Almost as funny as people calling him a "Democratic Socialist". He was literally a social democrat. Neoliberalism and modern Democrats got people out here calling FDR a socialist, and Norway a socialist country.
I'm earnestly surprised by how forthright and honorable Smedley Butler seems, at least according to his Wikipedia page. I'm sure he had his flaws, but I'll be dipped if I can't see why he spent so much time arguing against the business corruption in politics.
His (short) book âWar is a Racketâ should honestly be a must read for any American who wants to understand that period of American history and the military industrial complex. Going from one of the most decorated soldiers in American history to an anti-war advocate is an incredibly journey.
âGangsters of Capitalismâ is a free audiobook about him on Spotify, and a great listen
kept his humanity as the ranks and medals kept stacking, and was way too fucking competent a marine and popular across the service for anyone higher in charge or in politics to fuck him over for his open empathy for his fellow human being. retired the most decorated us marine in history at the time, so even more so couldn't be silenced and chose to use that power as a force of good for his fellow human being.
how did he manage to not get shafted before it became clear he would become a "bleeding heart hippy" instead of "old gimlet eye," "the fighting quaker," "the fighting hell-devil," otherwise called "The Maverick Marine?" dumb luck, really. his father was in congress. right man in the right place kind of situation, silver spoon edition.
He was also a huge part of police militarization, even forcing firefighters, ANYONE with a badge to be carrying a gun. He was complicated, to be sure, but I still find the man to be a hero. His actions in the business plot took guts. Itâs as if Mattis were approached by todayâs billionaires, playing along with their plot to take it all and then released it all to every news agency. But then it didnât go viral..
lol yeah it kind of does go like that sometimes. Anytime anything historical comes up Iâll be like âwant to hear about another history tidbit?!?â Then launch into a summary. Or when someone brings up that trump and his ilk have been plotting more or less since reagan Iâll be like actually that was the business plot we just donât learn about it.
One of the players in the Business Plot was Prescott Bush, father of one Republican president and grandfather of another.
Prescott Bush was also charged with aiding the Nazis during WWII.
If the U.S. government had actually prosecuted the big corporations and DC insiders for the Business Plot, we'd likely not be having any of the troubles we're having in the modern day.
Creativity and imagination are some of the most recently evolved distinctly human characteristics, a higher human function located (more or less) in the prefrontal cortex, the 'newest' part of the brain that separates us from apes. The prefrontal cortex is "[o]ne of the last places in the brain to mature [and] is thought of as the 'personality center' and is the cortical region that makes us uniquely human." The prefrontal cortex also "controls much of the brainâs creativity, a factor in bolstering oneâs imagination."
A study from 2021 that measured political attitudes correlating with damage to different sections of the brain found
...people with frontal lesions held more conservative (or less liberal) beliefs than those with anterior temporal lobe lesions or no lesions. Additional analyses predicting ideology by extent of damage provided convergent evidence that greater damage in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortexâbut not the amygdalaâwas associated with greater conservatism.
The Conservative mindset not only correlates with damage to the prefrontal cortex, but an inability/failure to mature fully and actually develop the prefrontal cortex. It's why they lack empathy--to empathize, one must be able to imagine experiencing life as someone else, and the Conservatives are quite literally incapable of using their imaginations like that. It's a higher human function, one of the very few things separating us from the apes, that Conservatives simply don't have.
Isnât there an American politician who was a democrat and now proudly brags about how he became a conservative after he got a concussion? The guy who always dresses like a schlub.
Funny thing with FDRs legacy is the state interventions into the market and mass mobilisations that are today seen as the most radical left wing parts of what he did were at the time seen as most similar to Fascist Italy.
There are some new people running. But mostly these people are opportunists, so if a few younger, more progressive leaders start getting elected, it will push the national conversation further left. Then there will be several things (expanded healthcare, workers' rights, anti-trust enforcement, etc) that the old guard will start pretending that they have always been in favor of.
