ilovefuzz.com

D.o.S. wrote:Fun Fact: There are stupid people all over the world. We just happen to be more important

There are a lot of reasons why left wing thoughts and ideas have been marginalized in this country over the last hundred years, but it's not like there's some big mystery about it. It's in the history books. Assuming anyone can be bothered to read them

dubkitty wrote:I grew up in Chicago. i know about Emma Goldman, the Haymarket riots, the IWW, Joe Hill, and that whole schlematzl. i used to own the IWW song book. my first wife used to volunteer at the Emma Goldman Women's Health Care Center, OK? and a lot of previously uninformed folks are much more aware than they were before Obama of the Left's history, of "Rules for Radicals," and of various aspects of Leftism and Left strategy they weren't previously.

the conditions for "the revolution" have never existed in America, despite the fervent attempts of the turn-of-the-20th-century American Left to ignite same. i'm sorry, but that's a historical fact. to make a Rosa Luxemburg you had to have a Kaiser. the anarchists and IWW largely died out because anarchism seldom does well in the marketplace of ideas once examined; the Marxian Left fell to the Communist Party or went underground in academia and the more extreme of the unions (e.g. teachers, longshoremen), but has always remained a minority because the political philosophy and organization of the US is inherently center-right, rooted in suspicion of the centralized state and emphasis on the rights of the individual at the expense of state power. This directly conflicts with and indeed excludes Marxian Leftism, which whether it admits it or not inherently requires a totalitarian structure to administer its redistributive ideology. absent a miraculous sea change in human nature itself, someone has to decide what comes "from each" and goes "to each," and has to have the power to enforce that taking.

McSpunckle wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Fun Fact: There are stupid people all over the world. We just happen to be more important

There are a lot of reasons why left wing thoughts and ideas have been marginalized in this country over the last hundred years, but it's not like there's some big mystery about it. It's in the history books. Assuming anyone can be bothered to read them

Examples, please. : )

snipelfritz wrote:I wrote a paper a few years ago on parts of what dubkitty is saying(well generally the idea of a Marxist revolution not being possible in the U.S.) It's kinda long though so that's why it's in nsfw brackets

