Socialism and U.S. exceptionalism

PAUL D'AMATO raises a number of the proper issues and questions in "Is socialism possible in the U.S.?" but I'd like to add to it, based on some of my own experience living and organizing in a largely distressed blue-collar reality.

I think we need a deeper look at what I'd call the "conflicted consciousness" of many workers, which is shaped by a combination of values, identity and interest, all three of which can be at odds with each other.

"Identity" is a big problem I face. Too many workers are trapped into the notion of thinking that they are "white," an invented social construct with no real basis in biology. It is designed to make them think they have more in common with their "betters" at the top than those working next to them. Then that identity gets reinforced via all sorts of social and economic advantages, both major and minor. Deconstructing this identity can be done, and interest and values can be an ally. But it takes persistence.

Another problem is the ideology of cynicism, wherein a worker believes he or she has no power, that it's held but the rich, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Only the part about the rich is true, but people cling to it anyway.

You have to note that the current generation of young workers have little or no experience of union drives; in fact, 88 percent have no unions, and many of them lack the core value of solidarity needed to fight for them. Many young workers have never even held a regular job of any sort, and survive in the "underground economy" trading in drugs and women.

The U.S is exceptional in many ways--no need to deny it. Most important is the "peculiar institution" of slavery and its ongoing legacy. Another is our reactionary election laws, the worst in the industrialized world. Most progressive features were taken away from us in the 1910-1920 era, leaving us with a two-party system which is not even made up of two real parties in the European sense, but contending clusters of contending factions, with no programs save maintaining the existing order in varying ways.

The Communist Party (CP) ran its own candidates all through the 1930s. I have a copy of William Z. Foster's book Toward a Soviet America, put out as campaign literature. I suppose we could try to write an alternate history wherein the CP aimed its main blow at FDR, but I'm not convinced that even if they had done so, that we would now be closer to socialist or a major socialist party. In fact, we might be in worse shape.

I'll let the historians fight that one out. Meanwhile, we all need to work on two tasks simultaneously--uniting a progressive majority and uniting a militant minority, and developing an appropriate platform for each that works in our time. I'm deeply convinced that a 21st century socialism is both possible and radically necessary, but we'll need to break some old dogmas and do some fresh thinking to get it.
Carl Davidson, Aliquippa, Pa.