You can thank Socialists and Communists for the New Deal

which was nothing more than a compromise by the ruling class to protect itself from the groundswell for real leftism by the masses here and around the world at the time.

...On November 8, 1932, more than a million Americans -- almost three percent of the electorate -- cast ballots for presidential candidates who proposed far more radical changes than "a new deal." Socialist Norman Thomas won 884,885 votes, for a 230 percent improvement in his party's total. Communist William Z. Foster won 103,307 votes, for a 112 percent increase in his party's total -- and its best finish ever in a presidential race. And southern populist William Hope Harvey, who had helped manage Democratic populist William Jennings Bryan's 1896 presidential campaign, secured another 53,425 votes.

Roosevelt was conscious of the fact that, in a number of states outside the south, the combined vote for the Socialists and Communists edged toward 5 percent of the total. Shortly after the election, the president-elect met with Thomas, a former associate editor of The Nation, and Henry Rosner, a frequent contributor to The magazine who had authored the Socialist Party's detailed 1932 platform and who would go on to be a key aide of New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia.

The new president did not adopt the whole of the Socialist platform. But, as historian Paul Berman observed, "President Franklin D. Roosevelt lifted ideas from the likes of Norman Thomas and proclaimed liberal democratic goals for everyone around the world..." FDR's borrowing of ideas about Social Security, unemployment compensation, jobs programs and agricultural assistance from the Socialists was sufficient to pull voters who had rejected the Democrats in 1932 into the New Deal Coalition that would sweep the congressional elections of 1934 and reelect the president with 61 percent of the popular vote and 523 of 531 electoral votes in 1936 -- the largest Electoral College win in the history of two-party politics.

As for Norman Thomas, he ran again in 1936, conducting what Time magazine would refer to as "a more civilized and enlightened campaign than any other candidate." But he amassed only 187,910 votes, for 0.4 percent of the total.

Thomas would joke that, "Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher." That was a slightly bitter variation on the old Socialist's acknowledgment that FDR had read the results of the 1932 election right.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=249972

Just sayin'

edit - title spelling

Just sayin

it was all those socialists and communists in congress who voted those things up, and the communist/socialist president who signed them!

The establishment bourgeoise capitalist flunky DINOs stood by the side ranting impotently and doing nothing that made a difference just like always!

public ownership of the means of products. And you say he was a communist? Please, define that term for me.

...of thinking that it's so damn obvious that I don't need to use the sarcasm emoticon. Looks like I misjudged the obviousness this time.

klhk

FDR may not have handed over the means of production to the working classes. He did take reliance off of capitalism in some areas like SS.

I don't think anyone is claiming FDR was a commie. They are saying that he had to cave to their demands or at least meet them half way.

And regulation of public utilities is a value even conservatives can understand.

and saved Democracy. He created a real Middle Class understanding
Democracy cannot survive without a Middle Class.

Now do we all understand how the GOP who hated FDR, have
created an industry (books, Think Tanks, TV Radio) and
used this to destroy Liberalism. The Media assist the
GOP until this day. Repeat GOP line--Democrats will
bring socialism.

All weekend, Chaves is bringing Socialism to Venzuela.
(Using the scariest of tones--because they know cerain
Americans will go into fear and trembing. Socialism
is bad. (Understood, if we (Govt) want to take any
action against Venzuela, this is a good thing because
that creeping Socialism will destroy us. Aint Propaganda
grand.

My understanding is Venzuela is trying to build a Social Democracy
using Germany as the model.

A capitalist who saw the threat and took a different way than, oh say, the current pResident's grandfather.

But in the end, it was still ALL about saving institutionalized exploitation.

Democracy had nothing to do with it. Women had not had the vote even two decades. The blacks whose ancestors' forced labor quite literally provided the seed money for modern capitalism really had no vote at all.

That ain't democracy. It still ain't.

Because labor laws, progressive taxation, public works, business regulation, etcetera were EXACTLY what the millionaires wanted.

Sigh.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but you do show your true colors.

Thanks.

Neither pure social nor pure capitalism can work in the real world.

What is needed is a dynamic balance in which socialism tempers the excesses of capitalism.