NSFW: show

Short Paper Assignment: Is a Socialist Revolution Possible in the U.S.
With the U.S. continuing to delve into economic recession, a prolonged and expensive war, and a vehement two-party division, many American citizens will begin looking to alternative approaches to government other than free-market democracy. One of these more popular alternatives will certainly be socialism. One of the necessary traits of socialism is the requirement that working classes free themselves from class dictatorship through aggressive and likely violent revolution. The possibility of a socialist revolution in America depends on a number of conditions including but not limited to a clear class distinction, animosity of lower classes towards upper classes, and a revolutionary force to focus and propel a socialist movement. Despite the existence of many of these conditions, the likelihood and success of a socialist uprising in the United States appear to be unrealistic.
The current political status of the United States is one of unquestionable turmoil. As the present recession began, US citizens began discussing the purposes of the government with questioning. The role of government during economic crises is one that is bound to spark heated debate. As the economy continues to see hardships, people begin to lose faith in Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” and they seek comfort in drastic government actions. An historical example would be that of the stock market crash of 1929 and its relation on the Herbert Hoover administration. As the market continued to decline and depression set in, the laissez-faire policies of Hoover and previous administrations quickly went out of style. Liberal Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 election embodied this phenomenon. Startling similarities appear when one observes the conditions of a Depression-era U.S. and our present situation. Unhappy with the relatively unregulated policies of the previous administration, voters have once again opted for a candidate supporting larger government and federal involvement on Wall St. Even Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, “Change,” hearkens back to Roosevelt’s “New Deal” promises.
This leftward shift in political preference as a whole would be favorable to a potential socialist revolution. The questions become how quantifiably real and how significant this shift will be on the future. It is impossible to gauge the ever-changing political leanings of a nation as a whole in an entirely objective fashion, but voting trends give a good indication. The margin in popular vote of the last election was the highest it has been since Reagan v. Mondale (1984) in favor of the liberal candidate, Barack Obama, yet republican candidate, John McCain, received more votes than any Democratic candidate apart from his opponent. These trends indicate two things: Americans are becoming increasingly active politically; there is still strong support behind the American right, the primary opponent of a potential socialist revolution in the United States. For the purposes of revolutionaries, the electoral process however is only good for roughly gauging the political leanings of the citizens, not for inciting the social and political change necessary for socialist revolution.
It is important to observe the history of socialism in the U.S. in order to understand its place and its potential today. An offshoot of democracy, Marx and Engel’s communism was built off observations of the democratic movements in the U.S. as well as Europe. In this way, socialism and American democracy hold many of the same values: equality, liberty, and fair representation. What varies between supporters of socialism and capitalist democracy are what they believe are the most significant threats to these values. Socialists view class distinctions and oppression by way of capitol to be the most significant threat to equality. American democracy however is based on the casting off of a tyrannous, unrepresentative government. Due to this, there is an inherent fear of governmental control in the collective memory of American citizens. This fear became increasingly evident as socialism and communism rose in popularity in Europe during the 20th century.
It’s important to observe the animosity a number of Americans have towards communism, as it would prove detrimental in movements towards the closely associated socialism. Anti-socialist sentiment has been harbored in America as early as WWI when propaganda posters were created to incite distrust in the Bolsheviks. It reached its peak during the McCarthy “witch hunts” of the 1950’s. During that time, hundreds of supposed communists and communist sympathizers were blacklisted and shunned from society. While most of the fervor of McCarthyism has died down, it is difficult to gauge current level of distrust in socialist and communist styles of government. There are certainly lingering pessimistic sentiments, and the title “communist” still carries negative, McCarthy-era connotations among many Americans. This uneducated mistrust of communism would certainly hinder socialist efforts in the U.S., and without new branding, a socialist revolution would meet fatal opposition from Americans of all classes.
One of the most crucial elements of a successful socialist revolution is a revolutionary group established prior to revolution. The size and popularity, while significant, do not limit a group in their revolutionary potential; it can however be crucial to the success of the post-revolutionary government. Lenin’s communists were a good example of a minority party carrying out an effective socialist revolution. After their revolutionary period however, the communists quickly lost track of their original goals; civil liberties, the foundation of a democratic society were systematically taken away, and the quality of life in communist Russia quickly deteriorated. The Leninists used governmental means to push communism on a people who had everything to gain from it, yet communism without the expressed consent of the people, another founding ideal of democracy, is bound to fail as it did in the USSR.
Marx and Engels understood this concept, perhaps not while they were writing the Manifesto, but they certainly did after their involvement in the German Revolutions of 1848. During the Revolutions, the German people managed to establish bourgeois democracy, the first step towards communist revolution. This quickly failed however as the German bourgeoisie quickly turned against their once allies, the working classes. Marx and Engels learned, in 1848 and 1849, that social change must come from the people and not be forced upon them by the government.
