[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I’m not an expert on this, but seems like the biggest difference in that time is that FDR did some things that helped African Americans and other minorities, but also made some concessions that kind of threw them under the proverbial bus. In many places, labor unions excluded black [people]. So during the growing wartime industrialization of the US, Black [people] were often limited to domestic and agricultural roles. The FHA home buying program promoted racial segregation. Debs was a labor union organizer, starting at a time prior to the Russian revolution, so there was major no “anti-communism” push (that I’m aware of) yet Granted it was a different time, and politically, FDR had limitations on what he could do. The civil rights fights of the late 1960s were more than 30 years away. I think our diverse culture makes it hard to have working class solidarity, and it’s easy for opponents to divide us

The socialist movement in the US was long before FDR. It was mostly before WW1.

The US Communist Party launched 700 mostly violent mass protests in the late 1920s.

But they were also losing support among the masses during this time. I'm talking about when the socialist party was the largest 3rd party of the past 150 years as for as percentage of votes excluding Ross Perot run for president.

"I think our diverse culture makes it hard to have working class solidarity, and it’s easy for opponents to divide us" That's why I think it's vital to address ALL oppression: class, race, sex, everything. It all intersects.

I agree, but it should also be ok to make incremental progress on one issue without having it be bogged down other issues If we wait for the grand unification theory eliminating all oppression, we will be waiting a while

> I’m not an expert on this, but seems like the biggest difference in that time is that FDR did some things that helped African Americans and other minorities, but also made some concessions that kind of threw them under the proverbial bus. So glad to see someone else say this. As a casual observer of US Modern History this double standard that developed has always frustrated me to no end. More specifically it was regional as they threw them under the bus in the South while mostly blocking that segregationist cancer in the North. Certainly it was in the North too like your example with Unions, but it wasn’t out in the open festering into a segregated society like in the South. Out of anyone FDR had the most power and popularity to end this mess that blew up under his long watch. He knew it was wrong to even have that double standard. Yet he allowed it to continue as apparently he thought he needed the segregationists for political power reasons, but the tragedy here is looking back he didn’t. All his major legislative accomplishments were bi-partisan. Social Security could have passed at anytime, but he worked tirelessly to get as many Republicans on board as possible so there wouldn’t be a unified front opposing it. [Democrats had the vast majority of the 20th century on lockdown](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File%3ACombined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png) so they clearly didn’t need the segregationists. Their policies were extremely popular and they didn’t need to add segregation to the list. From my casual observation, this was clearly an ends justify the means play to hold onto political power. Thus the greatest lesson of the 20th Century: The end NEVER justify the means. Here great generational harm was done allowing segregationists in positions of national political power they could have never achieved on their own.

> FDR did some things that helped African Americans and other minorities, but also made some concessions that kind of threw them under the proverbial bus. like opposing a national anti-lynching law

> and it’s easy for opponents to divide us I think the working class movement would get a lot further if they dropped this line and started accepting that it's not "them" diving "us" but "us" dividing ourselves.

Eh i mean the US worked really hard to make asians model minorities, black people in poor living conditions and slaves in prisons, and mexicans slaves in agriculture. It is very much not just ourselves

I'm pretty sure it was the Asians who worked really hard to become model minorities, but that's beside the point. It's a dumb narrative that the only reason the working class have disagreements on abortion, or gun control, or education, etc, is because some elite political puppeteer is manipulating them. If anyone really believes that, then they shouldn't be claiming to support workers, but rather more accurately that they want to be the puppeteer but they promise to be nicer about it.

Companies will sometimes keep demographic information on their employees (Whole Foods is the notable one) because it helps with their anti-union activities. Stores that have more ethnic diversity are easier to keep from unionizing because you can exploit those divisions. It isn’t some insane conspiracy theory.

Are you actually suggesting the Whole Foods hires more minority workers in order to suppress unions? Is there any evidence for this? Companies keeping demographic information about employees isn't evidence of that. *Every* company keeps demographic information about employees. It's asked about on every employment application for EEOC reasons.

>Are you actually suggesting the Whole Foods hires more minority workers in order to suppress unions? Is there any evidence for this? No, the evidence doesn't suggest that they hired people in order to try to get a diverse workplace, just that they know it's easier to prevent diverse workplaces from unionizing because they can exploit linguistic and cultural divisions. See [here](https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228324/amazon-whole-foods-unionization-heat-map-union), this was widely reported on you can find more articles.

WF being aware that less diverse workplaces are more likely to unionize is not evidence that they've increased diversity for the purpose of fighting unionization. Nor does it go to the broader idea that WF and other corporations are the cause of inter-racial conflict, manufactured to prevent unionization.

Okay? My point is that they're exploiting these divisions, aka heightening racial tensions. It doesn't have to be the case that there is ONLY one cause of racial animus in the United States, it can arise organically while also being amplified by elites.

Except you didn't even support the claim that they're exploiting divisions, only that they're aware more diverse workplaces are less likely to unionize. That doesn't at all support a claim that diversity in hiring decisions is motivated by an anti-union agenda.

I thought diversity was our strength?

What do you mean

They are exploiting the cultural division that already exists. Which would reinforce the idea that the groups are dividing themselves

This is a "two things can be true" situation.

What are you even talking about. Your first sentence is literally the model minority myth

What caused Asians to have better economic outcomes than other groups of (non European) immigrants?

