrialized worlds". After the USSR led one collapsed, some of the countries there went to the "1st world" category (mainly Central Europe and the Baltics), other remained industrialized but poverty in them dramatically increased (Russia, Ukraine etc.), others have practically reverted to third world status (most post-USSR -stans, especially Tajikistan).

The notion that "the West" is the only decent part of the world and everybody else starves/starved or lives/lived in poverty is exceptionalist, fascistoid bullshit.

Plus what's a third world country exactly? Can Turkey be put into the same category as Angola?

By the way, I am glad I helped, but CSSR and Hungary are not in Eastern Europe ;). The geographical center of Europe is actually in Slovakia by some definitions.

Also, "post-USSR" countries tend to be far worse off now than post-Eastern Bloc countries as they were more interconnected with the planned economy. When shit hit the fan, they were hit the hardest. The richest post-Soviet countries are doing about as well as Czechoslovakia in 1992. There is a difference between being an ally, and a part of the USSR.

EDIT - For those who think I uncritically adore EB, no. I know about the shortages in the shops in the 80s, political unfreedom, lack of some luxuries etc. But a dangerously large number of people seem to think that either a country is a super rich Western country (aka imperialist country) or a poor third world country with no basic necessities, food etc. This creates a false dichotomy. Just because a country is not full of zombie McMansions and its citizens don't eat hamburgers 15x a day does not mean they are the "pur ppls who need USa help". This applies even to the "third world" (as it is nowadays basically a polite way of calling a country a shithole, I've read people on the net post such nonsense like that Slovakia is a third world country, but India isn't, because the middle class in India wears a lot of designer clothes etc... basically the term is full of shit, there are countries all the way from opulence through normal living through modest living through moderate poverty through extreme poverty ... as you can see here http://www.gapminder.org/ .)