Transposing this lesson out of communist Russia and revolutionary Germany into present day America, it appears clear that a socialist revolution would be both unlikely and unsuccessful in the United States. While various communist and socialist parties exist in the U.S., they do not have the kind presence or support that Lenin’s communists did. This leaves the avenue of a social mass movement as the most likely method of inciting socialist revolution.
How likely is a citizen led socialist revolution in the United States? Using an individual level of analysis of the American people, we can explore this question. As mentioned previously, there is strong support for capitalist ideals. The mantra of, “The freer the economy, the freer the people,” has a nearly religious following. The perceived ideal American or, “self-made man,” is a nameless champion of capitalism. A perfect example would be President Herbert Hoover; an orphan at age nine, he worked to support himself through school and would go on to make millions in the mining industry. Buried deep within the American psyche is a promise of opportunity for all, an idea that any person despite their current background and class can become financially successful with hard work. This positive-sum ideology implies class mobility is possible.
The issue of class mobility in America is very difficult to explore in an objective fashion. It is very pertinent to the discussion of socialism as a socialist revolution depends on perceived class immobility. When discussing this subject, one must consider the lack of rigid social classes in American society. In Europe, where nations were originally formed around classes of nobility, there were heavy implications of class as a birthright and very tangible divisions between them. When the first Europeans arrived in America, they found a continent devoid of a self-proclaimed ruling class. This continues today; while clear differences exist between citizens of various incomes, there is no definitive American nobility. Seeing as a socialist revolution implies bringing an end to classes, it would be difficult to incite such a mass movement when the divisions of class are ill perceived and considered to be escapable.
While socialism is a means of enacting Marxist principles within capitalism, the animosity towards communism and communism’s perceived similarities to socialism are likely to spur opposition towards leftist social movements. To many U.S. citizens, mostly its detractors, socialism and communism are essentially interchangeable and communism interchangeable with Cold War Russia. Socialist revolutionaries would be required to overcome this daunting stigma.
The current obstacles facing potential socialist revolutions make such an event improbable although not impossible. Potential revolutionaries would be required to topple decades of anti-communist sentiment and motivate the American citizenry against capitalist democracy. The timing of the revolution is also crucial. Revolutionaries must act at a time of economic and social discord when leftist sentiment is strong and free-market capitalism is facing serious doubts. While it is certainly a time of economic strain, the poor representation of socialists in government as well as American culture and retained support for the right-wing politics indicate little possibility of a socialist revolution at this point in time.
Short Paper Assignment: Is a Socialist Revolution Possible in the U.S.
With the U.S. continuing to delve into economic recession, a prolonged and expensive war, and a vehement two-party division, many American citizens will begin looking to alternative approaches to government other than free-market democracy. One of these more popular alternatives will certainly be socialism. One of the necessary traits of socialism is the requirement that working classes free themselves from class dictatorship through aggressive and likely violent revolution. The possibility of a socialist revolution in America depends on a number of conditions including but not limited to a clear class distinction, animosity of lower classes towards upper classes, and a revolutionary force to focus and propel a socialist movement. Despite the existence of many of these conditions, the likelihood and success of a socialist uprising in the United States appear to be unrealistic.
The current political status of the United States is one of unquestionable turmoil. As the present recession began, US citizens began discussing the purposes of the government with questioning. The role of government during economic crises is one that is bound to spark heated debate. As the economy continues to see hardships, people begin to lose faith in Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” and they seek comfort in drastic government actions. An historical example would be that of the stock market crash of 1929 and its relation on the Herbert Hoover administration. As the market continued to decline and depression set in, the laissez-faire policies of Hoover and previous administrations quickly went out of style. Liberal Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 election embodied this phenomenon. Startling similarities appear when one observes the conditions of a Depression-era U.S. and our present situation. Unhappy with the relatively unregulated policies of the previous administration, voters have once again opted for a candidate supporting larger government and federal involvement on Wall St. Even Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, “Change,” hearkens back to Roosevelt’s “New Deal” promises.
This leftward shift in political preference as a whole would be favorable to a potential socialist revolution. The questions become how quantifiably real and how significant this shift will be on the future. It is impossible to gauge the ever-changing political leanings of a nation as a whole in an entirely objective fashion, but voting trends give a good indication. The margin in popular vote of the last election was the highest it has been since Reagan v. Mondale (1984) in favor of the liberal candidate, Barack Obama, yet republican candidate, John McCain, received more votes than any Democratic candidate apart from his opponent. These trends indicate two things: Americans are becoming increasingly active politically; there is still strong support behind the American right, the primary opponent of a potential socialist revolution in the United States. For the purposes of revolutionaries, the electoral process however is only good for roughly gauging the political leanings of the citizens, not for inciting the social and political change necessary for socialist revolution.
