Socialism - American Style

Hmm, interesting one. I don't know! Religious fundamentalism tends to demand extreme behaviour in order to demonstrate commitment. It would be interesting to test the extent that it generates an even 'purer' form of authoritarian personality

 

How is there no Tyranny in American Socialism if the people allow the government to have much more control over peoples lives and decisions. Socialism can remove Free Speech and the foods we eat as well as many others all while flattening the salary structure to where small businesses struggle to survive due to massive regulations like when Obama was chief. Just handing out welfare to people because they make less under socialism doesn't give them incentive to better themselves. Those same people can thrive with more opportunity, not living on the reliance on what the government provides for them. There has to be a happy medium where some socialist programs can work in a capitalist society. But, going all progressive can make people think that $20 per hour is the best they can ever achieve as it will become the truth all while people who put in less effort will be entitled to the same benefits as those who put in the effort to better their lives. We have seen what a promotion of capitalism has done as I don't know a single person who hasn't improved their lives in the last 2 years. But, we could all still do with some better healthcare or other socialist benefits if done the right way instead of going full bore into liberal tear down of existing structure.

 

I'm unsure of your meaning. Are you saying that the flawed claim is "Socialism - if not inherently tyrannical - lends itself to Tyranny", or are you saying that my comment was flawed and that you believe "Socialism - if not inherently tyrannical - lends itself to Tyranny"?

 

The religious leadership has control over the sheep. They use phrases like "God says" as if God sat down with them for tea and told the person his thoughts.

Consider this quote from Goldwater - aka "grandfather of conservatism"

Who can challenge what God says ! There is nothing more authoritarian than "Divine Right" ... no better expression of authoritarianism than Pontifex Maximus.

The two are a natural marriage made in Heaven - pardon the pun

 

Sorry - I am stating that "Socialism lends itself to Tyranny" and that your claim is that it does not.

 

Ok. Thanks. Now, why do you believe "socialism lends itself to tyranny"?

 

But you could say that fundamentalism will develop from the rejection of orthodox religious control. I suppose it comes down to the extent that cultish behaviour is assumed. You also could refer to identity. That suggests folk can be easily manipulated towards extreme behaviour. But isn't that also part of individualism?

Christian Socialism, mind you, does tend to annoy the Marxists!

 

Amusing how people even try to compare United states in 1930s to United states today.

It’s not only about the form of government, economic system and ideology, it’s also about the people in a society. In theory, a group of smart, hard working, inclusive, compassionate, innovative, law abiding, diverse and principled people can make any form of system work, albeit some systems would yield better results than others.

The new deal worked fine back in the 1930s when americans were a completely different bunch than americans of today. Different times, very different (remarkably different) people...

 

Why would I do that for a poster such as yourself who I've never seen cite anything, offer any factual evidence, make any complete coherent argument? Will just stand on my prior claims. Lots of my posts are full of facts and links. In a joke of a topic such as this "failures of capitalism" lie narrative rehash, that's not even necessary. "Failures of capitalism" may be the weakest of all the many weak Complex lie narratives on race, gender, wealth, the environment and all the other self-enriching hokum the Complex pushes out.

The Complex Left, unlike the sincere socialists of the past, will utilize any rationale or subterfuge, whether it's called Keynesianism, feminism, socialism or even capitalism, so long as Complex illicit fiat growth and illicit fiat wealth result. They aren't even sincere thieves any more, especially not revolutionaries or radicals, just weak sister decadent thieves who want the government to steal for them, to fund their bloated, mostly unearned pay, outlandish pensions and benefits, fund their grafty gov-contracts, grafty grants, keep their MSM propaganda mill running at capacity with redistributed dollars taken from conscientious hands and put into stupid hands.

 

That's a feeble dodge! I've already referred to the evidence. I'm more than happy to add further detail. Renshaw (1999, Was There a Keynesian Economy in the USA between 1933 and 1945?, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 34, pp 337-364) notes: "As Eccles pointed out, counter-cyclical spending was really a conservative option which implied 'sustaining government contributions to general purchasing power while the obstacles to private spending are cleared away'. The basic structure and values of capitalism, the ownership and control of the system, would not be disturbed in the long run if such policies were adopted. Yet despite such spending to make good the failure of private investment and so reduce unemployment in 1933-35, and again in 1938-39, almost one in six Americans were still out of work in 1939. In that sense, as Herbert Stein has argued, 'It is possible to describe the evolution of fiscal policy in America up to 1940 without reference to Keynes". This confirms how the New Deal's conservatism didn't even manage to embrace Keynesianism.

Now you stated "Even LW economists and historians today agree that FDR socialism extended the Depression". You made that up didn't you?

 

It's frustrating isn't it, getting through to people. You only have to look around you to know something needs to be done.

