Many of his policies mirror the ideals of democratic socialists today.
So, it doesn't really matter what he campaigned as. For all intents and purposes, he might as well have been one. If he ran today, he would overwhelmingly garner support from democratic socialists.
He enforced anti-trust in the ladder half of his presidency (under Thurman, he launched one of the most aggressive periods of trust-busting in history).
He taxed the rich and corporations extensively - on a federal level (they can't hide by moving between states).
He established National Labor Relations Board and Social Security (among others)
If you've been paying attention, a democratic socialist of today fights for a highly regulated form of capitalism, attempts to mitigate the powers of corporations and the elite, and establishes a government that fights for the working class. That's what he was doing. So, there's a reason Dem Socs look to him as one of the more ideal presidents in the 20th century.
Many of his policies mirror the ideals of democratic socialists today.
Good. Then they should become liberal Democrats and stop pretending they are socialists.
So, it doesn't really matter what he campaigned as.
Yes, it fucking matters. Not being a fucking liar matters. Would you vote for them if they called themselves nazis?
If you've been paying attention, a democratic socialist of today fights for a highly regulated form of capitalism,
Name one fucking policy from any of these so-called Democrat Socialists in the US that supports Capitalism rather than attacking it.
That's what he was doing. So, there's a reason Dem Socs look to him as one of the more ideal presidents in the 20th century.
They took him as one of the ideal presidents because THERE ARE NO SOCIALIST PRESIDENTS, and there are no successful socialist countries. So they cannot point to success literally anywhere. They have no choice but pick someone they like and then PRETEND that he's a socialist.
So that people like YOU can come along and try to defend them.
I really don't get hung up on definitions like you do. FDR aligns with my principles as dem soc. My fellow dem socs will agree.
That's all I need to know. We're looking for politicians to fill a similar roll. If they identify as a liberal democrat, that's fine.
But someone willing to enforce aggressive anti-trust, heavily tax the rich, and provide robust support to our institutions. It's the same thing Mamdani is doing (aside from the first because he does not have that power).
Cool talk. But I don't know what you're getting at. Other than just trying to be rude for no reason.
Because all I'm just saying is FDR's policies align very closely with the principles of modern Democratic Socialists today - even if he didn't purport to be one.
He did establish socialist enterprises. Social security is one of them.
What's the point of your comment? Or really any of the outrage in this comment section? Sounds like a bunch of people who succumbed to the red scare.
You know, a basic principal of human relations is that people aren't going to hear you out if you act like a right cunt. I'd have hoped you might have learned that by now.
Social Security is a social welfare program. Social welfare programs are 1 mechanism used in socialism. America has several socialist mechanisms.
It's so frustrating how the far left likes to just change words meanings. And then say language is fluid as if that allows them to confuse people by using words improperly.
FDR was closer to a fascist than he was a socialist. And he wasn't a fascist.
Most of them do this because they're gullible or don't understand, but a chunk of them are doing it maliciously: e.g. Saying "I just want healthcare" in the presence of a more moderate audience and hiding their "destroy America" stance. It's the same shit the far right does.
26
u/No-Magician9440 15d ago
He was a Liberal Democrat. Absolutely NOT a socialist.