IMO, that's what the New Deal and the liberalism of the following decades succeeded at.

That's what we lost since the late 70's. Today it is totally out of whack towards excessive capitalism. And the form of capitalism we have today is not free enterprise. It is a monopolistic Oligarchy.

We have to restore the balance.

policies that many around here hate, I know what you are saying. I am not a pure capitalist. I am a "market-centrist". I do not believe in the pure socialist and capitalist systems. I am a centrist.

But we must remember, as Art Preis said, that these precious gains were granted “under pressure of militant mass action by the organized workers,” and not as gifts from benevolent rulers. That's the only way we can see through the false claims of today's politicians claiming to be "New Dealers" and can fight independently for all that we need and deserve.

http://www.socialistaction.org/pollack6.htm

For most working people, the phrase “New Deal,” based on the commonly accepted mythology of what happened in the early years of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration, conjures up pictures of public-works jobs for all who needed them, of gigantic public-works

projects rebuilding old institutions and building brand new ones, and of government concern for the down and out.



Those Democratic Party politicians who were throwing around Rooseveltian rhetoric may even believe this mythology. But the rebuilding packages they put forward fall far short of what FDR was alleged to have achieved, and are instead more in synch with today’s bipartisan consensus that the market is a cure-all for whatever ails you.



The more astute Democratic politicians, however, know precisely the limits of the New Deal and in some ways their miserly proposals more accurately match the overall picture of Roosevelt administration policy.



Barely a month after Katrina, the few Democrats who had earlier engaged in New Deal-style rhetoric had largely fallen mute, and by mid-October The New York Times could report that Republicans were once again pressing their plans to save the Gulf and the economy as a whole with even more tax cuts for the corporations and the rich.



"We've had a stunning reversal in just a few weeks,” said Robert Greenstein of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “We've gone from a situation in which we might have a long-overdue debate on deep poverty to the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that low-income people will be asked to bear the costs. I would find it unimaginable if it wasn't actually happening.”



But the inability—in fact, the unwillingness—of the Democratic Party to take its own rhetoric seriously made this turn of events predictable.

accurately saw these votes as a sign of major discontentment with the status quo and made some concessions to the left.

He wasn't still ranting against them seven years later, unlike some DUers I could mention.

Even when Republicans’ gained 81 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and 13 governorships during the mid-terms of 1938, including crushing defeats of the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, FDR noted that some good things had occurred: “We have on the positive side eliminated Phil La Follette and the Farmer-Labor people in the Northwest as a standing Third Party Threat.”

Whatever you call it, FDR initiated changes in policies and brought in social-justice policies the nation benefited from .

FDR initiated changes in policies because desperate times call for desperate measures. Roosevelt's plan was for most parts of the New Deal to be temporary.

concerns of the Left.

That's what today's DLCers don't understand.

..during the great depression.

I may add.

...to end at some point.. I might add.

..why assume I would agree IF Roosevelt wanted to kill of social security.

he saw the New Deal policies as temporary.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in post 36

Roosevelt could have continued perpetuating the mess the country was thrown in by bad policies, while claiming he was better simply because he was a Democrat.

But he very pragmatically realized the problem, and the need to actually deal with it, rather than claiming that change is bad.

:toast:

:applause:

Oh, wait, he couldn't, because he wasn't President. Why? Because, when all was said and done, he was 500 votes short, and there were 90,000 Nader voters in Florida who had made a great statement. That was very productive, wasn't it?

That claim, besides being patently false, is an irrelevant canard in the context of this discussion. And had Gore taken his rightful office, he would not have done a fucking thing. Just as he rejected Kyoto and just as he chose that gaping asshole LIEberman for his running mate - never was there a surer sign of Gore's continued adherence to his firmly bourgeois role as a capital imperialist of the vicious kind.

Lord Keynes was a capitalist...