It is important to observe the history of socialism in the U.S. in order to understand its place and its potential today. An offshoot of democracy, Marx and Engel’s communism was built off observations of the democratic movements in the U.S. as well as Europe. In this way, socialism and American democracy hold many of the same values: equality, liberty, and fair representation. What varies between supporters of socialism and capitalist democracy are what they believe are the most significant threats to these values. Socialists view class distinctions and oppression by way of capitol to be the most significant threat to equality. American democracy however is based on the casting off of a tyrannous, unrepresentative government. Due to this, there is an inherent fear of governmental control in the collective memory of American citizens. This fear became increasingly evident as socialism and communism rose in popularity in Europe during the 20th century.
It’s important to observe the animosity a number of Americans have towards communism, as it would prove detrimental in movements towards the closely associated socialism. Anti-socialist sentiment has been harbored in America as early as WWI when propaganda posters were created to incite distrust in the Bolsheviks. It reached its peak during the McCarthy “witch hunts” of the 1950’s. During that time, hundreds of supposed communists and communist sympathizers were blacklisted and shunned from society. While most of the fervor of McCarthyism has died down, it is difficult to gauge current level of distrust in socialist and communist styles of government. There are certainly lingering pessimistic sentiments, and the title “communist” still carries negative, McCarthy-era connotations among many Americans. This uneducated mistrust of communism would certainly hinder socialist efforts in the U.S., and without new branding, a socialist revolution would meet fatal opposition from Americans of all classes.
One of the most crucial elements of a successful socialist revolution is a revolutionary group established prior to revolution. The size and popularity, while significant, do not limit a group in their revolutionary potential; it can however be crucial to the success of the post-revolutionary government. Lenin’s communists were a good example of a minority party carrying out an effective socialist revolution. After their revolutionary period however, the communists quickly lost track of their original goals; civil liberties, the foundation of a democratic society were systematically taken away, and the quality of life in communist Russia quickly deteriorated. The Leninists used governmental means to push communism on a people who had everything to gain from it, yet communism without the expressed consent of the people, another founding ideal of democracy, is bound to fail as it did in the USSR.
Marx and Engels understood this concept, perhaps not while they were writing the Manifesto, but they certainly did after their involvement in the German Revolutions of 1848. During the Revolutions, the German people managed to establish bourgeois democracy, the first step towards communist revolution. This quickly failed however as the German bourgeoisie quickly turned against their once allies, the working classes. Marx and Engels learned, in 1848 and 1849, that social change must come from the people and not be forced upon them by the government.
Transposing this lesson out of communist Russia and revolutionary Germany into present day America, it appears clear that a socialist revolution would be both unlikely and unsuccessful in the United States. While various communist and socialist parties exist in the U.S., they do not have the kind presence or support that Lenin’s communists did. This leaves the avenue of a social mass movement as the most likely method of inciting socialist revolution.
How likely is a citizen led socialist revolution in the United States? Using an individual level of analysis of the American people, we can explore this question. As mentioned previously, there is strong support for capitalist ideals. The mantra of, “The freer the economy, the freer the people,” has a nearly religious following. The perceived ideal American or, “self-made man,” is a nameless champion of capitalism. A perfect example would be President Herbert Hoover; an orphan at age nine, he worked to support himself through school and would go on to make millions in the mining industry. Buried deep within the American psyche is a promise of opportunity for all, an idea that any person despite their current background and class can become financially successful with hard work. This positive-sum ideology implies class mobility is possible.
The issue of class mobility in America is very difficult to explore in an objective fashion. It is very pertinent to the discussion of socialism as a socialist revolution depends on perceived class immobility. When discussing this subject, one must consider the lack of rigid social classes in American society. In Europe, where nations were originally formed around classes of nobility, there were heavy implications of class as a birthright and very tangible divisions between them. When the first Europeans arrived in America, they found a continent devoid of a self-proclaimed ruling class. This continues today; while clear differences exist between citizens of various incomes, there is no definitive American nobility. Seeing as a socialist revolution implies bringing an end to classes, it would be difficult to incite such a mass movement when the divisions of class are ill perceived and considered to be escapable.
While socialism is a means of enacting Marxist principles within capitalism, the animosity towards communism and communism’s perceived similarities to socialism are likely to spur opposition towards leftist social movements. To many U.S. citizens, mostly its detractors, socialism and communism are essentially interchangeable and communism interchangeable with Cold War Russia. Socialist revolutionaries would be required to overcome this daunting stigma.
The current obstacles facing potential socialist revolutions make such an event improbable although not impossible. Potential revolutionaries would be required to topple decades of anti-communist sentiment and motivate the American citizenry against capitalist democracy. The timing of the revolution is also crucial. Revolutionaries must act at a time of economic and social discord when leftist sentiment is strong and free-market capitalism is facing serious doubts. While it is certainly a time of economic strain, the poor representation of socialists in government as well as American culture and retained support for the right-wing politics indicate little possibility of a socialist revolution at this point in time.