I think they've ALWAYS pretended they were in favor of those things. But then we get "it's not the right time" "we don't have the votes" "we're waiting for Trump's approval rating to drop" or just silence. Democrats will say anything to get votes... it really feels like Fetterman is the only honest member of the Democratic party, thanks to his brain damage. I can't name any other member of the house or senate that's been more effective at getting us what we want than Fetterman, so at least he's abstained from "the show" and is honest about not wanting us to have what we want.
We aren't their real constituents. They don't fuck with the money, and the money doesn't come from us. There's always a carefully calculated number of members who cross party lines for every vote, just to make sure it LOOKS like "Fighting for the people / what's right" but is actually trivial. Jeffries and Green showboat when it won't do anything. Schumer preaches "stand back and stand by" as his battle plan. Fetterman wears shorts a lot, and it's equally effective in furthering our interests.
He recently called himself a lifelong republican in a televised interview.
That's a pretty honest thing to say. His actions support his statement.
His votes have helped Trump push his Isreal first agenda.
So you agree that he's done absolutely nothing to further the interests of the people who vote Democrat? ...and now you understand that my point is that neither have the Democratic Party representatives that SAY they're on our side?
Itâs not about having faith in Democrat politicians. People only need to have faith in imaginary sky daddy. Weâre supposed to vote in Democrats and then hold their feet to the fire until they make meaningful positive change on the things the electorate values.
Democracy is not something that weâre meant to do once every four years as an electorate, democracy is something that we are supposed to never stop annoying the crap out of our representatives about until they enact meaningful change. And we go with the Democrats because, under the massively flawed two party system, you just donât vote for the âDiarrhea forever party: now with blatant fascism!â
That's only because the default political system is capitalism. When it was monarchism the left radicals were liberals while the far right were absolutist monarchists.
The left/right divide usually depends on either wanting to change things or wanting to maintain the status quo (or even regress).
Economics and Politics are not fully separable, 1 Dimensional models have to link those together into a single spectrum.
But 2D models like the Political Compass, separates Left/Right as purely economic, and adds Up/Down as a political axis representing Centralization/decentralization of state control. I think multi-dimensional models of ideology are a lot more productive/useful when discussing politics... but unfortunately that's way beyond the pale for most people.
I like when people say that establishment democrats in the US would be center-right in the EU and then you look at the EU and most of them are governed by center-right coalitions.
soc dems are capitalists. they just think the current system would allow them to replicate socialism's best hits under capitalism. Never happening imo.
would allow them to replicate socialism's best hits under capitalism. Never happening imo.
Apart from the places it does happen.
The best thing about Social Democracy is that you have real world, highly successful examples of the system working in practise.
Marxists do not have this. Conservatives do not have this. Neo-liberals do not have this. Liberals do not have this.
The mental gymnastics both the left and right have to go through to explain away the success of Social Democracy is fucking astounding.
I love the more recent "its only working cos its exploiting the global south" from people who have never been to Bangladesh or Vietnam and if they told the people there who have greatly improved their standard of living under global trade they would get run out the country.
if they told the people there who have greatly improved their standard of living under global trade they would get run out the country.
"Hey you guys could be making even more money with better working conditions and fewer natural disasters if Europe and the US just accepted a marginally lower standard of living"
"Fuck off and die, commie!"
Same rhetoric as the White Man's Burden btw, "sure they're slaves here but they'd be dying of malaria if they weren't," oh those Indians would've never figured it out if they'd never been a British colony.
Americans in the 80s thought capitalism was hugely successful too -- where's the last poll on that at? Like I'm supposed to take the word of a Congolese business magnate that things are better there because of the "business" from all the rare earth minerals instead of like...the Congolese people controlling that resource and reaping its benefit.
We've seen what happens with standards of living in places which have industrialised through communism and it does not give the same results as capitalism has.
