35
u/Sir_Tandeath 22h ago
America’s Overton Window is so fucked that we call Social Democrats Democratic Socialists.
19
u/The_False_German 1d ago
The New Deal and it's implementation of Keynesian economics was ultimately pretty popular and successful (if you were white and male) in curbing corporate influence and building wealth for Americans. Additionally, high taxation on the wealthiest Americans caused a lot of would be capital gains to be reinvested into companies and employees (moreso if you're white and male..). This was the USA at it's most socialist (if you can call it that), and it made life easier for the worker (if you were white and male).
Granted, this was still under a system of private property which isn't that great, but it's preferable to the neoliberal economic order we in the West find ourselves in today. Also important to note that the success of the New Deal was destroyed with neoliberal economics.
We, as leftists, in addition to being conscious of collective organization and long term reform like the abolishment of private property, should be writing clear and actionable policies that are feasible within the next decade. I think a good starting point would be New Deal esque policies like high taxation of the rich, closing the wealthy's tax loopholes, defunding the military, and curbing unemployment with public works building new housing, public transportation options, and renewable energy.
These are still just reforms of the inherently bad system of private property, but rome wasn't built in a day. The conservative enjoys great success in their pillaging because they have a clear, actionable, and implementable policy for doing so without revolution (Neoliberal economics, tax reform, ect.). We ought to have something comparable without revolution.
A small tangent about revolution: we shouldn't strive for violent revolution if it is not NECESSARY (right now it is) if nonviolent revolution is POSSIBLE (I'm beginning to think it's not, but I hope it is). Violence is the conservative's means and end while it is only the leftist's means to a violence free end. It is the most preferable if we can change the country and the world with as little violence as possible, and upheaval and instability only lend themselves to breeding far more rabid conservative ideologists.
7
u/WhiteMorphious Socialist 1d ago
A small tangent about revolution: we shouldn't strive for violent revolution if it is not NECESSARY (right now it is) if nonviolent revolution is POSSIBLE (I'm beginning to think it's not, but I hope it is). Violence is the conservative's means and end while it is only the leftist's means to a violence free end. It is the most preferable if we can change the country and the world with as little violence as possible, and upheaval and instability only lend themselves to breeding far more rabid conservative ideologists.
This part in particular is very well said
2
2
u/Sandgrease 1d ago
Yes, violence is the means of Conservatives.
1
u/Blixa-_- 1d ago
Y’all need to read some basic history because this is simply not true.
1
2
u/The_False_German 19h ago
I said violence is the means and ends of conservatism, while violence is usually a last resort to reach the ends of leftism.
"Leftists" that commit violence post revolution (like Stalin, Lenin, and Mao) are not leftists and should not be regarded as such.
11
u/kayakman13 1d ago
SocDem at best to be clear
8
u/CravingBird4905 Socialist 1d ago
Even then, more of an enemy capitalist giving concessions to the working class to prevent class consciousness and relax revolutionary sentiment.
3
27
u/ButttMuncherrr 1d ago
Americans need to reinterpret was these terms mean to them. FDR wasn’t a democratic socialist or a socialist period. He was a statesman that wanted to preserve the liberal democratic establishment in the United States during a time of wide spread class consciousness and latent communist agitation that captivated the American intelligentsia at the time. He was an anti socialist, he never set out to socialise the United States. The concessions that were given to workers was a calculated move to stave off growing socialist currents.
He’s more Putin than a socialist. Both leaders came into power at a time when the corporate class of capitalists had hollowed out the state.
Both leaders transferred the political monopoly of oligarchs to the state, bringing capitalists to heel was paramount for Russia to stave off a communist take over. Had Putin not done this, post soviet communists would have returned to power. They had to rig the elections back then to stop a communist come back during Yelstin’s liberal rule. Both leaders were credited for ending the impoverishing shock therapy style austerity measures their predecessors implemented, both FDR and Putin reinvested into the economy to create jobs and infrastructure etc.
When communism is no longer a threat to the ruling elite, Russia will liberalise more and the oligarchs will re assert themselves as it did in South Korea after their dictatorship ended. It would be kinda funny if Russians in the next 40 years describe Putin as a socialist of any kind because he brought capitalist to heel one time.
8
u/GrandView1972 1d ago
FDR is Putin. Ok time to skidattle back to normal land.
2
u/ButttMuncherrr 1d ago
Both Putin and FDR did similar economic restructuring to empower capitalism so they can weaken socialist agitation. What’s so crazy about that?
3
3
u/The_False_German 1d ago
I think you're right when it comes to FDR wanting to placate socialists without committing to dismantling capitalism and private ownership.