To many U.S. citizens, mostly its detractors, socialism and communism are essentially interchangeable and communism interchangeable with Cold War Russia. Socialist revolutionaries would be required to overcome this daunting stigma.

D.o.S. wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:I wrote a paper a few years ago on parts of what dubkitty is saying(well generally the idea of a Marxist revolution not being possible in the U.S.) It's kinda long though so that's why it's in nsfw brackets

NSFW: show

Short Paper Assignment: Is a Socialist Revolution Possible in the U.S.
With the U.S. continuing to delve into economic recession, a prolonged and expensive war, and a vehement two-party division, many American citizens will begin looking to alternative approaches to government other than free-market democracy. One of these more popular alternatives will certainly be socialism. One of the necessary traits of socialism is the requirement that working classes free themselves from class dictatorship through aggressive and likely violent revolution. The possibility of a socialist revolution in America depends on a number of conditions including but not limited to a clear class distinction, animosity of lower classes towards upper classes, and a revolutionary force to focus and propel a socialist movement. Despite the existence of many of these conditions, the likelihood and success of a socialist uprising in the United States appear to be unrealistic.
The current political status of the United States is one of unquestionable turmoil. As the present recession began, US citizens began discussing the purposes of the government with questioning. The role of government during economic crises is one that is bound to spark heated debate. As the economy continues to see hardships, people begin to lose faith in Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” and they seek comfort in drastic government actions. An historical example would be that of the stock market crash of 1929 and its relation on the Herbert Hoover administration. As the market continued to decline and depression set in, the laissez-faire policies of Hoover and previous administrations quickly went out of style. Liberal Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 election embodied this phenomenon. Startling similarities appear when one observes the conditions of a Depression-era U.S. and our present situation. Unhappy with the relatively unregulated policies of the previous administration, voters have once again opted for a candidate supporting larger government and federal involvement on Wall St. Even Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, “Change,” hearkens back to Roosevelt’s “New Deal” promises.
This leftward shift in political preference as a whole would be favorable to a potential socialist revolution. The questions become how quantifiably real and how significant this shift will be on the future. It is impossible to gauge the ever-changing political leanings of a nation as a whole in an entirely objective fashion, but voting trends give a good indication. The margin in popular vote of the last election was the highest it has been since Reagan v. Mondale (1984) in favor of the liberal candidate, Barack Obama, yet republican candidate, John McCain, received more votes than any Democratic candidate apart from his opponent. These trends indicate two things: Americans are becoming increasingly active politically; there is still strong support behind the American right, the primary opponent of a potential socialist revolution in the United States. For the purposes of revolutionaries, the electoral process however is only good for roughly gauging the political leanings of the citizens, not for inciting the social and political change necessary for socialist revolution.
It is important to observe the history of socialism in the U.S. in order to understand its place and its potential today. An offshoot of democracy, Marx and Engel’s communism was built off observations of the democratic movements in the U.S. as well as Europe. In this way, socialism and American democracy hold many of the same values: equality, liberty, and fair representation. What varies between supporters of socialism and capitalist democracy are what they believe are the most significant threats to these values. Socialists view class distinctions and oppression by way of capitol to be the most significant threat to equality. American democracy however is based on the casting off of a tyrannous, unrepresentative government. Due to this, there is an inherent fear of governmental control in the collective memory of American citizens. This fear became increasingly evident as socialism and communism rose in popularity in Europe during the 20th century.
It’s important to observe the animosity a number of Americans have towards communism, as it would prove detrimental in movements towards the closely associated socialism. Anti-socialist sentiment has been harbored in America as early as WWI when propaganda posters were created to incite distrust in the Bolsheviks. It reached its peak during the McCarthy “witch hunts” of the 1950’s. During that time, hundreds of supposed communists and communist sympathizers were blacklisted and shunned from society. While most of the fervor of McCarthyism has died down, it is difficult to gauge current level of distrust in socialist and communist styles of government. There are certainly lingering pessimistic sentiments, and the title “communist” still carries negative, McCarthy-era connotations among many Americans. This uneducated mistrust of communism would certainly hinder socialist efforts in the U.S., and without new branding, a socialist revolution would meet fatal opposition from Americans of all classes.
One of the most crucial elements of a successful socialist revolution is a revolutionary group established prior to revolution. The size and popularity, while significant, do not limit a group in their revolutionary potential; it can however be crucial to the success of the post-revolutionary government. Lenin’s communists were a good example of a minority party carrying out an effective socialist revolution. After their revolutionary period however, the communists quickly lost track of their original goals; civil liberties, the foundation of a democratic society were systematically taken away, and the quality of life in communist Russia quickly deteriorated. The Leninists used governmental means to push communism on a people who had everything to gain from it, yet communism without the expressed consent of the people, another founding ideal of democracy, is bound to fail as it did in the USSR.