From New International, Vol.1 No.3, September-October 1934, pp.85-87, by Jack Weber:

In the United States the transformations that catapulted into power as their final outcome a Mussolini and a Hitler in Europe, commence with Roosevelt under the guise of liberalism. The politics of liberalism are possible during the cataclysm of the general world crisis only because of the political backwardness of the American masses, and only so long as the working class remains politically weak, without a strong, active vanguard party. The moment masses of workers rally to such a party, that moment the capitalists can no longer rule behind the screen of liberal democracy and the big bourgeoisie will have to resort to new forms of state power. But it is hardly sufficient to characterize Roosevelt as a liberal without analyzing the philosophy and mode of operation of liberalism itself.

Liberalism accepts the revisionist view of the state as being above, the classes, acting as mediator and buffer between the classes. The liberals believe, for this reason, in government by “experts” (state bureaucrats) who can act in the interests, the common interests, of all, as against the special interests of any single class or “section” of capitalist society. And since the state is to “hold the arena” for the preservation of “fair play” in the class struggle, the liberals are the upholders of bourgeois democracy. We are not concerned at the moment in exposing the hypocrisy and dishonesty of this entire “philosophy”, in showing the impossibility of reconciling the irreconcilable in which liberalism pretends to be engaged. Accepting the system of capitalist exploitation as socially necessary, the liberals theorize in terms of “bourgeois socialism” which aims to eliminate the “evils” of the capitalist mode of production (that is, its glaringly rotten features). Fundamentally they aim to preserve the capitalist system in its bourgeois democratic form.

To preserve capitalism today, to organize society in the form essential for the support of the conditions underlying the capitalist mode of production as against the encroachments of the workers as well as of individual capitalists, the state is forced to intervene more and more directly and on a greater and greater scale. It was the middle class, including the farmers, that placed Roosevelt in the saddle. But the middle class has no independent policies for the solution of capitalist contradictions. So long as it remains under the illusions of bourgeois democracy, it follows the lead of the big bourgeoisie; its representatives and spokesmen carry out, in properly disguised form, the behests of finance capital. Thus under the auspices of the liberal Roosevelt, the state becomes as never before to the same extent the “ideal personification of the total national capital”. This superstructure of capitalism extends its bureaucratic tentacles throughout the vitals of the body politic. Individual initiative gives way to the functioning of salaried state employees operating as “expert” administrators of industry, regulators of production, dictators over the relations between capital and labor, over hours and conditions of work. This process is far from completion, nor could it be completed under the forms of bourgeois democracy.

The process continues without the volition or willingness of the participants or of the individual capitalists. Roosevelt was far from realizing all the consequences of the program of the NRA. That program was necessitated by an “emergency” but emergencies (crises), are integral parts of social evolution, they are focal points hastening the otherwise normal development of society, but in the same direction. There goes on at present a concerted attack on the NRA by the forces of reactionary capitalism that would like to cancel it out, to wipe it from the slate now that its apparent usefulness has passed. But that is more easily said than done, for the NRA is the first step in the direction that capitalist development must take, towards ever greater concentration of power in the national state – before its downfall and disappearance historically. As Engels pointed out, the capitalists fear nothing so much as this development which yields up ultimately their sacrosanct social functions to a salaried bureaucracy, thereby plainly revealing their utter uselessness and their reactionary role as fetters on the means of production. American capitalism, just as its European counterpart, is forced by the exigencies of the crisis and the need to recover profits, to turn to the state for help despite the fact that the more the state helps, the greater the threat to capitalism, for state concentration of power (state capitalism leading towards possible state ownership) tends to bring the class struggle “to a head”.

