I went to shitty public schools and spend all my time reading about communism instead of US government. Anyway I got to thinking about how some liberals say communism isn’t possible in the US, but is democratic socialism even possible? Would a president like Bernie Sanders actually have the power to implement any progressive policies or would they just get blocked? It feels like no part of US government has any legitimacy any more other than the military because it makes the oligarchs money. So I find it hard to believe an old guy could just completely change our economy when trump wasn’t even able to build a wall.
The US has blocked social democrats from positions of power multiple times, not the least of which was the democratic national convention blocking sanders (an imperialist socdem in 2016), and henry wallace (an anti-imperialist socdem) in the 1930s. Both of these candidates were the most popular of the bunch, but the DNC is a private organization and can hand pick who it wants.
And you’re right, even if a socdem was elected, they can’t do anything: the US is a bourgeois democracy ( ie a capitalist dictatorship ), and capital controls and stands above the political system.
Right…liberals always point to FDR as the guy who was able to pass progressive policies, but he was kind of at the mercy of a strong working class and it was during a time when the US government had some power over capital. I guess that’s why all the main issues in the US are cultural and rarely affect us economically.
FDR’s policy were tolerated as a foil to the USSR where workers were vastly more appreciated and people in the rest of the world were waking to the fact that it’s possible for the government to prioritise the working class.
And he was nearly couped for even such mild socdem program.
The one who actually was able of implementing progressive reforms, huey long, was murdered by his political enemies. Even FDR was almost killed in a assasination attempt. Fucking JFK got his brains splattered because he wanted to cut CIA/FBI power. If you have power on the US and you try to use it even if just a little against the sistem, you get cutted out by the sistem.
Democratic socialism isn’t possible not only in US, but anywhere. At least as long as USA power exists. But even regardless US even the best demsocs who actually have power never really try to implement socialism.
The thing about democratic socialism is that it’s trying to implement socialism while following rules written by the bourgeoisie. In any country where the laws favour those with capital – for example, if a ruling party can’t legally nationalize resources or appropriate companies’ private property – I don’t see how socialism could possibly be implemented within the framework of bourgeois “democracy”.
It’s as possible in the US as it is anywhere else in the world, which is to say it is impossible.
There are numerous examples of failed attempts to achieve socialism via legal means, and all have fallen victim to either internal sabotage or if that is avoided then via violent overthrow by their military. Salvador Allende’s attempt to establish socialism via the ballot box is a particularly illustrative example of this, but no less important is the lesson learnt when the British labour party attempted to nationalise the energy sector during Harold Wilson’s time as PM, only to have it scuppered via manoeuvres from the civil service.
Both of these examples highlight the reality that the ruling class will not surrender their preeminent position in society quietly under any circumstances. When it comes to politics and power you cannot plead or bargain with the dominant class because you can’t negotiate with structural features of a class system as you can with an individual or even a group of individuals. Even if you do convince this or that bourgeois group, other interests will always oppose you in the end because they stand to lose everything if you have your way. The position, wealth, stature and power of these people depends entirely on our weal and woe. Our gain is necessarily their loss and vice versa.