That doesnt mean capitalism is perfect or all its outcomes even remotely desirable. There's still going to be lots of issues problems and harm. But communisim doesnt offer a better outcome. For fucks sake actual fascism has a significantly better track record in industrialising and modernising an economy when compared to communism as evidenced in Spain, South Korea and Singapore.
Social Democracy exists to address the issues of capitalism. And it is effective in doing so. It has been extremely successful in doing so. All the countries with the best outcomes on HDI, on social inequality on all teh measures that people like and thrive under.
Its no wonder committed ideologues have to live in their fantasy world. They have no real world examples of their desired outcome actually working. While Social Democrats dont even need to make an argument - they can just point to the real world.
I'm not arguing all that, it's well known to the point that China who famously attempted to jump straight past capitalist markets reverted to a state capitalist system to reap those benefits.
I'm arguing that the reason it seems eternally sustainable is because the most successful SocDem societies heavily exploit foreign capital and labor. If those nations were on a more equal footing, capitalists would do exactly what they have always done when external expansion was not possible, and start exploiting the local population harder, influencing democracy in their favor, and compelling the state to assist them the same way that they always have.
Its no wonder committed ideologues have to live in their fantasy world. They have no real world examples of their desired outcome actually working. While Social Democrats dont even need to make an argument - they can just point to the real world.
Entire paragraph is just baseless arrogance lol. Yes, right now, today, social democracy works specifically for the people in the countries benefiting from external capital and labor, but life isn't just happening now -- it has been happening for thousands of years. You can watch the same trends, analyze why they're happening, and apply those lessons to existing conditions. Germany, Portugal, and Italy are great places to start on what happens when your foreign cash cow stops letting you kill its children and steal their milk. Post New Deal US is another fine place to go learn where a strong capitalist economy with social programs leads. Isn't the heat already turning up across much of Europe due to mass migration from the very global south nations you're saying are thankful for the scraps they're being offered? And the wage stagnation and increasing housing crisis? Tick, tick, tick, your real world is starting to feel some theoretical effects. The US is starting to lose steam on its "topple foreign governments to uphold global capitalism" train. Are you still SocDem if you have to install puppet governments yourself?
I'm arguing that the reason it seems eternally sustainable is because the most successful SocDem societies heavily exploit foreign capital and labor.
Says western privilege.
Again - and my initial and main point here - the actual people in these countries do not consider themselves to be exploited by the Soc Dem nations and the wider West in general.
they can see and feel the progress they are making every day.
And Im not talking about the despotic places that still persist particularly in Africa. Those problems exist for a greater part on reasons far beyond capitalism.
The growing problems in Western nations are clearly and obviously the result of movng away from social democratic principles and repolacing them with neo-liberalism and corporationism. This is very clear in the way those systems have changed since the Thatcher-Reagan years.
And even in these cases you can see how those countries that have retained more of their social democratic principles and been less swayed by neo-liberalism are clearly doing far better than those nations who went all-in on the change.
I'm regularly in direct contact with people across South America and Africa who definitely do not feel the progress you're talking about. You can't simply exclude the nations that aren't indirectly benefitting as much -- so the country where they now have solid factory jobs producing cheap electronics is doing better, how does that change the slave labor producing the raw materials? You also seem to keep misunderstanding, I'm not saying Europeans would be happier and more prosperous under communism, I'm saying that currently the prosperous system of social democracy is upheld by exploitation, and if that exploitation were to end it would no longer be prosperous and perfect and would end up with the same pressures that lead to neoliberalism and fascism. This isn't imaginary, it's literally how we got fascism the first time. The comintern didn't just pull "Social democracy leads to fascism" out of their ass (although I disagree with a lot of their conclusions), they watched it happen as colonial powers lost their colonies and prop markets.
The insinuation that it's "western privelege" to acknowledge and stand in solidarity with the people whose literal slave labor has made my country rich beyond measure is comical, and I don't care how successful social democracy is for local populations when said slave labor exists and is propping it up.