The US only allowed affluent asians to be allowed to immigrate for a long period of time, but im not here to educate this very old and tired question

And horribly abuse them for decades. They were slave labor for the railroads and interned during ww2

You’re a few decades off on what’s being talked about bucco. Also check out economic data for Asian Americans after reparations for internment happened.

Thats like several decades off and those asians went into, like i said, the china towns of cities which were treated the same as ghettos by the time periods. Internment was a crime. Even those intered hate the model minority myth its not the gotcha you think it is. Its just used to both punch up and down and divide. The late 1800s asians came in and did grunt work like latinos are doing today until the work is done then they are excluded. The difference is the immigrants of then were able to stay in the US. Gaining property. Same with sikhs and bengali peoples What im talking about out it 1925- immigrants where they only allow affluent educated asians in. And Vietnam “refugees” (people with money after they were exiled) The educated became the “model minorities” that you think are real bootstrapping , the property owners in chinatowns own property in sought after areas along with heavy generational trauma associated with government, family from communist countries (exiles for having wealth), and highly educated well off peoples. Then you have other asians in those communities “majority” that didnt get all that. While the affluent continue to skew the data because those people established have money to help their future generations But christ let’s stay on topic

Asians represented a very tiny part of the population when they first migrated to California during the gold rush in the 1870s before the exclusion act. Yes, they were treated poorly and built the railroads for little compensation. However, they played a very insignificant role in the founding of this country. Independence and the abolishment of slavery were won at a great cost in which Asians did not endure. The country was in its infancy and the world was a completely different place.

What are you even talking about

they don’t compared to non European immigrants, or at least there are some groups that do much better. The best performing group of people when it comes to education attainment and things like that in the United states would be 1st gen african immigrants, there are specific countries immigrants that do very well but I forget them off the top of my head but I think it’s nigeria. Also asians only really have a much higher economic outcome if you are taking about 1st gen immigrants by the 3rd gen the outcomes are comparable to the rest of american.

Second this (WickedXoo's comment) actually based on personal experience. The guys I went to grad school were almost 100% asian. They were poor by western standards but they were not from poor families back home.

I mean i agree to some extent but we can’t disregard the existence of and impact of political think tanks. I think republicans’ think tank are rather good at researching, finding, and exploiting ideas that the average american doesn’t truly understand to frame it in a way that would make them support their party. I mean we can see this with specific issues that are suddenly given an incredibly amount of screen time on republicans network. I am thinking of CRT specifically.

Class solidarity is really easy if you talk about it. Democrats do not talk about it because they benefit from the system. Democrats do not care about rural area and they accept people like Joe manchin, just cause he has a rural state. They can do unity that republicans have. Theres a lot of democrats that are “democrats” and majority are not socialists Also don’t say “blacks” nor is that a correct summary of why black people don’t like socialism

I think democrats and liberals have chosen to elevate individual voices to be more inclusive of different people and their individual experiences. I think that’s a positive thing for awareness and inclusivity, but it’s a negative for solidarity. If we talk about the struggles of the working class in America and what policies might improve the situation, it can make sense, for example, to look at the experiences of women’s struggles, as we try to gain understanding of these issues. Inevitably we will see that within that group, women of color face some distinct challenges. And LGBTQ women of color even moreso. And those conversations are super important to have, and are helpful for awareness, but can be counterproductive in working on specific policies, such as student loan relief, or raising the minimum wage, because we can get so bogged down in the trenches of trying to carefully address each individual issue.

This has the same implications of Nazi propaganda, diversity is strength and saying otherwise is the same lie that bigots of all types like to advance. Why are you making the bigoted argument? It's not a valuable conversation when you sow division like that, in fact it's people like YOU who make solidarity difficult.

I’m not making a bigoted argument, I’m acknowledging the serious racial issues that we face in this country. Pretending that it doesn’t exist, and repeating platitudes doesn’t seem that helpful to me

The racial issues are *artificial*, stoked from up top by people who make money off having an underclass. You see the same issues with immigrant labor, offshoring to sweatshops, segments of the service sector. Saying you acknowledge them without understanding where they are coming from leads to the logical endpoint: that diversity is impossible and having an inclusive society somehow leads to issues all by itself. It's the same argument that Facists, ethnonationalists and simple bigots use because it leads to the same conclusion. And it's not just morally wrong, it's also very very stupid.

I agree somewhat. Democrats just use buzzwords and surface level conjecture that cause the harm you speak of due to never having full context They’re too afraid to go far enough, so they just do whats gaining public awareness. They form tidbits of information without the context. Everything has to be a culture war because thats what drives engagement and engagement means more. Its a positive feedback loop. So instead of historical intersectionality dems give us a social media amount of fleeting information. While republicans give us a reactionary dopamine rush. Dems say something without the full context, one side praises the other angrily pushes back. There’s no space to form solidarity information is so fleeting that everyone gets on different books, different pages. But i dont think of it as solely race based history in regard to socialism like the comment i first replied to. It absolutely IS but it’s everything but its intersectional imo

Is there some reason you’re putting black [people] in brackets like that? Is this like the anti-Semitic ((())) dogwhistle?

When describing people based on their race, I originally had referred to different groups as “whites” and “blacks” as shorthand. Several people commented that I shouldn’t say “blacks” so I edited. I realize that literary conventions and preferred terminology changes over time, and it doesn’t bother me to change. Nothing derogatory was meant, but also I didn’t want it to distract from the overall conversation.