Marx and Engels understood this concept, perhaps not while they were writing the Manifesto, but they certainly did after their involvement in the German Revolutions of 1848. During the Revolutions, the German people managed to establish bourgeois democracy, the first step towards communist revolution. This quickly failed however as the German bourgeoisie quickly turned against their once allies, the working classes. Marx and Engels learned, in 1848 and 1849, that social change must come from the people and not be forced upon them by the government.
Transposing this lesson out of communist Russia and revolutionary Germany into present day America, it appears clear that a socialist revolution would be both unlikely and unsuccessful in the United States. While various communist and socialist parties exist in the U.S., they do not have the kind presence or support that Lenin’s communists did. This leaves the avenue of a social mass movement as the most likely method of inciting socialist revolution.
How likely is a citizen led socialist revolution in the United States? Using an individual level of analysis of the American people, we can explore this question. As mentioned previously, there is strong support for capitalist ideals. The mantra of, “The freer the economy, the freer the people,” has a nearly religious following. The perceived ideal American or, “self-made man,” is a nameless champion of capitalism. A perfect example would be President Herbert Hoover; an orphan at age nine, he worked to support himself through school and would go on to make millions in the mining industry. Buried deep within the American psyche is a promise of opportunity for all, an idea that any person despite their current background and class can become financially successful with hard work. This positive-sum ideology implies class mobility is possible.
The issue of class mobility in America is very difficult to explore in an objective fashion. It is very pertinent to the discussion of socialism as a socialist revolution depends on perceived class immobility. When discussing this subject, one must consider the lack of rigid social classes in American society. In Europe, where nations were originally formed around classes of nobility, there were heavy implications of class as a birthright and very tangible divisions between them. When the first Europeans arrived in America, they found a continent devoid of a self-proclaimed ruling class. This continues today; while clear differences exist between citizens of various incomes, there is no definitive American nobility. Seeing as a socialist revolution implies bringing an end to classes, it would be difficult to incite such a mass movement when the divisions of class are ill perceived and considered to be escapable.
While socialism is a means of enacting Marxist principles within capitalism, the animosity towards communism and communism’s perceived similarities to socialism are likely to spur opposition towards leftist social movements. To many U.S. citizens, mostly its detractors, socialism and communism are essentially interchangeable and communism interchangeable with Cold War Russia. Socialist revolutionaries would be required to overcome this daunting stigma.
The current obstacles facing potential socialist revolutions make such an event improbable although not impossible. Potential revolutionaries would be required to topple decades of anti-communist sentiment and motivate the American citizenry against capitalist democracy. The timing of the revolution is also crucial. Revolutionaries must act at a time of economic and social discord when leftist sentiment is strong and free-market capitalism is facing serious doubts. While it is certainly a time of economic strain, the poor representation of socialists in government as well as American culture and retained support for the right-wing politics indicate little possibility of a socialist revolution at this point in time.
Short Paper Assignment: Is a Socialist Revolution Possible in the U.S.
With the U.S. continuing to delve into economic recession, a prolonged and expensive war, and a vehement two-party division, many American citizens will begin looking to alternative approaches to government other than free-market democracy. One of these more popular alternatives will certainly be socialism. One of the necessary traits of socialism is the requirement that working classes free themselves from class dictatorship through aggressive and likely violent revolution. The possibility of a socialist revolution in America depends on a number of conditions including but not limited to a clear class distinction, animosity of lower classes towards upper classes, and a revolutionary force to focus and propel a socialist movement. Despite the existence of many of these conditions, the likelihood and success of a socialist uprising in the United States appear to be unrealistic.
The current political status of the United States is one of unquestionable turmoil. As the present recession began, US citizens began discussing the purposes of the government with questioning. The role of government during economic crises is one that is bound to spark heated debate. As the economy continues to see hardships, people begin to lose faith in Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” and they seek comfort in drastic government actions. An historical example would be that of the stock market crash of 1929 and its relation on the Herbert Hoover administration. As the market continued to decline and depression set in, the laissez-faire policies of Hoover and previous administrations quickly went out of style. Liberal Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 election embodied this phenomenon. Startling similarities appear when one observes the conditions of a Depression-era U.S. and our present situation. Unhappy with the relatively unregulated policies of the previous administration, voters have once again opted for a candidate supporting larger government and federal involvement on Wall St. Even Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, “Change,” hearkens back to Roosevelt’s “New Deal” promises.
This leftward shift in political preference as a whole would be favorable to a potential socialist revolution. The questions become how quantifiably real and how significant this shift will be on the future. It is impossible to gauge the ever-changing political leanings of a nation as a whole in an entirely objective fashion, but voting trends give a good indication. The margin in popular vote of the last election was the highest it has been since Reagan v. Mondale (1984) in favor of the liberal candidate, Barack Obama, yet republican candidate, John McCain, received more votes than any Democratic candidate apart from his opponent. These trends indicate two things: Americans are becoming increasingly active politically; there is still strong support behind the American right, the primary opponent of a potential socialist revolution in the United States. For the purposes of revolutionaries, the electoral process however is only good for roughly gauging the political leanings of the citizens, not for inciting the social and political change necessary for socialist revolution.