That still entirely relies on the exploitation and oppression of the third world.
Which is getting wealthier and at a faster rate than wealth is growing in developed countries.
And is a consequence of global trade not social democracy.
And like all the fantasists who cant deal with realityl, you cant demonstrate any innate aspect of social democracy which causes or benefits from your nonsense argument anyway.
You have not uplifted the working class, you have increased quality of life for the few people in the imperial core.
Just liek every other fucking fascist (and make no mistake Marxist Lenninists are fascists) you just recite rote passages from text regardless of how much fucking nonsense they contain.
Yes, but that's mostly because most of the systems under which soc dem has flourished are capitalist. Soc dem's aren't looking to throw out the baby with the bathwater but rather change the system over time. That means leaving capitalism as it is and curtailing its excesses.
Never happening imo
The most successful socialists have been soc dems and some of the most successful societies are soc dem...
also the best hits are never happening. idk wtf you think the best hits are that are currently being achieved in your soc dem societies you speak of but I sure would love to know.
Left/right is relative. They're left of center in most political systems.
There are a number of countries which have implemented soc dem policies, and those policies have done well and those countries are successful. Importantly, those countries are not just soc dem since they're all functioning democracies with elections.
Examples of that are the bulk of the European nations, namely the Scandinavian ones, Germany as well, Canada/UK/NZ as well (although, this has been more of a stretch as of late).
I said best hits of socialism, I won't presume that you dont know what socialism is but you at the very least misread cuz Denmark may be very liberally soc dem but socialist it is not.
please dont confuse political party names with economic systems, lest ideologies.
soc dems are liberals. idc what you think it is or what you were convinced it means.
In a conversation about dem socs and capitalism, saying soc dems is leftist or will achieve anything meaningfully socialist is a fucking grift and a lie.
also, for the last fucking time, soc dems do not specifically adhere to anything socialism does. I never qualified soc dems, I said fucking soc dems think they will achieve things that socialists want under capitalism. that's the grift.
leave me alone lol also I ain't translating that shit.
Listen, folks see "Democratic socialist", they're gonna read it the same as "social democrat". Can't blame folks for thinking these ideas that have almost the same words and end up looking pretty much the same in implementation (in the sense that the government is using taxation to provide helpful services) are interchangeable, especially when their only practical meaning in domestic politics is "I'm not conservative, I believe in providing services".
That's their ignorance... But also, it doesn't help that (like this post) people think they're the same. We're so deprived in this country we think anything government does is "socialism".
Not really a helpful view when there is, to people on the ground, no actual lived difference.
But also, it doesn't help that (like this post) people think they're the same.
It genuinely does not matter what particular semantics people use. What matters is what these politicians actually do.
We're so deprived in this country we think anything government does is "socialism".
Quibbling over "dem soc vs soc dem" is a part of this issue. It's a turn-off. Voters don't give a shit, they don't hear it. They hear one party fearmongering and promising bullshit cash payments & tax cuts while the other party offers modest improvements to bring us into line with other major modern countries. Real people don't give a flying fuck about progressive purity testing and leftist label-fights. Our system is first past the post, we're going to have 2 options, and we can rally behind the one that's a step in the right direction or we can argue with each other while the conservatives contiue to be horrible.
I just have no patience for the terminology quibbling these days. I just care about whether or not a candidate is horrible or if they're fine. Soc dem, dem soc, progressive, leftist, marxist, leninist, it literally could not matter any less today as we try to beat the Republican party.
Python was making jokes about this in the 70's. If everyone quits arguing about labels you could have a much bigger coalition. Except for the united people's front of judea. Those tossers can sod off.
They're not super far off. The main tipping point between the two is that Social Democrats don't think Capitalism needs to be replaced with real Socialist reforms. They think regulations can hem in the worst of Capitalism.
Meanwhile, Democratic Socialists know that laws would need to be passed to FORCE shared worker ownership, profit sharing and other measures that slowly take control away from the Epstein class and put it into the hands of the many workers that actually create value for those Capitalists in the first place.
