could america become socialist? - if so, how?

[weepingbuddha]

i present the question that has been asked hundreds of times before:
could america become socialist?

and if it could, which i think is possible, how would it be done? and dont say "open revolt", becuase in the world we live in, things just cant work like that--politics and war, as this past war in iraq is a testament of, have become almost video-gameish...open revolt would be in vain. i think it would be possible only through a long, devoted diplomacy. the monster above us can be brought down, but surely not with the kind of things on this board--name calling and flaming.

thanks--------weepingbuddha

[hazard]

depends on how socialist you want it

if you look at healthcare as an example, there is no way to introduce a public system. there are far too many factors getting rich off of a private system. having the federal government pay for these profit driven hospitals would bankrupt the country overnight. additionally, the insurance companies bread and butter is in helath care. you just can't get a foothold in any where. sorta like solar power and electric cars. these things exist but the current bourgeois owners will not allow their development and implementation.

as such, the only option is erradicating the current system and building a new one from scratch. america has far too many capitalists entrenching their power to prevent any other alternative.

[weepingbuddha]

great point about the electric/solar cars. its shit like that thats getting in the way of progress, on so many levels.

but hazard, how could the erradication be done?

wb

[hazard]

one word answer -

revolution

which could be taken to mean open revolt. thats way you gotta play sometimes.

[weepingbuddha]

depends on how you see "revolution"...being the ghandi-type i am...peace is the only way.

wb

[hazard]

peaceful change is good, but it is slow. and as I tried to point out, nearly impossible in capitalist nations like the usa. on a major front, that is healthcare, such change just cannot be accomplished. maybe fifty years ago it was a possibility, but the capitalists responded by entrenching all of their interests in that field.

the union is about as peaceful as you can get nowadays. but even they are having their power removed by the capitalists. a decade ago, twenty percent of america's workers were unionized. now, less than thirteen percent are.

peace may not be an option if the ruling class continues to prevent social change in the same manner it has been. sometimes violence is necessary. embrace it if need be.

[Donut Master]

The system is simply incapable of correcting itself to the degree a radical leftist would desire. I'd list all the examples, starting with our electoral system that is extremely unfair to third parties, but I'm lazy - and I'm sure most of you already know. With this in mind, let's not abandon reform altogether, but work through protest beyond the law as well. This doesn't necessarily imply violence, as much change was brought about through nonviolent action in the 50's and 60's to fight segregation. The same tactics can be applied to today's problems.

And remember, the more oppressive our government becomes, the more dissatisfied people will become with the status quo, the ineffective electoral system, and the corporate corruption brought about by capitalism. Eventually it will either reach a biolding point where full scale revolution breaks out, or the people will just become even more subversive, and we'll begin a neo-fascist, 1984-ish nightmare where the true meaning of freedom is long forgotten...

[kylie]

peaceful change is good, but it is slow. and as I tried to point out, nearly impossible in capitalist nations like the usa.
as would violent change. countries like the USA now have the working class generally beleiving they're satisfied, at least until its too late to do anything. this would make finding people willing to support revolution, and participate in it, a lot harder than in other countries. the bourgeois proletariat i've read them be called somewhere. the US has replaced britain in being what i think Marx called 'the last stronghold of capitalism', in that its likely to be the final place that revolution occurs.

[Goldfinger]

Marx said that there was hope for USA. But that was before it became really capitalist. When the revolution in Russia (which I'm not very fond of) happened, the US became very anti-communist, and embraced capitalism as much as possible, making it a feudalist class society.

[TXsocialist]

There's no doubt in my mind that America has a huge socialist tendancy in times of depression -

with that said, it'll probably descend into fascism before its revolution.

We see signs of this daily.

[redstar2000]

I think communist revolution is so far in the future for the U.S. that to say anything now how it might come about is "science fiction".

The only thing I can think of that will bring it closer (make the prospects more realistic) is a series of catastrophic defeats for U.S. imperialism.

When the American working class begins to pay a serious "blood tax" for empire, then and only then will they begin to question the mythology of the ruling class.

Until then, TXsocialist has it right...fascism is the next stage of American capitalism.

Sorry about the bad news.

:cool:

On a more optimistic note, perhaps it might be useful to talk about the much brighter prospects for communist revolution in the E.U.

[Dirty Commie]

Another revolution inamerikkka is unlikley, unless it is at the polls

But, who's stopping us from:

1-moving to one small, rural city
2-breed like rabbits
3-vote to make city a collective utopian type village
4-expand borders as far as possible
5-build large wall
6-Rig roads to explode if attacked
7-demand independence through a hostage situation
8-hail Malte as "Chairman "M" "
and i've lost my train of thought, but 1-6 are possible and serious.