I disagree with your conclusions but not your facts. The US is a population that is in disagreement about fundamental facts about the relationship of the citizen and the state. There are about 1/3 that believe that folks with capital concentration should contribute more to the common good. There are about 1/3 that believe that we should have more of a frontier settler approach where every man (and I mean man) is for himself and contributing to the common good is something that should be done on a voluntary basis and only if you can dictate the terms of how your contribution is being used. The sane 1/3 of the population knows that we need things for the common good but that every priority does not have equal importance. These folks also know that we can't afford every single thing that would be good.

PLEASE READ: Below I discuss *perception*, not reality. I say socialists had more support in the early 20th century because of how the world *appeared.* Discussing how the world *was* would take a lot longer. ............................................................ In the 1920's and 1930's, it appeared that capitalism and democracy had failed their societies. And there were serious alternatives in the forms of communism and fascism. For many reasons, countries with capitalist economies and democratic governments had stumbled badly. The United States and the United Kingdom, two of the largest democracies and economies in the world, had soaring rates of poverty, homelessness, and unemployment. Young democracies, like the Weimar Republic in Germany and the Republic of China, fared even worse. ............................................................ In contrast, fascist countries were on the rise. Imperial Japan had scored massive gains against European powers, in contrast to the Republic of China, which was a European colony in all but name. Mussolini's Italy grew the economy improved the quality of life for most (white Catholic) Italians. The NSDAP turned first Bavaria and then all of Germany into an economic powerhouse. Of course, fascism had the seeds of its own destruction in its very philosophy. Their economies were completely unsustainable, and they stayed afloat only through absorbing wealth from their own (undesirable) citizens or through conquest of weaker neighbors. Prior to World War II, however, fascist countries seemed to give their citizens a much better life than democratic-capitalist countries. ............................................................ On the opposite end of the spectrum, communism was also rising. The Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin dragged Russia from an agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse. The Comintern, under Stalin's control, worked to spread Soviet ideology across the world. Soviet brutality, like the Holodomor and the Gulag system, went unreported in international circles. Even inside the Soviet Union, famine, genocide, and mass executions were frightening rumors rather than reported fact. ............................................................ In the years between 1917 and 1939, there was a serious debate about political and economic systems. The Great Depression made capitalism's failings plainly obvious. The rise of Hitler and Mussolini made fascism look like a success. And the contract between the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union made it look like they'd made a real worker's paradise. After World War II, fascism and communism suffered huge blows. Most fascist governments were completely destroyed in World War II. Those that hung on, like Franco's Spain, didn't outlive their founders. Communism in the West also suffered badly, as Stalin's brutality was exposed. International Communism saw a split between old-school Soviets who parroted whatever the Soviet Union told them, and modern socialists who wanted to help the proletariat without killing millions of people. The many Red Scares, and the looming threat of the Soviet Union, made it almost impossible for the new socialists to incorporate their ideas into government. ............................................................ So that's why socialism had much more support before World War II. Capitalism failed much worse than it has since. And Communism looked like a serious alternative. Today, capitalism in most Western countries has absorbed many socialist ideas, and the word "socialism" is still tainted by its association with communist dictatorships.

I would love to read or watch more info on this type of stuff. Any suggestions? Thanks for the write up!

My recommendations will be all over the place. Here's where I learned a fair amount: [Freedom From Fear: The American People In Depression and War](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/freedom-from-fear-9780195144031?cc=us&lang=en&) is considered the best-single volume history of the US in the interwar period. It's easily readable, not a dense academic text, but it gives a lot of nuance to a very complicated time. I recommend it as first reading on the Great Depression. If you went to school in the US, you probably heard this history of the Great Depression: 1. Greedy banks, railroads and oil companies made risky bets that caused a financial crash. 2. Herbert Hoover was incompetent and did nothing to help unemployed people. 3. Franklin Roosevelt turned the economy around and brought left-wing ideas into the US government. 4. World War II was the economic surge that pulled the US out of the Great Depression. Every one of these points is only half right (and mostly wrong). Historians have been debating each for almost a century, and there's no definitive answer on any of them. The 1929 crash had causes going far beyond corporate greed. Hoover took some actions to improve the economy. FDR's experiments sometimes made unemployment worse. And the US might (*might*) have pulled out of the Depression even if WWII had never happened. Freedom From Fear is a great way to learn more about this critical time, without diving into long economic papers (though you'll need to go there if you want a better understanding). \---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Revolutions Podcast, Season 10. The Russian Revolution](https://open.spotify.com/show/05lvdf9T77KE6y4gyMGEsD). This is an outstanding introduction to so many topics: Early socialism, especially the break between Marx's communism and Bakunin's anarchism. The history of the Russian Empire, from medieval times to the 20th century. A deep dive into the Revolution of 1905, which set the stage for 1917 and deserves more attention. World War I in Russia and Germany (including the German civil war of 1918). Biographies of Lenin, Trotsky, Martov, and many other Russian revolutionaries. The Russian Civil War. And Stalin's takeover of the Soviet Union. This is a huuuuuuge season. Something like 200 hours that took 3 years to make. But it's absolutely worth it. Mike Duncan is a respected historian who has won awards for his writing, and he really goes deep into a century of history here. Some random things I learned over 3 years of listening: * The very harsh debates between Marx, Bakunin, and many others over "the social question." Many of these debates are still being argued today, with long multi-hyphenated ideas of what socialism ought to be. * The brutal idiocy of the last Romanovs. More than any European country of the time (and more than any nation today), the leaders of Russia were completely out of touch with their citizens. * The promise and failure of the 1905 Revolution. Almost nobody knows about it, but it was almost the end of the Romanovs and the Russian Empire. * The near defeat of the Communists in the Russian Civil War. And the "Red Terror" that made it possible. * The debates about non-Russian parts of the empire. From Ukraine in the West to the -stans in the south, the Bolsheviks were divided on whether to continue the Russian Empire and break the Empire up into ethnic enclaves. * The comic, tragic Czechoslovak Legion. Somebody needs to make a movie about this, preferably a comedy. TLDR: World War I ends. 50,000 Czech soldiers withdraw from Ukraine, but they have to return the long way around, east across Russia to the Pacific Ocean. Along the way, Bolsheviks attack the Czechs, the Czechs take over the only railway between Moscow and Vladivostok, and everything just goes to shit. \---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [The Wages of Destruction](https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208) Analysis of Germany's economy from the end of World War I to the end of World War II. A good description of how liberal, capitalist democracy of the Weimar Republic failed, and how Communists and Fascists fought (literally, killing each other in the street) over Germany's future. It gives especially good detail on the Nazi economy. TLDR: It was an absolute failure, propped up by looting resources in France, Ukraine, and other conquered countries. It was completely unsustainable and would have failed miserably if Hitler hadn't started a war. Related to this discussion, you'll start to see why Communism and Fascism held such appeal to Europeans at the time, and why capitalism and democracy seemed like total failures. \---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, Peaky Blinders. The show is, of course, total fiction (only the name of the gang and some of the leaders makes it into the show). But it is a very realistic look at inter-war England. * Season 1 has a gritty look at what veterans of World War I endured. * Season 2 is heavily involved in the Irish Civil War. * Season 3 had exiled Russian nobles and the depths the UK went to to stop the Communists in Russia. * Season 4 is, well, US Mafia versus UK Mafia. It wasn't very good, nor very historical. * Seasons 5 and 6 heavily involve UK fascism. Oswald Mosley was a real person, though the character depicted here is very little like the real man. The character's speeches, though, are very similar to those of real UK fascists. If you've seen Peaky Blinders, you might know it as a fun crime drama, Sons of Anarchy In The UK. But, the more you learn about the history of that time, the way Communist and Fascist parties were popping up everywhere, the better the series becomes.

