Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › socialism, FDR, progressivism, etc
- This topic has 9 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 4 months ago by
Billy_T.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 11, 2018 at 10:09 am #89272
wvParticipantsocializm:https://portside.org/2018-08-10/socialism-and-liberal-imagination
“….In 1936, as Roosevelt was running for reelection, former New York Governor Al Smith—once FDR’s great political benefactor, by then turned sour adversary—accused him of carrying out most of the demands of the Socialist platform. But card-carrying Socialists rebuffed the growing conservative effort to brand the New Deal as “socialist”: Norman Thomas, making his third bid for the presidency as the party’s standard-bearer, took to the airwaves to stress the point. If Roosevelt had carried out the Socialist platform, Thomas famously remarked, “he [had] carried it out on a stretcher.”
But Thomas was not the only Socialist to weigh in on the question….see link…”
August 11, 2018 at 10:57 am #89273
Billy_TParticipantsocializm:https://portside.org/2018-08-10/socialism-and-liberal-imagination
“….In 1936, as Roosevelt was running for reelection, former New York Governor Al Smith—once FDR’s great political benefactor, by then turned sour adversary—accused him of carrying out most of the demands of the Socialist platform. But card-carrying Socialists rebuffed the growing conservative effort to brand the New Deal as “socialist”: Norman Thomas, making his third bid for the presidency as the party’s standard-bearer, took to the airwaves to stress the point. If Roosevelt had carried out the Socialist platform, Thomas famously remarked, “he [had] carried it out on a stretcher.”
But Thomas was not the only Socialist to weigh in on the question….see link…”
If FDR had carried out the socialist agenda — and the timing was absolutely perfect for that, given the Depression — we’d no longer have a capitalist economy.
He saved capitalism. His New Deal was basically a centrist compromise between a resurgent left and the center-right Establishment, and it did make a positive difference. But it wasn’t “socialist,” except in the sense that some socialist ideas were implemented.
But as long as capitalism remains the economic engine, a society can’t be called a socialist society, by definition. It can be a “social democracy,” but not “socialist,” and there’s a difference.
August 11, 2018 at 11:09 am #89274Billy_TParticipantSome Marxists and other kinds of leftists have pointed out, over time, that “social democracy” delays — or prevents outright — socialist revolutions. Whether or not that’s the intention of its supporters . . . it tends to be enough, at least in relatively prosperous nation-states, to degrade revolutionary fervor for radical change.
There’s an unfortunate dynamic at work, historically. Boiled down, over-simplified:
1. The nations most in need of socialism — impoverished nations, with the least amount of popular sovereignty — have the biggest obstacles in their paths . . . and even if revolutions miraculously happen there, they lack the necessary surplus to sustain the new system. (Capitalist nations have never stepped in to help them, of course.)
2. The most prosperous nations, the ones that actually do have the necessary surplus to make socialism work beautifully, are generally the least likely to want to make those changes . . . for obvious reasons. The Powers that Be would no longer have their monopoly on wealth, privilege, power, etc. etc. They’d have to share all of that, for once.
August 11, 2018 at 1:34 pm #89282
waterfieldParticipantThen what is Democratic Socialism as pronounced by Bernie Sanders ? Seriously, I don’t really understand clearly what it is.
August 11, 2018 at 1:49 pm #89283
znModeratorThen what is Democratic Socialism as pronounced by Bernie Sanders ? Seriously, I don’t really understand clearly what it is.
It’s a mixed economy system like scandanavia where you still have a strong private sector but you complement it with a public sector that handles things that should not be for profit, are handled worse when they are for profit, and which accord with basic social and human needs.
So for example you would have public not private health insurance (which saves everyone including employers huge amounts of money and is more efficient) but at the same time the actual medical industry is private.
It would also restrict the private sector from dominating or even attempting to dominate areas of public interest such as elections, education, and environmental policy.
It’s opposed to privatizing everything for profit and in the USA is a direct opponent of neoliberal economics and handing EVERYTHING over to big money interests.
August 11, 2018 at 3:16 pm #89284Billy_TParticipantThen what is Democratic Socialism as pronounced by Bernie Sanders ? Seriously, I don’t really understand clearly what it is.
People will argue terms, and not all leftists even agree about them. But my own view is that Sanders pushes for “social democracy,” and not “democratic socialism.”
The latter means no more capitalism, period. It means we extend democracy to include the economy — which erases the capitalist system — and we democratize the workplace. It also means we the people, not the state, own the means of production.
Ironically, “social democracy” allows for some state control over the economy, and retains capitalism, thus making it more of a Big Gubmint affair. It doesn’t extend democracy to include the economy, or democratize the workplace. This is “ironic” because going further left actually means far less “state control” — thus going against standard received wisdom. It means actual full-scale and applied democracy instead, which would be a first in the modern world.
A good article on the differences here from Jacobin:
Social Democracy Is Good. But Not Good Enough. By Joseph M. Schwartz Bhaskar Sunkara
August 11, 2018 at 3:24 pm #89285Billy_TParticipantJust to clarify.
I would love to see us upgrade our system to “social democracy,” a la the Scandinavian countries. I think that would be a great improvement over what we have now.
But I’d much prefer a socialist society, full stop. The real thing, with fully applied democracy/democratic self-rule, etc.
To me, socialism has democracy baked in. It’s actually the entire point. Popular sovereignty, the end of capitalism, real democracy. That’s the whole point. So there’s no need to add “democratic” to “socialism.”
Except . . . to distinguish it from a tiny faction on the left that wants to achieve socialism by any means necessary. To me, the only route is via democratic, non-violent processes. That’s where the “democratic” adjective kicks in.
August 12, 2018 at 5:00 am #89317
nittany ramModerator“I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of DSA, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism.”
Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/first-person/2018/8/1/17637028/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cynthia-nixon-democratic-socialism-jacobin-dsaAugust 12, 2018 at 8:31 am #89320Billy_TParticipant“I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of DSA, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism.”
Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/first-person/2018/8/1/17637028/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cynthia-nixon-democratic-socialism-jacobin-dsaIMO, a huge problem with this discussion, nationally, is that far too many Americans think “capitalism” is just a synonym for trade, commerce or business. It’s not. It’s a specific and unique form/mode of trade, commerce and business. It’s an unprecedented mode of production, and the first one in world history to become the One and Only.
If we get rid of it, we don’t get rid commerce, etc. etc. We do commerce under different rules, with different internal logic, and especially, different controlling interests.
If we go the socialist route, that control goes from a tiny sliver of the nation to all of us, literally. It goes from a fundamentally autocratic, authoritarian and anti-democratic system of control to a fully democratic one.
America desperately needs to have a conversation about what capitalism is and isn’t, and how it came to be dominant. Without that, even the word “socialism” will keep scaring people to death.
August 12, 2018 at 8:35 am #89321Billy_TParticipantFor starters, I wish every American would read at least these two books on capitalism. At least:
The Origin of Capitalism, by Ellen Meiksins Wood
The Invention of Capitalism, by Michael PerelmanBoth are must-reads. The first is perhaps the single best summary/description of what makes capitalism unique and unprecedented, and why. It’s short enough for our busy times, and more than accessible.
The second is an excellent history of capitalism’s start in England, and the author uses direct quotes from early political economists to tell the tale. Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, etc. Focuses on “primitive accumulation” but goes into all the essentials.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
