Your points are intriguing (sorry for generalising my feedback) and reasonable in terms of the possibilities offered. The question of resource seems to be more akin to corruption than economic approach IMO. Perhaps its true that certain economic systems are more tolerant, permissive, even inviting of corruption, than others. (I really don't know the answer to that) But we know for a fact that corruption can exist in any economic model, I happen to live a few hundred km from the border with Venezuela, and things are not well there, which I see with both eyes having witnessed personally just a small portion of the mass exodus from Venezuela to surrounding countries, and the associated suffering. I happen to believe though that the USA is every bit as corrupt, they just do a better job of hiding it, and managing around it, and letting certain classes play the game.
Socialism is an interesting game from the point of view of the USA. Am I correct in surmising that the closest we've come on a national level is in electing players like "Bernie" and "AOC" and such? Or am I completely off base?
Venezuela is not, as much noise as their politicians like to talk, strictly socialist in either a Marxist-Leninist or even really Marxist sense. It is much closer to what a social democratic state would look like if it didn't have the benefits of global trade and support from the imperial core.
Even at the height of Bolivarian socialism, the state only controlled 40% of the means of production, I believe it is closer to 33% these days. At no point in time did Venezuela ever participate in land-redistribution, nor take over most of the major industries. What Venezuela did do, is after overthrowing their American backed coup government is create an actually well-organized and popular electoral process that of whom the politicians that come out of it are extremely anti-American (for obvious reasons), and then bank their social welfare state on oil revenues. The problem is that banking on oil revenues without a global power size military OR direct support of the U.S. government is a bad idea, because the U.S. has control over the petrol-dollar and can very effectively make your economy scream. Not only has the U.S. illegally seized Venezuela's gold and foreign currency reserves, but they have also effectively sanctioned them in such a way that completely reduces their ability to produce oil, through not only sanctions on parts for refinery machinery, but also from buying the lighter oil that is used to 'cut' Venezuelan oil for refinement. As well, basing your entire social welfare scheme on a consumer market product is generally speaking a bad idea, because the more you produce, the further the price can drop due to lack of demand. It works well if you are a part of an oil cartel, but if you are an independent producer it is easy to be pushed out of the market place.
The current crisis in Venezuela that is occurring now is happening because of those factors alongside the fact that Venezuela has been privatizing. opening up to the U.S. and foreign investment, and cutting down on these social welfare programs in an attempt to consolidate finances and keep the state and military apparatus afloat. In essence, neoliberal austerity for nationalist reasons. Imo, it's a rational response to crisis, but also very short-sighted, in the same way that backing their social welfare state on oil revenues was. They have not effectively mobilized the masses in a way that re-makes the relations of society, only in a way that creates a democratic electoral process, which economic capitalist imperium could give less than two shits about.
The 'closest' that the U.S. ever came to socialism electorally was when Eugene Debs ran for president in 1912 and achieved 6% of the popular vote. Not only was Debs an integral member in the American Rail Union and helped organize workers in the aftermath of the Pullman Strike, but he also served multiple jail sentences for speaking out against both the government and the war effort in WWI, during one (1916) of which he still ran for president and received 3.4% of the vote, the highest ever achieved by a presidential candidate in jail. As for American communism, the heights of American communism was during the 1930's, but all of their party gains were not only stymied by fallout around the Molotov-Ribbentov pact and support of WWII, but also by the Red Scare, which effectively kicked communists off of the boards of all major American unions, even unions that they themselves were fundamental in creating. Without access to real power, American communism backslid into academic in-fighting and aesthetic sign-waving, with notable exceptions being organizations such as the Black Panthers. However, any time any communist organization achieved even a whiff of coherency prior to the 90's, it would be either broken up by the feds, killed or arrested, particularly if it was led by people of color.
These days, it's a bit different. The feds have a difficult time even recognizing communism or communist leanings, as they are not specifically trained in it, and all politicians around communism and socialism are anti-imperialist social democrats at best. Even AOC and Bernie are not strictly speaking anti-imperialist, and neither have actually done things to help with union drives or support labor causes, instead placing all of their money and expertise into the electoral basket. During the NY Amazon unionization push, AOC only showed up after the vote was already won and just took a couple of photos and then left, having spent more time schmoozing with the likely pedophiles at the Met. At least Bernie has been arrested a couple of times.
They are closer in the sense that a burning candle is closer to being a star than a puddle of spit is to being a star. A candle is nonetheless much closer to the puddle of spit and they are much closer to Republicans than Communists if you look at anything other than what they have said.
Some of the mass-organizing tactics from the Bernie campaign were pretty interesting, but in general neither of them are remotely close and have largely served to muddle the definition of socialism. The closest similarity they have is in their rhetoric, as virtually all of the policy that they talk a big game about has been smothered in the crib by their fellow legislators.
