Skip to main content

Why is there no Socialism in the United States?

             The article concerns the political nature of not having a party that represents the values and beliefs of the workers, and that the Democratic and Republican parties only seek to serve the established capitalists and to pander their beliefs to emulate those of the common good. In trying to analyze and interpret why there is no socialism in America, is to look at various momentums in history that have tried to bring the issue to the forefront, and the reaction of the public and government. To be socialistic and have socialism is to have policies and a way of government that is equal in the treatment of the individuals, in public goods and power. However, the article notes that this type of turnover has met opposition throughout our history, and hints that politicizing the argument and struggle of the working class, through the formation of a party, is the key to get close to the goal.
As mentioned in the introduction, the United States does not have a party for the working class, even though they constitute a large percentage of the U.S. population, they are not being represented in interests that will most benefit them. Race, has been the tool used to suppress this class-consciousness in Americans, and fueled policies of segregation and hatred between the poor African American community and the poor whites, even though they were/are in the same class bubble. The article suggests that if the workers want the opportunity to have a say in politics and its’ policies, they must organize and unionize, which eventually led to the creation of unions that had some political appeal; like the AFL and the IWW.  It would not be long until parties, with the foundation of unions, started developing, such as the Socialist Democratic Party and the Communist Party. However, it was still prone to the struggles that originate within, through issues like control and power. The Socialist Democratic Party emerged and became a force by Eugene Debs, to try to liberate the working class from the tyrannical rule from the elite and capitalists, but it did not last long.
            During the New Deal and FDR’s reign as president, there emerged another socialist party that tried to emulate, but be as influential as the two-party system, and that was the Communist Party. From them, there seem to be trouble in gaining a reputation that wasn’t tied to violence or anti-American appeals, as we saw with the HUAC investigations and the persecution by Joseph McCarthy, by labeling them as anarchists and bad for America.
            It seems that to have socialism in America is to balance the goals of workers and to play along with the political system, to a degree, without forgetting ones’ intentions of the party. Raising consciousness of the inequality of the workers to the capitalists is a way to bring forth a revolution—whether that be politically, socially, or economically—that can lead to the creation of equality among Americans. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Re-Post "Marriage Equality, Immigration, and … Fraud?"

This article comes from Concurring Opinions  (a group blog on legal topics), posted by Kerry Abrams. Very interesting article/post concerning DOMA's invalidation of Section 3, and what it means for binational same-sex couples when it comes to their marriage and immigration. Marriage Equality, Immigration, and … Fraud? posted by Kerry Abrams The demise of DOMA may mean that same-sex married couples are now entitled to the same marriage-based immigration benefits as anyone else. But marriage equality also entails equal burdens. As I argued in Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage, 91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 (2007), immigration law holds marriages involving immigrants to a higher standard than the law ordinarily demands, and this will now be true for same-sex couples. Under state family law, married people are not required to live together. They don’t have to open joint bank accounts, jointly own property, take extensive vacation photos, document which guests attended

[Video] Speech of Aristophanes (the Creation Myth) from Plato's _Symposium_

From Plato,  Symposium  (180e-192e): (translation may vary from the video)   The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost, and the word "Androgynous" is only preserved as a term of reproach. In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast.  Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them