It is important to observe the history of socialism in the U.S. in order to understand its place and its potential today. An offshoot of democracy, Marx and Engel’s communism was built off observations of the democratic movements in the U.S. as well as Europe. In this way, socialism and American democracy hold many of the same values: equality, liberty, and fair representation. What varies between supporters of socialism and capitalist democracy are what they believe are the most significant threats to these values. Socialists view class distinctions and oppression by way of capitol to be the most significant threat to equality. American democracy however is based on the casting off of a tyrannous, unrepresentative government. Due to this, there is an inherent fear of governmental control in the collective memory of American citizens. This fear became increasingly evident as socialism and communism rose in popularity in Europe during the 20th century.
It’s important to observe the animosity a number of Americans have towards communism, as it would prove detrimental in movements towards the closely associated socialism. Anti-socialist sentiment has been harbored in America as early as WWI when propaganda posters were created to incite distrust in the Bolsheviks. It reached its peak during the McCarthy “witch hunts” of the 1950’s. During that time, hundreds of supposed communists and communist sympathizers were blacklisted and shunned from society. While most of the fervor of McCarthyism has died down, it is difficult to gauge current level of distrust in socialist and communist styles of government. There are certainly lingering pessimistic sentiments, and the title “communist” still carries negative, McCarthy-era connotations among many Americans. This uneducated mistrust of communism would certainly hinder socialist efforts in the U.S., and without new branding, a socialist revolution would meet fatal opposition from Americans of all classes.
One of the most crucial elements of a successful socialist revolution is a revolutionary group established prior to revolution. The size and popularity, while significant, do not limit a group in their revolutionary potential; it can however be crucial to the success of the post-revolutionary government. Lenin’s communists were a good example of a minority party carrying out an effective socialist revolution. After their revolutionary period however, the communists quickly lost track of their original goals; civil liberties, the foundation of a democratic society were systematically taken away, and the quality of life in communist Russia quickly deteriorated. The Leninists used governmental means to push communism on a people who had everything to gain from it, yet communism without the expressed consent of the people, another founding ideal of democracy, is bound to fail as it did in the USSR.
Marx and Engels understood this concept, perhaps not while they were writing the Manifesto, but they certainly did after their involvement in the German Revolutions of 1848. During the Revolutions, the German people managed to establish bourgeois democracy, the first step towards communist revolution. This quickly failed however as the German bourgeoisie quickly turned against their once allies, the working classes. Marx and Engels learned, in 1848 and 1849, that social change must come from the people and not be forced upon them by the government.
Transposing this lesson out of communist Russia and revolutionary Germany into present day America, it appears clear that a socialist revolution would be both unlikely and unsuccessful in the United States. While various communist and socialist parties exist in the U.S., they do not have the kind presence or support that Lenin’s communists did. This leaves the avenue of a social mass movement as the most likely method of inciting socialist revolution.
How likely is a citizen led socialist revolution in the United States? Using an individual level of analysis of the American people, we can explore this question. As mentioned previously, there is strong support for capitalist ideals. The mantra of, “The freer the economy, the freer the people,” has a nearly religious following. The perceived ideal American or, “self-made man,” is a nameless champion of capitalism. A perfect example would be President Herbert Hoover; an orphan at age nine, he worked to support himself through school and would go on to make millions in the mining industry. Buried deep within the American psyche is a promise of opportunity for all, an idea that any person despite their current background and class can become financially successful with hard work. This positive-sum ideology implies class mobility is possible.
The issue of class mobility in America is very difficult to explore in an objective fashion. It is very pertinent to the discussion of socialism as a socialist revolution depends on perceived class immobility. When discussing this subject, one must consider the lack of rigid social classes in American society. In Europe, where nations were originally formed around classes of nobility, there were heavy implications of class as a birthright and very tangible divisions between them. When the first Europeans arrived in America, they found a continent devoid of a self-proclaimed ruling class. This continues today; while clear differences exist between citizens of various incomes, there is no definitive American nobility. Seeing as a socialist revolution implies bringing an end to classes, it would be difficult to incite such a mass movement when the divisions of class are ill perceived and considered to be escapable.
While socialism is a means of enacting Marxist principles within capitalism, the animosity towards communism and communism’s perceived similarities to socialism are likely to spur opposition towards leftist social movements. To many U.S. citizens, mostly its detractors, socialism and communism are essentially interchangeable and communism interchangeable with Cold War Russia. Socialist revolutionaries would be required to overcome this daunting stigma.
The current obstacles facing potential socialist revolutions make such an event improbable although not impossible. Potential revolutionaries would be required to topple decades of anti-communist sentiment and motivate the American citizenry against capitalist democracy. The timing of the revolution is also crucial. Revolutionaries must act at a time of economic and social discord when leftist sentiment is strong and free-market capitalism is facing serious doubts. While it is certainly a time of economic strain, the poor representation of socialists in government as well as American culture and retained support for the right-wing politics indicate little possibility of a socialist revolution at this point in time.