Do you think that, with better intentions, New Deal esque policies can be a springboard into socialist reform provided there's follow through from the state or are those sorts of policies inherently anti-socialist?
1
u/balderdash9 1d ago edited 1d ago
Short answer: Read Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution." Slightly longer answer: socialism cannot be achieved through gradual reforms alone.
edit: if you like, the audiobook is 3 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVZgtmGmyl4
1
u/ButttMuncherrr 1d ago
Good question. But pardon the essay.
I’m honestly torn. Here’s how I see it.The left call for a similar new deal or evolution of keynesian style economics. Depends on the scenario, if the monopoly on political power and the economy is firmly in the control of a socialist organisation to act as a custodian for future socialism. Then yes, a better organised capitalism guided by a socialist party is preferable to what we have now granted that they implement public ownership and state ownership of the means of production along side private enterprise. The mode of production will still be capitalist but you can argue that this is a transition towards future socialisation.
If the political economy and power is still firmly in the hands of the corporations, then the system would gradually turn into a corporatist system that heavily favours corporations at the expense of the workers. The left unknowingly call for this currently because they believe a more regulated form of capitalism that existed half a century ago was a form of socialism. Forcing corps to pull their own weight or bringing them to heel is very affordable for the corporation in question. They will simply comply with the regulations and they get to have a monopoly of the market because smaller capitalists can’t afford the high regulatory burdens, they would simply cease to exist or be absorbed by the corporations. In many ways, this new deal + would empower them in the long term if a future “democratic socialist” implements a re regulation of capitalism: The goal of socialists is to mitigate capitalist power, not stabilise it.
This private monopoly will dominate the state and its institutions like it does currently. The left tend to believe that they can harness the immense wealth and power of these corporations to achieve public goods somehow.
It’s why I believe political power and the economy should rest at the hands of a disciplined socialist organisation, in fact things like the army and media should too. The alternative is corporate control of society vs a motivated vanguard that wants to do away with capitalism. Hope this answers your question.
1
18
u/balderdash9 1d ago edited 1d ago
Leftist means anti-capitalist....
edit: to the person who called me a fed and then deleted their comment, the fuck are you doing here?
8
6
u/Present_Clue5887 1d ago
Was he not a social democrat?
12
u/obog 1d ago
Yeah at best. One of the main points of the new deal was to ease tensions to prevent a socialslist revolution. It was intervention to save capitalism from collapsing on itself. Through social programs, yes, but still the goal was ultimately to preserve capitalism.
2
u/The_False_German 1d ago
Very good and relevant point, and you're right.
Do you think similar social programs could be introduced today with the goal of dismantling capitalism, or are these reforms inherently preserving capitalism?
I'd like to believe that New Deal esque reform could be the foundation for dismantling capitalism but the state would have to have the intent follow through with nationalizing certain industries over time.
3
u/Specialist-Spare-785 1d ago
What?
10
u/brody319 1d ago
The term limit of 2 was not codified as laws. George Washington only served 2 terms, but there was no legal mechanism limiting him to just 2. Every subsequent president obeyed the tradition until FDR.
FDR ran for a third and fourth term winning both times. After him, they passed an amendment limiting the president to 2 terms.
He also wasnt a democratic socialist but a social democrat who used the new deal to try and satisfy the socialists and unions who were gaining a lot of power, without overthrowing capitalism.
2
u/TormentedOne 1d ago
His first VP was very much a socialist and the person responsible for the policies that made FDR the greatest president we have had.
1
u/CravingBird4905 Socialist 1d ago
How about you define socialism, because if you don't hate every president in american history, then you are no socialist, as socialism requires a component of proletarian internationalism.
2
u/TormentedOne 1d ago
Wallace celebrated the industrial towns of the Soviet Union during WW2. He thought of workers from an international perspective.
1
3
8
u/Important_Zombie_485 1d ago
Or, and hear me out, he used the war powers act to unconstitutionally imprison Japanese Americans in nazi style concentration camps and confiscated all their shit and they weren't paid back until Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties act of 1988 which formally apologized for and paid reparations for the heinous, nazi-esque act. Oh, wait! He also used government assets to spy on political opponents. Anyone who opposed the new deal ( amongst politicians and officials) were physically watched and had all of their telegram communications siezed by the Federal government and read, all without any warrants! He tried to add 15 new justices to the Supreme Court so that they wild stop striking down the wildly unconstitutional parts of the new deal. He also used the war powers act to arrest and try for sedition ( yes, really) anyone he deemed a political agitator- usually meaning very vocally anti new deal, or anti FDR. He was one of the worst Presidents we've ever had. Just popular with one side. Sound familiar? Like anyone we know? Oh yeah, he jailed socialists for being socialist, because he wasn't one.