The ideology of the New Deal, fundamentally liberal opportunism, is not a clear and fixed set of concepts. But in its operation it finds itself continually and apologetically at variance with reality. Richberg, reporting on the present status of the NRA, shows clearly that the building of the “superstate” commenced by the present regime, is not a matter of volition: “The very thing that we in the administration are trying to do is get away from the superstate. We are trying to decentralize problems by balancing forces. We are letting private initiative handle things.” But if private initiative (private property) could have handled things then there would have been no need for an NRA. Like it or not, Roosevelt is paving the way towards a new form of state power. In the period of upturn, and the aftermath of the crisis, Roosevelt has cast for himself the role of mediator between the classes. To carry out this role, Roosevelt relies in turn on wings of the NRA extending to right and to left, on the class collaborationists in the camp of the bosses and those in the camp of the proletariat, on the Johnsons, Harrimans and Swopes on the one hand, and the Perkinses, Greens and Gormans on the other. The role of mediator is possible only if the economic situation does not force an intensification of class warfare to the breaking point between the classes, only while the wings of class collaboration remain intact and do not crumple up. So long as Johnson can persuade the bosses that they have nothing to fear from the NRA, that they will receive the substance and the workers the shadow; so long as the labor lieutenants of capitalism can save face by misleading the working class in sham battles, Roosevelt can disarm the workers and place on their necks the yoke of arbitration. But this gaining of time for the salvation of capitalism solves nothing and acts in fact under conditions that inexorably drive the workers to fight for existence itself, to set the stage for an ever fiercer struggle on a widening arena. Deeper strata of the working class become involved in the conflict and the strikes of whole industries take on the elemental character of natural forces.
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/weber/1934/09/roosevelt.htm

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

As I noted above, in my opinion, neither pure socialism nor pure capital can survive in the real world.

If people were truly and fully and universally decent, either system could work in its purest state. But the darker side of human nature would cause capitalism to degenerate into feudalism and pure socialsm to degenrate into totalitarianism.

The key to both systems is democracy -- as long as that democracy is allowed to survive.

You should avail yourself of my signature file. Human nature is nothing more than a reflection of social relations.

As far as democracy goes, it is utterly antithetical to capitalist social relations which are instead authoritarian. One cannot have real democracy and capitalism; they are mutually exclusive.

Just sayin'

But not here, I guess.

Unfortunately, with pure socialism there are two options. Eitehr it slips into chaos because no one is in charge, or it evolves into authoritarianism when the strongest decide they have to take charge.

IMO capitalism can co-exist with democracy. But it does need a strong dose of social imperatives (in a positive sense) to keep it within restraints.

Has never been seen in modern history. Thus, the predictions about what its outcome is are exactly that, mere predictions. Not even Marx would presume to take on the role of soothsayer about what comes after the end of capitalist social relations. So whatever examples you're calling on to substantiate your claims really say nothing about the end of capitalism at all; rather, they are comments on = at best - one bubble well before the cauldron has ever boiled.

All that said, one cold, hard, time-proven material fact though is that capitalism is anti-democratic. You can opine that they are workable, and that is a popular position for liberals given the outright lies and assorted bullshit your economic betters would have you ingest as skooling, but again it is just as simple as simple can be. Capitalism is not democratic. It is exploitative. Always and forever. Filing down its fangs through measures (that at heart only serve to protect a system that is always suicidal in its design) does not make it less of a beast any more than painting paws and whiskers on you would make you less of a human.

Because human nature always seems to kick in before that happens.

I am not slamming socialism. I believe it is a political/economic/social force that in its' ideal form represents the best instincts of individuals and society. I tend to think of myself in terms of ideals as a democratic socialist.

The problem is that those best instincts have to compete with less admirable instincts, including greed, impatience, power hunger and laziness.

I have been involved in a number of organizations that were based on the ideals of socialism. Despite good intentions, they often get bogged down in infighting, pettiness and inertia. So either nothing gets done, or one faction takes over and runs the rest out.

Multiply that by millions and billions of individuals, and that's what pure socialism would lead to.

but it has nothing to do with the fairy tales from religion that human nature is fixed and wicked. It has to do with the progression of history and the as yet incomplete project of vicious capitalist globalization. And we all know who gave us NAFTA...

to say that you've made some excellent comments but that there is no such thing as "human nature" and that all of those groups that you refer to are also involved in a larger cultural context that shapes their dysfunctional behaviors.

I've often compared them, especially on the issue of the need for a STRONG president to address the economically ruinous behavior of the rich and the corporate, and to fend off threats to democracy and national sovereignty (which often follows upon ruination by the rich and the corporate); also, on the matter of the right of the people to re-elect strong leaders for as many terms as they want and need him. No strong president, no "New Deal." Simple as that. You can't fight an oligarchy and foster social justice with weak government and political leadership.

