Were FDR's economic policies "too socialist" for anyone here?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

If so, then what motivates you to be a Democrat?

I'm not trying to attack anyone. The more Democrats, the better. However, I think that way because I've long believed that MOST Democrats would like a return to more FDR-type socialist policies and reforms -- for the benefit of every race, gender, etc.

Am I wrong?

[leftstreet]

1. Yes. Social Security/Medicare makes old people lazy!

It would be better for their overall health to work until age 100

Oh, just in case:



DURec

[rampartc]

2. find a job you like and you can do it forever!

lolololooolol

[GulfCoast66]

3. I like all his programs and also those signed in by LBJ like Medicare.

But none of them are socialist policies. Not using the term as it is meant in most of the world.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

4. What does socialism mean to you?

Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2019, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I think it means when the government is managing goods and services instead of private industries.

FDR's work programs were socialist, such as the construction of Hoover Dam.

Social Security? Socialism.
Medicare? Socialism.
Public schools? Socialism.
Public roads? Socialism.
The police? Socialism.
The military? Socialism.

Socialism isn't a "bad word" to me.

I think many people confuse it with communism, when the government manages all means of production and there's no private property.

In the USA, many right-wingers will declare anything socialist unless it's police and military-related, or pretty much any service that they can't buy themselves. They can afford private healthcare, private schools and the like, so their focus is on the government programs that THEY need.

Right-wingers have molded the narrative for years: Government is bad if it helps the general population, and it's good when it protects the interests of the most wealthy.

[GulfCoast66]

6. That is not what socialism means.

It is the government control of the means of production. In other words business. Service are not and were never considered means of production. Hell, even monarchies provided services.

That is why every nation in western Europe is capitalist with strong social programs. In France, the government does not even own most insurance companies. They are highly regulated nonprofits. The government pays for those who can’t or who do not work for a business that normally pays a large part of it. And France is often considered the nation with the best healthcare in the world.

We let the right, starting with FDR largely redefine socialism in this country. Not so much in other parts of the first world. Even the right parties in Europe support their social programs.

It is much easier to tell the truth that government programs are not socialism than to get Americans liking a anything we call socialism. Even if it not really socialism.

There are some socialist on DU who do support government ownership of the means of production. They are not bad or evil. Just, in my opinion, wrong.

Nice conversation. Have a good day.

[comradebillyboy]

7. Exactly right +++

[Poiuyt]

11. Great post, Gulf Coast

Very accurate.

The misuse of the word "socialism"is one of my pet peeves. But Republicans know how to push the narrative and control the narrative. They know that Americans, by in large, have a negative view of socialism, so that's how they label us.

Republicans today are much closer to fascism than we are to socialism.

[ChubbyStar]

16. Sorry I trust Chomsky more than you

Have a good day.

[GulfCoast66]

17. I never asked you to trust me. Hell, you don't even know me!

But the facts are the facts regardless of what Chomsky or anyone else says.

No Western European nation calls itself socialist and none consider themselves socialist. Because they are not. The revenue the nations bring in is generated by capitalist ventures. They just make sure they have programs in place to insure people with no capital reap some benefits from capitalism.

Some countries have had the government take over the means of production and they are truly socialist. It never works out very well.

And BTW. Democratic Socialist are indeed socialist. Read what amounts to their platform. They indeed want many of the things Liberals like I want. But they are honest and do state their eventual goal is government control of business and industries. Minus a few strictly service industries they don’t feel the need to control. I don’t think them bad or evil. Just wrong.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

23. I disagree.

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2019, 02:07 AM - Edit history (1)

"It is the government control of the means of production."

I think your definition is too limited.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

Socialism: Social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

[JHB]

25. Precisely

[flaval]

26. Socialism is not government control of production.

Socialism is people or employee control of business or production. Communism is government control.

[GulfCoast66]

27. That's a difference with no distinction...

The only way workers gain power of the businesses and corporations in America is if the government takes the means of production from their current owners and gives them to the workers.

Either way you have Government taking control of private business.

Then what inevitably occurs, if this could even happen in the US, is the workers who have been given ownership only keep it if they make the government happy. After all the government has already proven it will take away the business. Any pretense of the workers actually owning the business is a sham.

[Jose Garcia]

5. The National Recovery Administration was terribly anti-competitive

Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2019, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

[Trumpocalypse]

8. Some would say that FDR

saved capitalism.

But he also supported segregation, illegally imprisoned Japanese Americans and built the military industrial complex.

[GulfCoast66]

12. Agree with your first 2 criticism. But not the third.

He used American Industries to win a global war. But he died before the way was over. It is unfair to pin the MIC on him because we can’t eat what his post war policy would have been. Truman and Ike should get the blame for that if anyone does.

And neither Kennedy nor LBJ tried to kill it. On the contrary it went crazy under LBJ.

[Trumpocalypse]

18. FDR built the military industrial complex

Later presidents can be criticized for not dismantling it, but FDR built it.

[GulfCoast66]

19. Well, he had a global war against Nazis and imperial Japan to win...

Folks that were slaughtering people everywhere they conquered and actually attacked us.

Or had you forgotten that part?

Had you rather we not actually won that war?

Reading history it now seems inevitable. But it was not at the time. Had we not ramped up military industrial production we could have lost Europe and Asia to Germany and Japan.

Had DU now reached a point where winning WWII is considered a bad deal?

[Trumpocalypse]

20. Not saying that

Just pointing out that FDR built the military industrial complex.

[GulfCoast66]

21. And the alternative? Losing the war.

What he would have done with the system he built will never be known. He was dead.

So criticizing the actions he took for what it became after he was dead seems disingenuous.

Unless you are criticizing his actions during the war, when he was actually alive.

Not discounting the power of the MIC. But Ike deserves the blame. He saw and warned of the power of MIC but did nothing to stop it when he had the power to do so. Weak sauce.

[Trumpocalypse]

22. Not the point

He created the military industrial complex.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. FDR's economic policies were probably too racist for most people here

considering that they excluded black Americans in order to get the support of Southern Democrats.

[GulfCoast66]

13. Yeah. True. But he had to have the southern democrats.

And they would have never supported him had he insisted that his economic policies including people of color. As we see today with white southern republicans, those white democrats defendants, they would rather let everything go to hell before supporting policies that lifted up people of color.

I do not know if he wanted to include them as I have never studied that period intensively enough. Hopefully someone on DU can chime in.

[onethatcares]

10. not for this guy and

we, as a nation, should be much further along the road to freedom and a good life for all our citizens.

My wife was amazed that Medicare/Medicaid was only 50 years old. She thought it was part of FDRs' legacy.

It's time to start over again...........and again............and again.

[trof]

14. Without Social Security Retirement we would be in serious financial trouble.

The third leg of our three legged income stool.
Pension, IRA, and Social Security.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

15. FDR saved capitalism

Something the righties would do well to remember.

The Depression would have lasted a lot longer if the government hadn't intervened.

[Recursion]

24. Ironically, he was excoriated as a corporatist and sell-out by the socialists and populists

Funny how that works. Ever heard any of Pete Seeger's anti-FDR songs? They're quite a hoot.

[GulfCoast66]

28. Right. It astounds me that so many on the left push this idea.

FDR was no socialist and his policies were not socialism. That has been the republican smear since he got them passed!

[Blue_true]

29. FDR left large swaths of the country's population out of his policies.

So by definition, they were not socialist.