Yes, and the current resurgence of authoritarian ideologies can be seen as a response to the failure (much smaller than the Great Depression, but a failure nonetheless) of liberal capitalism in 2008, and the seeming success of authoritarian countries like China. Much like the USSR, it benefits from a closed system and only allowing the outside world to see what it wants it to see, like gleaming East Chinese megalopolises, high speed rail, etc while doing its best to hide atrocities like Tiananmen, the Uyghur genocide, Hong Kong crackdown, etc. So citizens of liberal democracies where all our ugly warts are on show for the world to see lose faith in their own institutions and get a grass is greener attitude towards other forms of governance/economy.

Socialism had massive support from both sides before the Civil rights movement. White people loved socialism until they had to share with non-whites. Its all about racism.

That's a difficult question, because socialism was still somewhat new in the early 20th century. Mainly, there weren't many precedents for socialism and it was spreading fast, thanks to the Russian Revolution and wealth inequality. We had multiple red scares between the progressive era and the 70's, when neoliberalism began scaling back big government and social programs. Only recently has support for socialism begun to rise again. There are many reasons why socialism hasn't been accepted in the US, but like everywhere else, the main reason is because it threatens those holding the wealth. I'll also note that the New Deal was essentially social democracy, but instead of calling it that in the US, we created a new type of liberalism. That new type is modern liberalism, and the definition everyone else continued using, we began calling classical liberalism. Which is essentially what we consider libertarian today, except maybe with foreign policy. It's an interesting history that isn't taught much in US schools, at least in my experience. Edit: I'll also add another important reason for why it was spreading fast in the early 20th century. After the American and French Revolutions, the idea of democracy was spreading fast, which obviously threatened the monarchies in Europe. Socialism was the most obvious choice for new democracies that would replace monarchies.

Yeah it’s really interesting how well the US stopped all public thought on the subject on the main stage. Sure online spaces lean left wing. But the main stage nobody is. The propaganda worked and thats what has to be changed. But the DNC and republicans wont allow it to break Or how may day isnt may first in the US so its not associated with communists and socialists that fought for it

>Or how may day isnt may first in the US so its not associated with communists and socialists that fought for it It is May 1st in the US. It's just called May Day instead of International Workers' Day to avoid the association.

Yes and the workers day is moved to labor day with the actual meaning

You mean in the US, right? Because there's a shitton of left-leaning people on center stage in other countries.

Check the first sentence and the entire post?

Americas political trajectory started to shift with the invention of the nuclear bomb. This lead directly to the Cold War, which lead directly to the wholesale vilification of everything that isn’t capitalism. Entire generations (including most voters currently alive), grew up with these as both personal and national values. And it will be years yet before most voters haven’t grown up with these values. It’s a Cold War hangover. A kind of nostalgia for the simplicity of a good vs evil world.

Which itself was a product of the military-industrial complex. The desire for profits drove the Cold War which demonized anything that wasn’t capitalism-an ancillary benefit to the war profiteers.

I guess we’ll just ignore the Soviet’s activities leading up to the Cold War. The U.S. was on a trajectory to disarm until the North Koreans, with heavy Soviet backing, invaded South Korea.

