so, i've been watching this paul jay special on the undoing of the new deal. and, they make sure to point out that the new deal wasn't socialism - and, they're right, it wasn't - but i want to make a bolder suggestion.

the truth is that socialism simply failed in america, and for the same reason that it failed in russia. there's actually a strong convergence of history here, contrary to the cold war mythology. and, socialism even failed in both of these backwater states at approximately the same time.

but, it was predictable. nobody ever suggested that the socialist revolution would happen in the still largely feudal state of russia, and nobody suggested that it would happen in the deserts of the american midwest, either. remember that when marx suggested the united states for a possible birth of socialism, he was writing in a nineteenth century context - roughly contemporary with the annexation of mexico, and when the united states itself barely penetrated the louisiana purchase. he was referring to the liberal heartland of the country, the bos-wash corridor, and not to the much less industrialized areas of the country that actually produced american progressivism. what developed was a contradiction, with the socialist movement on the wrong side of historical materialism - it's really just a further demonstration that psychohistory is pseudoscience. 

there were moments of actual socialistic tendencies in the failed american socialist revolution, but they were tied to actual workers movements in actual factories - and the management decisions around the workers. well, it was a failed revolution. but, the success of american workers in winning the ability to buy their own products is an example of how management goals aligned with socialist visions, for a time. i think that fordism could have at one point been deemed "advanced capitalism".

then, it crashed. and, what happened? what happened is that the wild west won. america was not ready for socialism.

we'll see if their successor is. well, if we're still dragging along this corpse of historical materialism, asia doesn't seem like the worst place to hope for a revolution, does it? the other option is truly barbarism, isn't it?