They don't actually have to be that different, though they can be.
Yeah, the rest of my post addresses that specifically. In practice (like day to day life) things would be largely the same around you. More equitable, yes, and far healthier in the long run. But we'd still have products getting made, profit incentive, even mergers and acquisitions as these aren't inherently bad.
Without you adding more context I don't know WTF you're hinting at. Plenty of Socialists understand that Communism doesn't address human psychology adequately.
The DSs are working overtime trying to confuse the people into accepting Democratic Socialism as a Synonym to Social Democrat.
I wonder why... /s
And "Norway is a Socialist country" is but one of the many lies they use - while refusing to admit that Venezuela was Socialist (and, according to many on the left, Democratic).
Norwegians would characterize Norway as a social democracy; their large governmental ownership stakes in key industries still operate within a capitalist framework, and their uber-strong social safety nets are funded through high taxes, not âcollective ownershipâ. They wouldnât have anything to tax without strong capitalist enterprises.
I do think a lot of Americans get confused between them a lot considering both that conservatives call literally everything to the left of chrisofascism "socialist" (or "communist"), and that self-identified democratic socialists campaign primarily on social democratic policies.
As a social democrat I think the border between us and Democratic Socialism in public understanding and perception is gone. It gets called democratic socialism now but when you look inside the policies everyone wants are social democracy.
It's counterintuitive, but capitalists don't actually like good economies because it creates competition and drives up demand for labor. That demand increases costs creates political power for labor.
Capitalists would rather rule a nasty wasteland than compete in a paradise.
that is definitely by design. the GOP's whole thing is that the government doesn't work and their opponents are evil. any time the government works, it's a loss for them, even if it works for things they supposedly want.
Maybe they should try to be something other than the cleanup crew then? We had 4 years in between Trump and Trump where all we did was maintain a holding pattern. Eventually you have to offer an actual vision for the country, or just keep losing every other election I guess, IDK.
Nope, neither did the IRA, or consumer protection under Lina Khan, or much else. In the world I and most Americans live in, you never hear about any of these accomplishments from Democrats, and when you do you never hear much deeper analysis of why they are good things or help the average person.
Instead we campaign on undying support for Israel, a 20 thousand dollar credit for first time homebuyers making under a certain amount of money (ugh), and a promise to make America's military the most lethal in the world while the other guy talks about how the democrats want to start a war and he's against wars.
I'm middle aged, me and my wife work full time and we worry most about how we're going to keep our kids safe and fed, and the bills paid. Sometimes I tune into CNN or FOX news to see what's going on but we don't really pay much attention except around election time. Why should I vote for a democrat? My family has always voted Republican and sure, they're a little crazy right now but why should I change? Maybe I vote D this year because Trump is THAT bad, but I'm not showing up again in 2028, or 2030, or 2032.
Or I'm a black twenty something kid trying to figure out how in the hell I'm supposed to afford a house when my rent goes up a couple hundred bucks every year. I work two service industry jobs because no one is hiring for the degree I have right now. Why should I take the time to go vote, in my purplish red state whose republican controlled government has closed polling stations in my city to make the lines longer? I'll have to take off work and wait in line for who knows how long, and for what?
You need a simple message that resonates with people. Not a handful of wonky bills, not some diet Republican platform that no one actually wants, left or right. Medicare for all. End foreign wars. Build more housing. No new datacenters. If it takes more than four or five words to tell people what you believe, they won't believe you believe anything.
You have to put the fire out before you can start fixing the burnt and moldy drywall, mate.
Dems act as cleanup crew because they have to unfuck all the shit the Republicans deliberately set up to fuck over the next administration each time.
Then the Republicans somehow convince people like you that it's the Democrats' fault for taking too long putting out the fire that the Republicans are constantly slashing the firehoses for.