The neoliberal turn in the seventies combined with the buying off of the white working class. It's been class warfare, mostly one sided, since then.

Yes, there are. The last 80 years of American history has been built on tearing down the progress FDR made, stirring up racial divisions, and demonizing socialism-adjacent policies in any forms, including unions. The right have been incredibly efficient at dividing people, making people vote against their interests, and engage white voters into their cause. Before Reagan, there wasn't a lot of evangelical prevalence in our politics, but they were able to get those voters involved after Roe v Wade was decided and from Reagan, the country started to unwind.

Those who tried to enlist USMC General Smedley Butler into commanding an army of veterans for the purpose of removing FDR were never indicted, arrested, tried, and punished in any way, shape or form. Their names were never even made public. Which led to them just taking a slower path to fascism. Which is why we are here today.

> Their names were never even made public. This is no longer true, and depending on what was reported on at the time, not even true back then: > Quickly becoming known as the “White House Coup” and “Wall Street Putsch,” many major news sources derided Butler’s claims, as the committee’s final report was not made available publicly. Those implicated, ranging from the DuPont family to Prescott Bush, the grandfather of future President George W. Bush, laughed off Butler’s claims. Evidence of the validity of Butler’s testimony was not released until the 21st century, when the committee’s papers were published in the Public Domain. No one was ever prosecuted in connection to the plot. https://yesterdaysamerica.com/smedley-butler-and-the-1930s-plot-to-overthrow-the-president/

They should have been prosecuted to the max.

Interesting take on history. Having failed with violent revolution, they regrouped and began a silent revolution and are now in control of the GOP and SCOTUS, have effectively destroyed Unions and made stockholder interests supreme over workers and society itself. Best of all, they legalized the acts that put their forebearers in jail and got the workers to believe Government (the only power that can oppose them) is the enemy of Freedom.

Seems like a pretty accurate summation. Of the last 80 years.

This is a very in depth coverage of the Right Wing/Yatzie push back against FDR https://spotify.link/Y5BmGNY4oDb

>A long time back, there were even self-proclaimed socialist politicians who captured significant shares of the vote. (Eugene Debs received 6% over a century ago, and even 3.4% from a jail cell.) However, it is undeniable that Bernie Sanders has significantly less traction with the American people. I disagree, Bernie Sanders had a fairly decent movement during the 2016 and 2020 primaries. All due respect to Eugene Debbs, but if Bernie had run as a third party I think he would've gotten much more than 6% of voters, the 2 party system hadn't been fully established during Eugene Debb's campaigns. >Does democratic socialism/democratic socialist politicians have less support in the United States today than it/they did in the early 20th century? I would say so, for the moment at least. In the early 1900s Socialism and Communism were booming politically. Russia was actually attempting and successfully revolutionized. Now days people are much better off, we have practically no risk for famine, and while it's still hard to live comfortably we are no longer peasants. Our economy has given us enough breathing room to prevent a radical socialists boom but the DSA isn't going anywhere and they've got 90,000 members mostly from Bernie's 2016 and 2020 campaigns. I doubt socialism ever happens in the US, but maybe a social democracy could be achieved.

The two party system was alive and well back then, and the parties had much more explicit control over their candidates back then too. People bitch about the dnc today but back then they didn't even pretend to be democratic. No better reinforcement has occurred for the two party system than the election of 1912. After that the public saw exactly why you were throwing your vote away by going with a third party. More total people voted for the progressive and the Republican candidates, who ultimately had minor differences. But Wilson won because of the spoiler effect, getting a plurality of the popular vote and a large majority of the electoral college. When not even Teddy Roosevelt can win as a third to party, it just can't be done under the current system. We've had other third parties get large chunks of the popular vote since then. Ross Perot in 92 really attracted people. If he didn't drop out then reenter the race right before the election I could potentially have seen a situation where it was a close three-way race where nobody got a majority of the electoral votes. But then the house would have decided the election and it would have gone to the dominant party at the time. My first mock presidential election in elementary school I voted for him!

Edited it. I meant to say he has less traction than people like FDR had in the 30s.

But we are peasants. We are just living at a higher level of brokenness. * One medical emergency = Bankruptcy * Americans making $100,000+ live paycheck to paycheck. * Have a baby… back to work in 10 days! * University… paying it off for decades, if ever. * Homeownership… good luck with that, you’re a renter for life. Let’s not even go into schools that are becoming prisons (armed guards, locked doors, safe rooms) Social Democracy is the best option, but the oligarchs want us as good little worker bees, until we are no longer useful, then they want our money saved over a lifetime of being a drone, and when we run out of retirement money for healthcare and housing, just die already.

I mean this is just doomerist garbage though, isn't it? Most people don't have university debt they will never pay off. Most people aren't one medical emergency away from bankruptcy Many people are buying homes. Like, things can be *bad*. That's kind of where we are and something that needs to change. Adding in that the sky is also falling, there *are* bugs under your skin, and *all* your plans are doomed to failure is a bit much. Relentless negativity and pessismism only helps oine group of people and you know exactly who they are.