We're heading for reform time again, the question is how bad do things need to get before politicians see reason. America will have to fight it's corporations... the lobbyists before they will allow any reforms, it's highly unlikely to happen until they are forced to do so.

Democrats were stunned when Donald Trump won, but he won because MAGA, and part of MAGA is Wallace and Roosevelt type reforms.

That's a brilliant first post thanks @EarthSky

 

Was Stalin "right wing"? Was Marx and Lenin and Mao and Castro "right wing"? The political spectrum is not linear, you should get some education on the subject.

And your ignorant comment has nothing to do with the fact that socialism no matter what prefix you give it is just a transitory step to tyranny.

 

Thats what everyone thinks. The Cubans thought that right up until Castro's goons kicked in their door. The Jews thought it would never happen there until they were marched out of the rail cars and into the concentration camps. The Russian peasants thought Lenin and his pals were on their side until the genocides and starvation programs and relocation programs and gulags started.

People who don't know history, or are brainwashed, or are the useful idiots, think it can't happen to them. But it will, it always does.

 

The bold type in your quote shows that you think socialism is government dictatorship over the people. And your statement about "socialist programs can work in a capitalist society" shows you have ZERO idea and understanding of what socialism is.

And your statement about "handing out welfare to people because they make less under socialism" shows again you haven't done your homework. A Rutgers University study found that worker-owned co-ops are 4% more productive and 14% more profitable on average than equivalent traditional corporations. They have fewer layoffs in downturns and address workers' rights better as well as being more responsive to the community. I'll bet it comes as shocking news to you that such businesses are examples of embryonic socialism, and there are already about 600 of them in the USA and 6 states have passed legislation to facilitate the formation of such worker co-ops.

News flash: socialism is NOT government owning and running business and dictating what happens. Care to learn some REAL history on it?

 

Well, that sounds like you're referring to yourself, judging by the horribly confused comments you made. Egad. All you did was spew the normal propaganda that has been disseminated here for about 80 years. Gosh, you seem to perfectly offer up yourself as the "brainwashed and useful idiots" that you refer to.

You've been hoisted by your own petard.

 

The problem, Scarlet, is that the top corporate elite learned from what happened last time and how FDR relied on the popularity and power of unions and both socialist and communist parties to force his proposals to be accepted "or else". And since then those corporate elite went to work on our government and propaganda machines to destroy the power of unions and Marxist parties. Now there is no reason for government to feel pressured to do anything like that. The people, when organized, actually hold all real political power in their hands and government trembles. But the people aren't organized and they now don't even know they hold any power. They feel powerless. That's why the voter turnout is so low, unlike so many other countries. We're sitting ducks.

 

Tut tut, repeating your error only shows a refusal to learn. Now I wouldn't dream of accusing you of having aauthoritarian personality, but that's one of the psychological traits associated with it.

 

Only someone who does not understand the history of democratic social policy in western nations or who has never read Hegel, Marx or any of the other economic and social philosophy as socialism could make such a ridiculous and biased statement. Of course socialism is not a temporary step to tyranny. If this were true democratic socialists states would all be tyranny today instead of the most egalitarian countries in the world today with the highest quality and length of life on the planet.

There was American Communist and Socialist parties who had widespread popularity and not just in the labour movement. Socialism has evolved and adapted with many iterations as Capitalism has since it's inception as a a outgrowth of feudalism for an industrial society. Radical American parties like the Wobblies did not lead to tyranny anymore than socialist parties did in Scandinavia or Europe.

This is a right-wing, largely American trope designed to deflect from the fact that unfettered, unregulated Capitalism always leads to the kind of gross concentration of wealth and political power and inequality that we see today in the modern US which corporate think tanks and media try to present as natural order of things and any critique of such as unthinkable heresy.

 

But regulated capitalism isn't socialism, nor is the New Deal. Aren't you just as guilty at misinterpretation?

 

Was Batista left-wing? Was Samoza or Pinochet left-wing? Was Hitler, Marcos or the Shah of Iran left-wing? Were Suharto, who wiped out the Indonesian Communist Party in right-wing purges and massacres of civilian protesters especially in E Timor or Franco or Mussolini left-wing.

You are just barking out right-wing tropes while ignoring any history that does not agree with your narrative...... so you know that your tactic on this thread is noted.

 

It was quite calculated on the part of the corporate elite as well...Have you ever read the Powell Memorandum. It was commissioned as a strategy to combat what they saw as radical politics taking over the country and derailing the ability of corporate elites to rule effectively or even to wage war in Vietnam without civilian protest at home which was effecting the corporate military states ability to wage war in foreign lands. It is interesting reading:

"No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.
There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.
But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts."