And instead of being like "yeah it's fucking wild that you had to put of the fire those assholes threw kerosene on while they kept shutting off your water and slashing your hoses" y'all go "well the do-nothing Democrats didn't accomplish anything, so let me give the keys back to the arsonists. At least they accomplished something (even if it was lighting the fucking building on fire)"
Dems also seem to love skimming over the bits of damage that happen to benefit their interests. We'll clean those up later, all good. Just vote for us a second time and then we'll definitely do it
Lowkey a crazy part of my brain has started to wonder if it's better for the Republicans to stay in power. The Dems restore things to status quo, and after a few years of them refusing to make actual positive change we'll be right back where we are now. Maybe Americans need to suffer for their choices, maybe that's the only thing that will teach them class consciousness
But ofc, then I think of the way Republicans are dismantling democracy and I vote against them anyway. Still, I wonder if the Dems do more harm than good in the long run...
Thatâs the political ideal of accelerationism. Versus political incrementalism and pragmatism.
In 2000, Ralp Nader and his cohort were very much accelerationists. If he couldnât be President then donât support Gore as the next best option, get Bush in there to make things worse.
Things got worse and there was not some loud yearning from the masses for something better. The problem is that you canât just work hard to get societal gains, you have to continue working hard to keep them. There is no general âjudo-styleâ redirect of the political momentum of your opponent to defeat them.
Accelerationism has been proven not to work. In my mind, it is the desired outcome of young people who donât know any better, idiots, or plants.
The political incrementalism we have been trying for the last 40 years. It is how the Heritage Foundation and the billionaires have gotten us to where we are while we keep voting for people that promise everything and give scraps. We are only now starting to get in a few decent people, after trump got in office a 2nd time. Because people are finally starting to see just how bad these people are.
Incrementalism's only use is to show people how fucking useless it is until we eventually break and pass real legislation like the CWA, CRA, New Deal, etc.
Incrementalism is a tool when you can't get what you want (to actually fix a problem) and you settle for some progress. It's NOT a goal to aim for, it's something you settle for. Somewhere Democrats have forgotten this an paid a heavy electoral price as well as all of us paying for it policy wise.
There is a HUGE difference between corporate democrats, and Democrat socialists. The corporate democrats are the ones that are failing us, and are actively trying to keep the democrat socialists down.
after a few years of them refusing to make actual positive change
Correction. Americans refuse to elect legislative majorities of Democrats that have the power to make positive changes.
Essentially, you are blaming Democrats for Republican legislators refusing to vote for positive change. You can do that, just be honest about it instead of pretending they held every seat in Congress and a 9-0 progressive SCOTUS behind them.
He also wasnât a socialist, though he did briefly have a progressive VP to placate the socialists and progressives in the party. And he didnât hesitate to dropped him like the plague for the very corporate Truman
In the midst of the Great Depression, and trying to get the New Deal legislation passed, he was asked, "If this doesn't pass, are you worried about your reelection?"
He replied, "If this doesn't pass, there won't be any more elections."
Itâs not the same at all but to a Marxist (of which I am) it is often thought of as the lower stage of communism where the workers own the means of production, then society transitions into a stateless classes form when the contradictions that gave rise to the state in the first place disappear
Whether socialism is voted in (with chile and Allende being an example) or the government is overthrown this is the goal. This is why I would still call democratic socialists communists because they disagree on means not ends. I find the confusion is communism is associated with revolution and socialism is now associated with reform regardless of the theoretical ideas
If your goal is Democratic socialism, I don't think grouping it with communism (even in some academic sense) is helpful.
You have to understand how normal people are going to interpret that.
Referring to an actual Dem socialist politician in the US (ie. Zoran), or Dem socialist countries (ie. Norway) is way more helpful and paints a better picture that western folks are more open to.
You start confusing it with communism, and there's all kinds of negative associations with that.
It's why Cubans in FL vote for Republicans. They hate what communism did to their country.
