When will the means of production in the United States be nationalized under the control of the working class?

I'm hearing very positive things from my conservative friends about Obama but are they correct? Many conservative Americans I know say Obama is a socialist so I was wondering. Do I still have time to immigrate before the revolution is finalized?

Update:

Steelgrave good to see you again. I couldn't disagree more though with your answer.

'While Keynesian measures provide no economic antidote to the breakdown of the capitalist economy, they do perform an important political function for the ruling class. Roosevelt's New Deal did nothing to end the crisis of the 1930s, but it did help create the illusion that a solution was possible and thereby performed an invaluable service in blocking the development of a socialist perspective in the working class.'

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/pers-j02...

Keynesian economicsis purely liberal, has zero to do with socialism. It's as anti revolutionary as you can get

Update 2:

Nationalizing the banks is not socialist, that's a big misconception.

Socialism is not merely a set of technical measures involving state intervention into the economy. All capitalist nations engage in this to one degree or another, depending on circumstances. State ownership does not in any sense define a society as socialist, when the state itself is an organ of class rule controlled by the financial aristocracy.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/pers-o23...

Update 3:

The bailout measures are being enacted not by the working people, but are being imposed behind the backs of the people by the most powerful bankers, through their political representatives in both parties. Ownership and control of the financial levers of economic life remain entirely in the private hands of the richest people in the country. Those who have presided over the failure of private firms are dictating the terms of their own rescue at the expense of the people.

The social interests that are being defended are determined by the class nature of the state power that is formulating and enacting the measures. The events of the past month have demonstrated as never before that the American government and the US two-party system are political instruments not of the people, but rather of a financial oligarchy.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/soci-o15...

Update 4:

The only thing socialists want is the same liberty for everyone. Where you and me were born and what our parents did has a disproprtional effect on whether we can achieve sucsess. Rugged individualism can oly appeal to someone in a position of luxury. The for profit system brings out the worst in humanity. Capitalism at one point was a force of progress, that time is long gone. Most defenders of capitalism are similar to the servants of the absolute monarchies. They probably figured they had as much liberty as they coul ever get and feudalism was inevetable. The French and American revolutions proved them wrong. Now It's time to move beyond capitalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7pIT0EtDKc

Youtube thumbnail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54RwOFJwvUI

Youtube thumbnail

&feature=related

Hate you got suspended, I understand your sentiments. What I don't get is why they totally delete profiles, all content often worked on for months or even years is still out there but they prevent anyone from browsing it

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Oh JGF, come on. Don't tell me that you truly believe that the dictionary definition of Socialism or what your Marxist professors taught you is all that socialism is made of.

    Nationalizing the banking system is Socialistic in nature.

    Propping up failing companies with tax-payer funds and taking tacit control of said companies is Socialistic in nature.

    Isn't it possible that these ideologies evolve become an amalgamation of ideologies.

    Or is it only the textbook definition that applies.

    Keynesian economics is socialistic in nature, not full-blown socialism but certainly not the laissez-fare economics this nation was founded on and excelled with for decades.

    edit: Yeah JGF, I got booted you told me it would happen, pissed me off losing a top contributor level 7 account with such great contacts to some phucking troll, so I stayed away for awhile but I'M BACK sporatically.

    edit: I fully understand your idyllic outlook on socialism and the fact that most Americans know nothing about it and you are certainly better versed on the subject than I. But in the bottom line we are talking about the community or group taking precedence over the individual and that's ok for Europe but America was built on rugged individualism. As our greatest American said;

    "If we are made in some degree for others, yet in a greater are we made for ourselves. It were contrary to feeling, and indeed ridiculous, to suppose that a man has less right to himself than one of his neighbors, or indeed all of them put together. This would be slavery, and not that liberty which the bill of rights has made inviolable, and for the preservation of which our government has been charged." —Thomas Jefferson

    No matter how noble it may be to share in the productivity of others to raise people above their station it is not liberty, it is not freedom (not that I am claiming that this is what we have now but it was once and that is what I fight for daily) and that's all your conservative friends want is a bit of liberty.

    So is Obammy a Socialist, no his is the same Corporate fascist that Bush was and Clinton was and Reagan was but do the labels really matter at the end of the day? Really?

    "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." —Robert A Heinlein

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If that were to happen at all, it would require the election of Bernie Sanders to the presidency, along with a huge leftward shift of Congress. Just because we have Democrats doesn't mean we're anything but centrist or "librettos." Dennis Kucinich is about as far left as the party goes, and the only reason he appears to be a "radical" to some is that he has stayed put while most of the others got caught up in an eastward gale.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Obama is a Socialist only in the fact that he is Fascist, or right-wing Socialist. The means of production will be greatly put under the control of the government, not labor. Can everyone say, "Thanks, bailout?"

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Never, have you met the American working class!

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Right after the Revolution. And you still have time to get here, you wouldn't want to miss out on the fun, would you?

  • 1 decade ago

    I've been wondering that myself for a while now.

    We're seeing a much closer to return to the days of Joseph McCarthy..

  • 1 decade ago

    I am waiting on my answer.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.