“The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism” of business and capitalism “come from perfectly respectable elements of society: From the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking…”The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors’ and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded – if at all – by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible,”Independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is (in response), will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations,”

https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/

http://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/017_PowellMemo/index.htm

 

Thank you Scarlet. It is frustrating trying to discuss history with people who have been brought up in a system that tries to demonize or silence any criticism of it's basic nature or it's place as the natural order of things. Criticism or questioning is simply verboten if it is aimed at rule by corporations and wealth.

I think Donald Trump won because the system is not working for normal people anymore and only serves the interests of wealth and political power. Trump bought into this dystopia and rage at an economic system that left workers and families behind. Like all con-men and snake-oil salesmen he managed to invent an enemy who has betrayed the just of the nation and pretend that he could defeat that enemy by draining the swamp, building a wall and bringing law and order.

I think as the more and more people see through the con and realize that far from draining the swamp he has given the corporate power structure everything it could have ever wanted in it's wildest wet dreams and left the American people more financially and morally bankrupt and in debt that ever in it's history, the rage will grow even worse.

Who knows where that rage will lead but the historical precedents are not encouraging.

 

I am proposing democratic social principles as a critique of unfettered Capitalism that can act as a safety valve to allow Capitalism to mitigate it's worst excesses and contradictions. The two systems do not have to work in isolation to each other. Many of the right wing posters on even this thread are saying that regulated Capitalism is Socialism and worse leads to tyranny - whatever that means. I don't even think they can define tyranny but that is for another thread.

The New Deal was influenced by traditional socialist policies such as proposed by labour movements and radical parties of the day who represented unemployed and impoverished workers.

Why do you think the New Deal was not based on principles of social democracy as embraced by some of the more radical parties of the day. Henry Wallace was in fact very supportive of socialist and progressive principles and was a key figure in the New Deal both as Secretary of Agriculture and VP.

Schlesinger, despite being critical of Wallace's association with Communists, called him the best S. of Agriculture in American history

"In 1933, a quarter of the American people still lived on farms, and agricultural policy was a matter of high political and economic significance. Farmers had been devastated by depression. H.A.'s (Wallace) ambition was to restore the farmers' position in the national economy. He sought to give them the same opportunity to improve income by controlling output that business corporations already possessed. In time he widened his concern beyond commercial farming to subsistence farming and rural poverty. For the urban poor, he provided food stamps and school lunches. He instituted programs for land-use planning, soil conservation, and erosion control. And always he promoted research to combat plant and animal diseases, to locate drought-resistant crops and to develop hybrid seeds in order to increase productivity.[22]"

Why do you think I am guilty of misrepresentation. I have tried to explore the history of the New Deal honestly and with as little bias as possible (some bias is unfortunately inevitable as I do have my own opinions) and present an alternate to the current universally accepted model that unfettered Capitalism is the natural order of things and not to be criticized.

 

But that isn't socialism.

But they do. Socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. You seem to be preferring a social democratic form of capitalism?

There's certainly a lot of noise from the right wing.

I've already given several quotes on the issue. As previously posted, Renshaw (1999, Was There a Keynesian Economy in the USA between 1933 and 1945?, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 34, pp 337-364) sums up my position: "As Eccles pointed out, counter-cyclical spending was really a conservative option which implied 'sustaining government contributions to general purchasing power while the obstacles to private spending are cleared away'. The basic structure and values of capitalism, the ownership and control of the system, would not be disturbed in the long run if such policies were adopted. Yet despite such spending to make good the failure of private investment and so reduce unemployment in 1933-35, and again in 1938-39, almost one in six Americans were still out of work in 1939. In that sense, as Herbert Stein has argued, 'It is possible to describe the evolution of fiscal policy in America up to 1940 without reference to Keynes". The New Deal is celebrated wrongly. It was conservative, not progressive. In today's language, it would be Bill Clinton or Tony Blair!

Because I don't know of any economic historian that sees the New Deal as socialist. That was rejected sometime ago. That was also illustrated by my quote from Bernstein: "The New Deal failed to solve the problem of depression, it failed to raise the impoverished, it failed to redistribute income, it failed to extend equality and generally countenanced racial discrimination and segregation. It failed generally to make business more responsible to the social welfare or to threaten business's pre-eminent political power. In this sense, the New Deal, despite the shifts in tone and spirit from the earlier decade, was profoundly, conservative and continuous with the 1920s"

 

Not buying all of that, even if Bernstein said it, wrote it.

Conservatives hated the new deal, the right of workers to collective bargain, banking regulations, and so on. So conservatives didn't see the new deal as conservative. ha ha
We jave seem what new deal regulations and polices created in america post ww2 and we have seen what globalism that was instituted by the free trade of the GOP, which the dems joined as they helped to dismantle the new deal model. So how are working people doing today, and how about disparity income under globalism? I know which one created improvements for our non elites, for I lived it, and which one has devastasted what the new deal mindset created. And it is self evident.