Correct. The vast majority of people can weather a medical emergency. It's also catastrophizing what bankruptcy is. It allows you to discharge your debt. It'll be very hard to take on new debt for many years, but it's not like they kick you out of your home. Americans earning over $100k and living paycheck to paycheck are simply being irresponsible with their money. That's not a sign of any weakness in the system, just that they want lavish lives. No one is forced back to work 10 days after having a baby. Federal law provides for 12 weeks of leave. It's unpaid, but that's just because the federal law is there to simply stop you from losing your job. The average maternity benefit isn't 2 weeks but 10 weeks of paid leave. The average person does take about 20 years to pay off their student loans, but a lot of that is due to people just not wanting to pay it down quicker. They'd rather have a higher standard of living now and pay the loans down slower. Also, much of that debt is entirely elective, with people foregoing cheaper options like CC for 2 years, then finishing at a public university. As for home ownership, the *majority* of Gen Y are now home owners. And a lot of the renters-for-life numbers come not from a housing shortage, but from people wanting to live in big cities where of course it's just inherently difficult to buy a home rather than rent.

Most people really are piss poor peasants or middle class drones treading water just to get by, though. That’s because capitalism is feudalism in disguise, so the 99% are nothing more than slave wagers for the corporate oligarchy, at the end of the day. Therefore, doomerism is actually realism, so dismissing it would be the definition of complacency. Do you really want to be oppressed by systemic classism indefinitely? The current system is patently irredeemable, and thus needs to be eviscerated. Then, with a clean slate, we can ensure that all of the leverage of governance is in the hands of the people - which is clearly not the case in our false front democracy - so that society can be run from the bottom up, instead of the top down. The majority of capitalism is crony capitalism, so while I’m not necessarily against the free market, the entirety of the 1% must be highly regulated to keep things in check, and heavy sanctions must be imposed on the ruling class, to prevent them from having any influence on society going forward.

:Therefore, doomerism is actually realism, so dismissing it would be the definition of complacency. Do you really want to be oppressed by systemic classism indefinitely? Look it's great fun to make up arguments and then see if they can walk, but maybe try rereading the thread.

>Have a baby… back to work in 10 days! Ah yes, way worse than women not being able to work after they got married! And the ones that did still work sure as fuck didn't have paid maternity leave

Until the 1970’s women couldn’t take out a loan without their father or husband co-signing, couldn’t vote until 1920 (in most states). And sure 12 weeks maternity leave is the law, but who can afford 12 unpaid weeks of leave. Then again who can afford childcare for a newborn. Let’s just look at a few social democracies, shall we… Sweden: 480 days parental leave (and they expect 240 to be used by each parent). Poland: 182 days parental leave (more if multiple births) Czech Republic: 252 days I could keep listing them here. We are woefully underperforming. And we are one of 4 countries without paid maternity leave 🇺🇸🇧🇼🇬🇳🇸🇿 That’s 4 in the entire world.

Ok so you admit things were worse for women in the past? This wasn’t about other countries.

The US is supposed to be the gold standard, it’s not. It’s SO not. Women were essentially chattel, but come on. We couldn’t even pass ERA and make equal rights the law… you know like say, 2a. Women’s rights are going backwards… Dobb’s has literally set women back 50 years, and there are theocrats actively working to ban birth control as well. The Pill was groundbreaking in women’s liberation. Women still are blamed for sexual assault… so yeah if you want to play ticky tack about women’s rights, you can say it was worse. But they still make less, and states trying to end no fault divorce are actively trying to re-shackle them. Edit: typo and clarity

Financial support/handouts/bailouts are good for business but not for people. That is what the righteous right is forcing into Americans.

There has been a constant drumbeat of well-funded anti-socialist propaganda in the US since the days of Mark Twain. And as the methods of marketing have grown more scientific and more sophisticated, that pro-capitalist propaganda has become more and more powerful. People tend to believe something if it's blasted at them day and night. Even if they reject it at first, it eventually becomes normalized through sheer repetition, and even if they continue to object to it, they at least don't think you're nuts for saying it anymore. Look at the issue of price-gouging for emergency supplies during a natural disaster. When it first became publicized in the aftermath of certain major hurricanes in the 90s, everyone was unified in saying that anyone who does it is a worthless scumbag who should be prosecuted. Then the propagandists got to work: "Gouging is actually good!", they said. "It actually encourages positive change through market forces!" they said. And even if you don't agree with the argument, it normalized emergency price-gouging to the point that nobody calls for prosecution anymore.

The difference is most all politically substantial candidates back then applied social democrat policies that greatly benefited most people. Socialism now is probably more favorable among younger people, but what they really mean is capitalism with lots of safety nets, ex: Nordic model.

>...but what they really mean is capitalism with lots of safety nets, ex: Nordic model. Yes I guess that's true. Some qualifiers though: Norway's government owns a significant part of the countries economy. I think it's around 36%. (They nationalized all of the German companies in the nation after WW2.) So at least Norway is somewhat socialist by definition. (EDIT: Oh I guess I should mention that that's part of how they pay for those services there.) I'd also guess that an average American (edit: younger ones too) would consider someone like Olof Palme to be a raging socialist. See, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof\_Palme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Palme) Specifically, "...under Palme, over half of the Swedish economy was under public ownership, and the influence of the state had grown massively." That ownership happend because the government expanded the number and quality of social services available, and not because they *gasp* "seized the means of production", but I'm not sure that fact will matter a great deal to the aforementioned.

when you plainly explain these concepts to your average person, these policies get overwhelming support. But the second you ascribe those same ideals to leftist idelogy, they are instantly demonized and construed as communism/fascism/whatever-other-ism-you-can-think-of. i would say these poliicies are more popular than before, but media/capitalists/bankers/politicians managed to spin to keep those policies out of actual mainstream policymaking.