FDR was also called a "dictator" by the rich and the powerful--for being strong on securing a "new deal" for the poor. Chavez is called a "dictator" for the same reason, and with as little evidence to back it up. Indeed, both of these leaders did more for spreading power around in their societies--empowering the poor and middle class, and excluded groups--than any other presidents either country ever had.

One of FDR's most criticized assertions of powers--"packing the Supreme Court" (a rightwing phrase--the Constitution does not fix the number justices at 9, so it is perfectly lawful for Congress to increase the number; FDR sought to add liberal justices)--ultimately resulted in saving Social Security from being declared unconstitutional. (FDR didn't succeed in the plan, but the pressure changed one justice's mind about the "New Deal.")

In both FDR's and Chavez's cases, left-wing assertions of power are aimed at helping ordinary people--and that is ALWAYS the case in democracies; whereas rightwing assertions of power are NEVER intended to benefit ordinary people, neither in democracies, where their power is always based on money, elitism, class warfare by the rich, and news manipulation and propaganda--nor in juntas, where the rich use bludgeon power, murder, torture and fearmongering. Rightwing assertions of power always benefit the rich, and rob and oppress the poor (Reagan and Bush being prime examples in our era; also, the rightwing coupsters in Venezuela, who attempted to violently overturn the democratic Chavez government in 2002). Leftwing assertions of power (in a democracy) always help spread wealth and power to more people. The Chavez government has been particularly pro-active on spreading power around--ironic, since the rich and the corporate claim the opposite about Chavez (that he is, or wants to be, a "dictator"). The evidence is that the Chavez government has greatly expanded the base of power in Venezuelan society, in particular empowering the vast poor majority, in specific structural ways, and by spreading the oil wealth around as a bootstrapping mechanism for the poor.

The recent setback that Venezuelan voters inflicted on Chavez--despite his 72% approval rating, and huge victories in all prior elections--with a 50.7% "No" vote on proposed amendments to the constitution, 49.3% voting "Yes" and 3 million voters abstaining--is more likely due to voter confusion, haste of the process (not enough time to understand 69 changes), and items like an equal rights amendment (gay rights, women's rights)--a tough issue in a country with a particularly fascist Catholic hierarchy--than it is to Venezuelans objecting to Chavez running for reelection again, or having power over the central bank. Also, there has rarely been a more intense, worldwide corporate news monopoly campaign of fearmongering, disinformation, and demonization, than the one leading up to this vote, with the Bush Junta pouring millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into the rightwing opposition in Venezuela, and major global corporate predators, such as Exxon Mobile and the World Bank, as interested parties. The Venezuelans have previously resisted such propaganda--when the issue was simply Chavez as a socialist leader--but this set of 69 changes was just complex enough to give the rich and the corporate a wedge.

No polling has yet been reported on Venezuelans' reasons for voting the way they day (although a 40% abstention rate says a lot about voter confusion), but I think my guess is right. This was not a popular referendum on socialism, nor on Chavez's power. This very narrow loss was more due to political mistakes by the organizers of the referendum, in a context of heavy threats of destabilization of the country, and even invasion (Rumsfeld's op-ed in the WaPo over the weekend). One of the more virulent rightwing ads, for instance, claimed that, if "Yes" won, the government would "take children away from their mothers." Rumors of rightwing coup plans with U.S. black ops and military support were rampant leading up to the vote. (The U.S. Embassy may have actually leaked a U.S. memo, revealing its destabilization plans, for this purpose--fearmongering.)

The reason I'm discussing events in Venezuela, in an OP about FDR, is because of the potential of the Bolivarian Revolution--which is widespread in South America, with many election successes--to spread notions of social justice and independence from global corporate predator rule northward. I think this is one reason for the virulence of the attacks against Chavez and the brainwashing technique of focusing narrowly on one political personality. Our rulers are afraid that WE might get some such ideas.