Marxism=/=Socialism. Socialism never advocated or advanced the idea of "revolution," which is why there was such a huge falling out between them and the anarchists. The Anarchists thought they were pussies, and the socialists thought the anarchists were stupid.

I'd also argue against the idea that there aren't rigid social classes in America, they're just more stratified by wealth instead of birthright.

This, however, hits the nail square on the fucking head:

To many U.S. citizens, mostly its detractors, socialism and communism are essentially interchangeable and communism interchangeable with Cold War Russia. Socialist revolutionaries would be required to overcome this daunting stigma.

McSpunckle wrote:Do you have a link? I'm coming up empty on news sites and Google.

I mean, if he hasn't signed it yet he was going to sign it... I just like to hold out hope.

Once again, Obama is not a liberal and now we have to deal with deal with the repercussions of liberal voters not doing their homework. >.>

McSpunckle wrote:Do you have a link? I'm coming up empty on news sites and Google.

I mean, if he hasn't signed it yet he was going to sign it... I just like to hold out hope.

Once again, Obama is not a liberal and now we have to deal with deal with the repercussions of liberal voters not doing their homework. >.>

D.o.S. wrote:

McSpunckle wrote:Do you have a link? I'm coming up empty on news sites and Google.

I mean, if he hasn't signed it yet he was going to sign it... I just like to hold out hope.

Once again, Obama is not a liberal and now we have to deal with deal with the repercussions of liberal voters not doing their homework. >.>

Not doing their homework is probably the wrong analogy--given the options on election day, one choice was clearly less sucky than the other.

Which is why I'm still mystified why McCain/Palin didn't win.