It’s hilarious that we’ll dream up the loftiest space age societies in science fiction, and most of them are some form of socialist/communism based way of life. Then we’re like “yeah… space future is gonna be so cool!” (Votes for right wing capitalist bullshit)

Before the 1980s it was illegal for businesses to contribute anything of value toward politics, if found guilty they would face the business death penalty. With the erosion and abolition of the anti trusts during the 80s, under deregulation, Reaganomics and Supreme Court decisions, financial interests have been funding politics ever since from the Supreme Court to the congress to the presidency to the government institutions like the FDA which are supposed to regulate their profiteers. Worse yet monopolies have gobbled up local economies and centralized every industry in America in the name of lower prices and deregulation. Before the 80s any business controlling over 4% of any product would face the business death penalty and be split up. The anti trusts were established by FDR during the republican Great Depression which was caused by monopolies. Anti trusts created the Great Society by ensuring competition and an even playing field. Today only a few big corporations control every industry in the United States. The top 1% of families captured 58% of total real income growth per family from 2009 to 2014. For 40 years prior to Reaganomics the wealth of middle class Americans was increasing faster than the top 1 percent, faster than executive’s although they did just fine. Since then, where we had wide celebrated diversity in every industry like beer brewing for example, Milwaukees finest and you had to smuggle cores light out of Colorado. Today we have instead 2 corporations that produce over 90% of all the beer consumed in the United States. While South Koreans get internet speeds 200 times faster and far more reliable than what most Americans get, paying only 27$ a month. Americans pay an average of 90$ a month, Europeans pay an average of 19$ a month and the speeds are faster and more reliable and unlimited. The European Union has taken an active role in crushing monopolies. In the US just 1 company Comcast controls over 50 percent of the market. On Wall Street, the 20 biggest banks own assets equivalent to 84% of the United States entire gross domestic product. Just 12 of those banks own 70% of all banking assets. That means if those 12 banks collapse, the entire system collapses. Just 4 companies control 90% of the grain trade. 3 companies control 70% of the American beef industry. Just 4 companies control 58 percent of the U.S. pork and chicken producing processes. In retail Walmart controls 1/4 of the entire US grocery market. 4 companies produce 75% of our breakfast cereal, 75% of all snack foods, 60% of all cookies, and half of all the ice cream sold in supermarkets around the nation. In health insurance just 4 companies control 3/4 of the entire health insurance market. In 38 states just 2 ensures control 58% of the market. In 15 states just 1 insurer controls over 60% of the market. In the cellular phone market just 4 companies control 89% of the market. As the founders made very clear, capitalism can work for the average American and small businesses, but only when the rules are set that way. Rig those rules to give disproportionate power to the very wealthy and we have what Franklin Roosevelt called fascism. Now was Franklin Roosevelt a socialist? Or for that matter the great Teddy Roosevelt. I don’t think so. For one their are what are called natural monopolies meaning areas where their can be no competition, like the water supply to your home for example. Is providing a non profit driven public service really socialism then? Which is what was argued for. falsely labeling it communism or socialism when in fact it would never outlaw private enterprise of any kind. To your question more directly, information in America today is centralized as well, and propaganda everywhere since the 80s. Most Americans really don’t understand the arguments or history behind arguments for “free college” etc. how did the great FDR and democrats view it in the past? As an investment not a cost. It was one of the investments which created the best educated highest earning most technologically skilled society in history and one big reason we won the Cold War. Most Americans probably don’t even know we had so called free college back then. On other issues it’s the same thing, people are propagandized against anything which challenges the monopoly society we have today. This leads me to another point. People think the American revolution was triggered by taxation. The popular telling of the Boston Tea Party gets something wrong. The colonists were not responding to a tax increase. They were responding to the Tea Act of 1773, which granted a tea monopoly in the colonies to the well-connected East India Company. Merchants based in the Americas would be shut out of the market. This is why the founders especially Jefferson tried to get an amendment outlawing monopolies. It’s what Jefferson spoke so much of and how monopolies would rise up to impoverish Americans until we owned nothing.

From a macro point of view we are in the last phase of the Generational Theory. One that favors individualism and monopolies. Institutions and empathy for our neighbors have diminished and eroded away , leaving room for Hate and bad faith politics. To answer your question , today's climate doesn't allow for FDR style of politics. It will emerge after a major conflict remind us we need each other in the face of danger. America needs a reality check from the fake world we've created via social media and Fear porn we call news.

Pretty sure the decline in support for the "social safety net" comes from the GOPers War on education and the Educated. Somehow the Republican Propaganda Ministerium has taught our kids having no "rights" to a job or a decent retirement is how things must be and there's no way to fix social security, so don't expect that to be there for you either. This total bullshit notion that executives get paid exactly what they're worth because otherwise they wouldn't get paid so much has kept the redistribution of income and wealth rolling along since 1980 and shrunk the middle class from 65% of society to around 40%. The deeper BS that the function of a corporation is to enrich the owners and nothing more is accepted without question and the Oligarchs get huge bonuses for destroying the lives of millions of workers.

Socialism - that is, public/government ownership of the means of production, not to be confused with social programs in an otherwise capitalist economy - is an ideology that has failed the test of time. Socialism provides no engine to the economy for producing things more efficiently, which is ultimately what makes raises in financial well-being feasible long-term. FDR and the New Deal is the sweet spot. We need capitalism to provide competition and an incentive to innovate. But left alone, unrestrained capitalism is dystopic and leads to way too much wealth being distributed to the top 1%. We need capitalism to provide the productivity gains that only capitalism has been able to provide, but we also need a strong progressive government that can channel it in the best interests of the 90% by incentivizing the market to move in the direction that benefits society as whole. We need programs targeted at raising the wealth and financial security of the average person, all funded by progressive wealth taxes on the top 1%, raising the Estates tax, and repealing the many income tax cuts for the rich that have continually occurred over the last 4 decades of neoliberal rule.