This is similar to the world political situation during the Great Depression and the "New Deal" era. That context--the context in which FDR proposed the "New Deal"--was the massive communist revolution in Russia--its early successes, and the high hopes for an international labor and social justice movement, among leftists, communists and progressives in many countries, including this one. Communism presented an entirely new thought--a new paradigm, opposed to capitalism (control of wealth and the means of production by the few). Workers and ordinary folks--farmers, shopkeepers, etc.--would own and control the wealth and the productive capacity of the country. This huge movement sent waves of fear through the oligarchies of the world, including our own capitalistic oligarchy--and a compromise HAD TO BE MADE in order to fend off a violent (or even non-violent) communist revolution HERE. The rich class had totally mismanaged the economy, with disastrous results--very similar to what the Bushites have done, and similar to what the elite class in Latin America has done, over the last several decades, in cahoots with U.S. and other global corporate predators. There were many outright communists in the U.S. labor movement, in the 1920s and 1930s, for instance. It was a reasonable and worthy alternative--considering what the capitalists had done (crashed the U.S. and world economy)--until the rise of Stalin in Russia (a country with absolutely no democratic traditions, easy prey to a dictator).

This is the model (Stalinism) that anti-Chavez fascists are trying to call up, with their "Big Lie" about Chavez being (or "wanting to become") a "dictator." It is so far from the truth as to be laughable, but nevertheless has had a lot of brainwashing success as a "meme." It is the Bushites and their global corporate predator pals who are the "Stalinists" and "dictators" (want centralized power in THEIR hands, and freely use murder, torture and other brutality to achieve it). Chavez has harmed no one, tortured no one, invaded no one, suppressed no one, arrested no one unfairly, and has shown NO tendency to do so--and furthermore his government runs clean elections (that put our own to shame).

It is the threat of the success of Bolivarian ideas that Bush & co. are fighting, when they demonize Chavez. It is very similar to the threat of communist ideas during the "New Deal" era--NOT the threat of "Stalinist" ideas, but the threat of the early communist ideals of an equitable society, using the power of the majority--the workers, the poor, small peasant farmers--organized on an international scale, to defeat the capitalist predators. Communism may have had only 5% to 10% support in the U.S. during the Great Depression, but its advocates represented a powerful worldwide force for change, that had manifested itself in a full scale revolution in Russia, and was about to manifest itself in other countries as well. It was active against Hitler in Germany. By the end of WW II, all of China would be communist. Vietnam would seek UN-sponsored elections in order to CHOOSE communism democratically. (Request denied--guess by whom?) And, in the next decades, communism or democratic socialism would become the preferred systems in many countries, including many third world countries in Africa and South America. It was against this tide of change that the "New Deal" compromise was made with America's workers and its poor, devastated by the Great Depression. Capitalism with socialist elements.

That pressure--of a worldwide communist/socialist revolution--is gone from the world, except in one place: South America, led by the Bolivarians, in the most surprising social revolution that has ever occurred in Latin America, or perhaps anywhere--surprising that it has occurred at all, and surprising that it is entirely peaceful and democratic in a society that has been so brutalized by the oligarchs. That is WHY the oligarchs are so out of control here--they have had a free hand to design the perfect fascist/corporate state--with no pressure from other, more equitable models. And it is why they are so alarmed by the Bolivarian revolution. It's not just the resources that the Bolivarian governments control (oil, gas, minerals, forests, water). It's the EXAMPLE they are giving of how those resources should be used--to help the poor!

If this movement succeeds in South America--and it currently is highly successful--and if it spreads to central America (many signs of that happening over the next decade)--THEN we will possibly see a "New Deal" here. And if Rumsfeld's plans for destroying it succeed, we will likely become a failed fascist state--the biggest ever "Banana Republic." (It never was the plan here to create Hitler's Germany. Look around you. See any efficiency? See "the trains running on time"? See full employment? See anyone creating a mighty industrial machine? They've even broken the army! Nope, it's been a looting expedition, probably aimed at funding and creating a stateless global corporate predator power, with loyalty to no one, and with its own mercenary army.)

There are differences with the FDR era (global warming being one of the biggies), but there are haunting similarities, and we would do well to understand both. The oligarchs have fucked up once again. What will be the outcome, for us and the for the rest of the world, from this, the biggest fuckup of all--fascist "globalization"--that threatens the very planet we live on, and imperils the future of the human race itself.