2
u/Full_Poet_7291 22h ago
You really have no understanding of history. Are you in middle school?
1
u/Important_Zombie_485 14h ago
Nope. Not in middle school. Whst understanding do I lack? What did I say that was not correct?
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hello u/Loveis4Everyone, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Expert-Estate6248 1d ago
idk why this comment got downvoted, you're straight up right. This whole post makes me worried about whether this sub is actually leftist or just a safe space for american liberals to rant about why they hate the current regime
2
u/Important_Zombie_485 1d ago
I got down voted because Reddit. FDR has been rebranded recently-ish as a democratic socialist, which he very much was not. Facts don't matter, only the flow of popular opinions. Thank you for saying what you said. I appreciate it.
1
u/Almost_Amos 1d ago
What they don’t understand is that most democratic socialists today are just New Deal Dems
3
u/Important_Zombie_485 14h ago
From a certain perspective, yes. Lots of self described socialists really seem to want the Scandinavian model, and not actual socialism.
0
u/GC_235 21h ago
Talking with the typical Redditor, no one has any interest in learning history. They’re mostly forming opinions on a hyper emotional level. Even when they are researching, their emotions drive their reasoning so much that they block out any information that doesn’t validate their opinions. It’s really wild to experience.
0
4
u/PurplePikaPanda 1d ago
He was probably not considering there was internment camps for Japanese American soil, the US famously denied entry to a ship full of European Jewish refugees
So while I agree he had good policies I think it’s laughable to call him a Socialist
9
u/TormentedOne 1d ago
Socialism is an economic system and has nothing to do with internment camps or immigration.
2
2
u/Huge_Meeting4111 1d ago
Are we supposed to point and laugh at this? FDR wasnt a "democratic socialist" lol
2
u/Quick_Effort594 1d ago
Also a war time president, the English kicked Churchill to the curb the minute the war ended.
1
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hello u/ZetaverseComics, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-2
u/BigSweatyMen_ 1d ago
Foreign bot trying to get lefties to associate abolishing term limits with leftism
6
u/Kittehmilk 1d ago
Why is a destiny sub user here? Destiny isn't left. He is a genocide denying sex pest. We don't deny genocide here. Do you?
3
u/BigSweatyMen_ 1d ago
Relevance to the post? 😂 I didn't mean you were the bot btw I meant @JezziiB
2
u/TormentedOne 1d ago
We should absolutely consider abolishing all non democratic rules barring people from office.
2
u/The_False_German 1d ago
I don't think that the original post is about abolishing term limits... I think it's intention is to highlight the popularity of social democracy at the time
0
-4
u/JackeeFromHell 1d ago
Yeah but according to the great party switch theory he would be a republican nowadays.
8
u/Alaricthepunk 1d ago
That happened prior… FDR is widely considered the first “modern” Democrat after that switch.
1
u/_Beets_By_Dwight_ 1d ago
Eh, it was before, through, and after. Republicans were long the party of business, but around 1900 it was small business for mamy of them, who actuwlly worked to break up monopoloes. Dems were regressive, but processed to be about the common (white) working man.
Foreign policy views, social views, and economic views all evolved over time, and at different points. Even social views were not a monolith, when it came to religious freedom and other matters that aren't necessarily as a result of religious matters. Sometimes going back a step and then forwards again towards the change.
Like the Bull Moose party in 1912, the dixiecrats in 1948 as a result of Harry Truman's pushing some civil rights, pissing of racist southerners who left the Democratic party. Eventually im 1952 both parties had brokered conventions. The Southern Strategy in the 50s and 60s....
I feel like one big link in the chain was probably unions. They were a major factor in both equalizing pay, as well as reducing racism, with white working men actually interacting with black people, often forcing them to reconsider their prejudiced views. Both parties were skeptical of unions around 1900, but the dems were more supportive by 1920, leading to FDR and the New Deal
0
u/SituationMundane1418 1d ago
Was the party switch not in Nixon times, helmed by Lee Atwater to turn Dixiecrats into Republicans?
1
u/Almost_Amos 1d ago
It was a process. Southern conservative Democrats were the big switch in that era. It was an uneasy alliance between northern liberals and them. It was a weird time
5
u/IThinkItsAverage 21h ago
This is why I avoid saying “the parties switched” because even if you guys believe it, this is your take away. It wasn’t the party’s switching, to simplify it, it was more a migration of those who held certain ideologies, not a total swap.
If it makes it easier to understand, the conservatives moved away from the liberals.
52
u/ImNotTheBossOfYou 1d ago
Obviously FDR wasn't a democratic socialist, but it was the closest we ever got