Your points are intriguing (sorry for generalising my feedback) and reasonable in terms of the possibilities offered. The question of resource seems to be more akin to corruption than economic approach IMO. Perhaps its true that certain economic systems are more tolerant, permissive, even inviting of corruption, than others. (I really don't know the answer to that) But we know for a fact that corruption can exist in any economic model, I happen to live a few hundred km from the border with Venezuela, and things are not well there, which I see with both eyes having witnessed personally just a small portion of the mass exodus from Venezuela to surrounding countries, and the associated suffering. I happen to believe though that the USA is every bit as corrupt, they just do a better job of hiding it, and managing around it, and letting certain classes play the game.
Socialism is an interesting game from the point of view of the USA. Am I correct in surmising that the closest we've come on a national level is in electing players like "Bernie" and "AOC" and such? Or am I completely off base?
Venezuela is not, as much noise as their politicians like to talk, strictly socialist in either a Marxist-Leninist or even really Marxist sense. It is much closer to what a social democratic state would look like if it didn't have the benefits of global trade and support from the imperial core.
Even at the height of Bolivarian socialism, the state only controlled 40% of the means of production, I believe it is closer to 33% these days. At no point in time did Venezuela ever participate in land-redistribution, nor take over most of the major industries. What Venezuela did do, is after overthrowing their American backed coup government is create an actually well-organized and popular electoral process that of whom the politicians that come out of it are extremely anti-American (for obvious reasons), and then bank their social welfare state on oil revenues. The problem is that banking on oil revenues without a global power size military OR direct support of the U.S. government is a bad idea, because the U.S. has control over the petrol-dollar and can very effectively make your economy scream. Not only has the U.S. illegally seized Venezuela's gold and foreign currency reserves, but they have also effectively sanctioned them in such a way that completely reduces their ability to produce oil, through not only sanctions on parts for refinery machinery, but also from buying the lighter oil that is used to 'cut' Venezuelan oil for refinement. As well, basing your entire social welfare scheme on a consumer market product is generally speaking a bad idea, because the more you produce, the further the price can drop due to lack of demand. It works well if you are a part of an oil cartel, but if you are an independent producer it is easy to be pushed out of the market place.
The current crisis in Venezuela that is occurring now is happening because of those factors alongside the fact that Venezuela has been privatizing. opening up to the U.S. and foreign investment, and cutting down on these social welfare programs in an attempt to consolidate finances and keep the state and military apparatus afloat. In essence, neoliberal austerity for nationalist reasons. Imo, it's a rational response to crisis, but also very short-sighted, in the same way that backing their social welfare state on oil revenues was. They have not effectively mobilized the masses in a way that re-makes the relations of society, only in a way that creates a democratic electoral process, which economic capitalist imperium could give less than two shits about.
The 'closest' that the U.S. ever came to socialism electorally was when Eugene Debs ran for president in 1912 and achieved 6% of the popular vote. Not only was Debs an integral member in the American Rail Union and helped organize workers in the aftermath of the Pullman Strike, but he also served multiple jail sentences for speaking out against both the government and the war effort in WWI, during one (1916) of which he still ran for president and received 3.4% of the vote, the highest ever achieved by a presidential candidate in jail. As for American communism, the heights of American communism was during the 1930's, but all of their party gains were not only stymied by fallout around the Molotov-Ribbentov pact and support of WWII, but also by the Red Scare, which effectively kicked communists off of the boards of all major American unions, even unions that they themselves were fundamental in creating. Without access to real power, American communism backslid into academic in-fighting and aesthetic sign-waving, with notable exceptions being organizations such as the Black Panthers. However, any time any communist organization achieved even a whiff of coherency prior to the 90's, it would be either broken up by the feds, killed or arrested, particularly if it was led by people of color.
These days, it's a bit different. The feds have a difficult time even recognizing communism or communist leanings, as they are not specifically trained in it, and all politicians around communism and socialism are anti-imperialist social democrats at best. Even AOC and Bernie are not strictly speaking anti-imperialist, and neither have actually done things to help with union drives or support labor causes, instead placing all of their money and expertise into the electoral basket. During the NY Amazon unionization push, AOC only showed up after the vote was already won and just took a couple of photos and then left, having spent more time schmoozing with the likely pedophiles at the Met. At least Bernie has been arrested a couple of times.
That's sad. Really. I would have expected more.
They are closer in the sense that a burning candle is closer to being a star than a puddle of spit is to being a star. A candle is nonetheless much closer to the puddle of spit and they are much closer to Republicans than Communists if you look at anything other than what they have said.
Some of the mass-organizing tactics from the Bernie campaign were pretty interesting, but in general neither of them are remotely close and have largely served to muddle the definition of socialism. The closest similarity they have is in their rhetoric, as virtually all of the policy that they talk a big game about has been smothered in the crib by their fellow legislators.