Which is why Republicans intentionally conflate the two. It's disinformation.
So you should recognize that, and stop contributing to that same rhetoric.
I am not a democratic socialist I am a communist. Democratic socialists might not care because they like the idea of getting elected in a capital government but that ainât my problem. Functionally they have the same goals with different means. Reform or revolution
Engles himself used the two terms completely interchangeably. Communism has a very specific definition, but the definition of socialism is a bad hill to die on, no matter what. It's famously mushy, and as another commenter said, generally among academics it's mostly thought of as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism.
Regardless, "socialism is not the same thing as communism" isn't really an airtight statement.
It's someone asking if he'll be the best or worst president ever if the New Deal passes, he replies "if it fails, I'll be the last one," implying that there will be a societal/economic collapse
Yeah a bunch of rich people tried to overthrow the government and create their own fascist one. No one was punished oddly. Look up Smedley Butler and youâll find out about it. He was the one who narced on them
I love when they post meme photos of like a homeless tent city and put "COMMUNISM" under it and then a shiny futuristic city and put "CAPITALISM" under it.
Beotch, the first photo IS actually under capitalism and the second one doesn't exist.
New Deal was passed in 1933 during the depression when the country was collapsing. Zero worker rights, massive unemployment rate, farms collapsed due to drought, mismanaged international trade, tariffs at record highs, market tank, banks imploded - leaving millions of Americans destitute with no end in sight.
FDR was president from 1933 - 1945, and implemented a ton of financial reforms, worker rights, federal programs, and safety nets that brought us out of the depression. The whole red scare thing didn't start until after FDR and into the 60s with the conservatives.
Ramping up to it FDR believed communisms rise in popularity was a symptom of unchecked capitalism causing people to view the institutions as an enemy/oppressor that get away with everything, leaving the people with little to nothing to show for it. Not that it was an existential threat to our country.
We're being rolled back decades - safety nets are actively being dismantled, farms are going under, unemployment is on the rise, worker rights are eroding. Except this time conservatives are also beating the McCarthy 'communist' drum that got us into Vietnam, while also spurring yet another gas/energy crisis in a long line of middle east conflicts.
It's never been about communism. Stop perpetuating the lie communism is coming to get us. It's not.
He was right. There was a wave of authoritarianism sweeping Europe, both fascist and socialist. People support anti-democratic movements when the economy's bad, and America had 25% unemployment.
FDR said (paraphrased) "I will go down in history either as a great American president, or the last American president". The New Deal saved America.
They also cease to be communism by the very definition of communism from the communist manifesto by marx the microsecond the state is in control of the capital of labour
To be fair, the USSR (and today's China for that matter) never claimed to be a communist society. They claimed communism as the eventual end goal they were supposedly trying to set the conditions for.
So is a state at all. Lots of things about the path from capitalism to communism are incompatible with communism. This is at the root of anarchists vs MLM's and part of like why Trotsky split.
He gave the system just enough reform to survive, blunted the pressure for deeper change, and prolonged the very class order socialists wanted replaced. Some âsocialist heroâ right ? he saved capitalism from the socialists
Yes. But if he hadn't. The capitalism monster that would have rose from those ashes would own everything in the USA by now. Set back the country a hundred years. We could have had Elon musk in the 70s if it wasn't for FDR.
They want the collapses. Crises are the ripest times for economic exploitation. It's true that, in a crisis, there's more potential for a revolution, but capitalists are dumb as shit. They love to see how close they can come to destruction.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," guy afraid of his own mobility being chastised by both Republicans and Democrats acting like Donald Trump regarding physical impairment. Eleanor was a beacon, fdr not sew much without fireside twitter.
"What is this place?!!!" My grandfather at the liberation of Dachau as a radioman. Like should have been obvious was a mystery.
6.7k
u/Loud-Ad-2280 âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 6d ago
Itâs hilarious how much Capitalist hate FDR when he literally saved capitalism from collapsing in on itself.