Hint #1: The Bush Junta cutting aid to emergency services--first responders--in the U.S. by ONE HALF. (See that? Wow. All those fatcat oiligarchs, and they can't fund our emergency services.)

Thanks.

"The reason I'm discussing events in Venezuela, in an OP about FDR, is because of the potential of the Bolivarian Revolution--which is widespread in South America, with many election successes--to spread notions of social justice and independence from global corporate predator rule northward. I think this is one reason for the virulence of the attacks against Chavez and the brainwashing technique of focusing narrowly on one political personality. Our rulers are afraid that WE might get some such ideas."

Let us hope the winds will come steadily from the south even as the hot air from the north is again proven to be mere lies...

I fear for our country and long for a leader who puts ordinary people and democracy above corporate profit. I wish we had election campaigns that were publicly funded. Each candidate would get the same amount of money to spread their message and not a penny more. However, until there are massive, grassroot revolts in our nation (peaceful I mean), I do not foresee this happening. It makes too much sense, right?

Another problem....corporate domination and control of the media. That's why I am thankful for forums like this where ordinary folk can share and disseminate information and ideas that aren't canned and controlled by a few elites.

things have to get really shitty before people want change.

Let's hope it doesn't get dismantled completely before we get a Dem in there.

the general welfare of everyone else.

the rich have nothing to fear -- and will lose little with instituted socialis programs. -- they will still be rich.

fdr knew that the country -- in order to thrive -- needed a thriving middle class with enough energy for mobility circulation.

you get that best from a well regulated society.

fdr was simply not afraid of socialism -- socialist ideas and he was smart enough to use the hell out of them to benefit the country.

Today, it seems that the assumption is that it is a disaster even if someone worth $50 million has to eke by on a measly $40 million to spread the wealth a little bit.

Politicians pander to that, rather then to the true interests of the majority.

double post

any notion the DU is not concerned about the hungry or workers rights is utter bullshit.

i see you haven't been here long -- however i'll tell you now -- i am not the only one here who believes in a well regulated society -- most -- to one degree or another do.

"regulation"

Rather, I am merely noting that bourgeois concerns dominate the conversation. And this is something sufficiently obvious as to be beyond controversy no matter your protestation.

and now you make that point for me -- again.

you're seeing -- and defining as meets your view.

again -- you haven't been here long -- so cheers.

about the poor and the hungry.

Didn't think so.

But hey, it's all in my imagination...

No hard feelings on my part. I am used to being swiped at for no reason by many of the liberals here. I expected it after lurking a long time before diving in. I'll just remind you than in other (more legitimate democracies), communists hold office and are welcome members of the vox populi in pursuit of progress. Here in the belly of the capitalist cancer though, it is to be expected that liberals complicity in protecting exploitation would be much more front and center, just as it was in 19th century Russia. I'll still be voting for the shadow of progress despite those under it who cast stones.

Cheers to you too.

i've defended communism and communists.
i mean you've been lurking here -- watching ever so closely as to designate every one as bourgeoisie.

all i've gleaned from you is that you don't understand either communism or communists.

another undereducated wannabe. a bridge and tunnel leftist.

i've met in real life a number of duers -- not a bourgeoisie among them.

It is not really about you or any other individual. Nor is it about the assumptions you make about me the individual.

You remain unable to point to material evidence for your claim that the discussion is not dominated by bourgeois "issues." That's because bourgeois conversation is indeed what is dominate.

Apparently you believe in the figment that is the "middle class." You know nothing of my education. You put words in my mouth. You only want to argue, not to discuss. That's fine, but have it with yourself since you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

you come here making like your observations about the posters at DU are the only ones that count.
you're the expert -- you're the one whose judgement is the most accurate -- the most succinct,

horseshit.

you are another pot calling the kettle black.

you're a broken record.

Take the last word please. your baseless drivel and borderline personal attack would not be worth responding to were it not an excuse to kick the thread.

Still no threads on hungry and homeless this morning either, btw.

Cheers,

you make the observation that DUERS aren't interested in topic X -- but visits to the labor forum alone would prove you false.

get used to the notion that if you position yourself as the arbiter of history or DU or what is liberal or leftist -- people will call horseshit -- because that's what it is.

but only to the extent those program preserve the systematic robbery of workers through exploitative social relations that deny the producers the full measure of their labor productivity.

A little social security never killed a billionaire, but allowing "his" workers to take over *THEIR* means of production, that's a whole different story.

The biggest question I can never understand about liberals and their thinking is why they identify strongly with exploitation and indeed fight to preserve it in a way that FAR ECLIPSES their identification with the exploited and the people who are very literally run over by the capitalist bus.

Try and link to the threads on DU today that concern the homeless and the hungry. Those are not popular issues for either wing of the bourgeoisie, as we see on this site day in and day out let alone in the tired obfuscating rhetoric of the millionaires who claim to represent the members here, myself included.

He was the person FDR turned to, to draft a fiscal policy to prevent social mayhem. The OP does not address the fact that without those policies,there would have been a revolution here in the 30s. Things were starting to get ugly in the early 1930s.

Many people were so poor they had nothing left to loose. My own grandparents lived on my great-grandparents' farm for a year in a tent-house (half canvas, half wood); they had no other place to live, no money, and there were no jobs. When populations reach that point, the leaders are forced to either co-opt a "socialist" program (Bismark, FDR) or face mass revolt (France).

I think it was astute of FDR to create the programs. Better to piss off the rich, and live, than piss off the poor and have a revolt.

Those who do not learn from history...

trying to save capitalism in America from meeting the same fate as in Czarist Russia in 1917. That was job one, and giving a little to save the system was a small price to pay.

It showed in the National Recovery Act (NRA) benefitting corporations by restricting production and setting minimum price requirements. "The federal housing program subsidized construction firms and loan insurance for mortgage bankers." Price supports and production cutbacks advantaged corporate agriculture. Only faced with mass unrest were relief programs created to relieve human need. So some real democratic gains were achieved, most notably essential social welfare legislation. Key but short-lived was the passage of the landmark Wagner Act in 1935 establishing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It gave labor the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management for the first time ever, an achievement the repressive 1947 Taft-Hartley Act began undoing what's now lost altogether.

The New Deal Era hardly adds up to a great triumph for "the common people" with government mostly being responsive to the will and needs of corporate capitalism. It was true then but far more so now through "subsidies, services and protections that business could not provide for itself" and even plenty of them they can but don't have to because government largess (with our tax dollars) does it for them.

According to what my folks told me. I saw a documentary with old people saying "Everyone knew that Huey had to be stopped". I asked my folks if that was true and they said "Yes, we knew he was dangerous, and if he had been president he would have been dictator".

I've read and studied HP Long for many years. We can not predict what he would have done, but his time as Governor was nothing short of a revolution for the poor and working classes.

Since you are interested, the documentary by Burns is one of his very best.

while ignoring the catastrophic ideas the frothiest of the communists were advocating.

In many ways, it could be argued that FDR prevented either socialism, communism or a euro-socialism to take root here in the U.S.

FDR, Lincoln and Jefferson (in that order) are my favorite presidents.

I was at FDR's home and library and Eleanor's cottage at Val-Kil in October.

Certainly, your point is well taken. FDR would have never been president without the support of many socialists.

If you don't prove to the ruling class that you've got enough clout to ruin their cocktail party, they won't pay you any mind.

If the corporate facsists were in on this then why didn't they just "ride out the storm" and retake what was "their's" after FDR left office. Truman continued FDR's policies.

Some folks were more rational and realized that capitalism had to be "saved" from the "threat" of socialism. Others were fucking Nazis.

It IS that simple.

They are the two extremes that we must work to avoid.

before regurgitating it now.

Fact is though that communism has never yet existed.

That is a fact. China used to be, now they are fascist. One is no better than the other.
:thumbsdown:

The Soviets were active only for a very few short years before any semblance of worker control was abolished.

China is not fascist, it is merely state capitalist.

But hey, whatever. I know lots of people have a loose grasp on the real history and a very strong one on the myths necessary to make them Good Americans.

Shine on.

Because you want to live in a communist/socialist state.

I just happen to know considerably more about the subject than the regurgitated ignorant comments you have made.

Cheers

Talk about unintended consequences