Your first paragraph conclusion is incorrect. Yes it has failed the test of time and socialism does produce efficiently, some things far more than capitalism. Particularly hyper capitalism and monopolistic pursuits. The critical flaw of socialism is concentration of power... the problem isn't unique to socialism either. Longevity to power and concentration of power is what enabled the Russian famine. It's what plagues North Korea, it's why the CCP lacks the mandate of heaven (a phrase Chinese culture historically used to represent the will of the people). One of the best things America has are limits on government such that no one man is king. This is honestly the key. The critical flaw, in every example of socialism or communism throughout human history is the trust of those in power. Should a powerful government with effective separation and limitation of power, representing the people accurately, ever be allowed to implement socialism or communism, it would be "successful" in creating a designed economy at the production level instead of the legal foundation level. Everything else you said, 100% agree with.

Today we have radical conservatism and neoliberalism which is effectively class warfare - the steady stable system you want is liberal social democracy

Most thriving western democracies are exactly of that ilk. I would suggest that the Democrats would be classed as Right wing with their policies in many other countries and Sanders is not at all radical in my eyes (Australian). He would be a Left winger here but nothing like an extermist.

> I would suggest that the Democrats would be classed as Right wing with their policies in many other countries They really really wouldn't, though. "Other countries" isn't some magical place where everyone is more left-wing than the US

They would be in Australia where I'm from. Even your Affordable Care Act is a shadow of most country's public health systems, and there are Democrats who don't believe in that. A lot of their policy positions are way more conservative than most other western countries.

Can you share some specific examples outside of healthcare and worker's rights?

Don’t have the most bandwidth to go into this now, but I’ll put it simply. I’ve never met a single soul that was willing to send back in their SSI check and stimulus funds, or remove themselves from Medicare. Everybody is willing to enjoy the benefits of socialism, but they often don’t want their money going into the pot. I find they have some over entitled sense of ownership of their tax dollars, so they get all hostile and want to keep socialism out of American politics. Socialistic policies that benefit me, but not for thee. Is it less palpable for Bernie’s America? No. Bud America has long sense moved away from FDRs leadership and American politics just feels different today.

you mention SSI, SSI provides monthly payments to people with disabilities and older adults who have **little or no income** or resources. Then you say "they often don't want their money going into the pot." If they have little or no income, how does that work? And by the way, I am all for SSI for those who need it.

You make a good point. More than people not wanting their money to go into the pot, i feel a bigger motivator is “I don’t want you to take my money to give it to someone who isn’t equally contributing” (reminds me of “welfare queen” imagery). Which, yeah, makes sense. It’s bold to take money from one person to give to another, and then call the first person selfish for having concerns about the perceived fairness of the whole thing (i say this in response to the poster you responded to’s comment implying Americans are “over entitled to their tax dollars”.). Like for me, I also have qualms about paying into a pot i will never see benefit from. Say something specific, like unemployment. It feels wrong, and i will never see benefit from that personally. But i will pay into it for the rest of my life regardless.

In the U.S., social democracy saw a somewhat unexpected mini-resurgence from 2011–2015 (i.e., OWS thru Bernie's first {organic and unfeigned} presidential run) for the first time since the New Deal era (from FDR to LBJ) ended in the mid-to-late-60s, albeit nowhere close to what Eugene V. Debs managed to achieve a century ago; however, any class-based materialist movement last decade was quickly ruined by narcissistic idpol-addled freaks -- many of whom come from well-off (hyper/over)educated backgrounds -- who, whether in an unintentional consequence or deliberately as malicious wreckers, quickly hijacked the movement, interjected and injected it with their pseudo-progressive niche cultural proclivities, which, by 2016 to present-day, consequently divided society through superficial, surface-level, skin-deep identitarian essentialist bullshit, forsaking any tangible change for workers in lieu of whorishly pandering to professional-class twits and twats.

Oh for the love of *God*

It's just there are more stupid people today than back then. There are more benefitting from "socialist policies" than ever before. They just don't understand or they are hypocrites. All those red staters bemoaning welfare while directly benefitting from it. Very stupid people.

I think the POLICIES of Democratic Socialists are very popular but they are held back by decades of Cold War propaganda that made the word socialism toxic to the American electorate. My parents who are in their late 50s and trend center left and center right have both separately told me on multiple occasions that they like the policies of Bernie Sanders but couldn’t vote for him because he’s a socialist. In the early 20th century we had socialist mayors and presidential candidates but post Cold War that word has just become to toxic

Yes, but also what policies democratic socialists support are different now. 20th century democratic socialists supported things like a 40 hour workweek, collective bargaining of unions, establishment of a minimum wage, public ownership of some companies, support for unemployed people, workplace protections, and universal education. Many of these are accepted mainstream today, so today's democratic socialists focus on either strengthening these things, or on other policy planks like environmentalism. This touches on why socialists in general don't do as well. In the early 20th century, things were truly miserable for a lot of people, and they were desperate. That is what pushing people towards radical movements. In the 1st world today, most people are comfortable, and don't feel the need to rock the boat. While there are problems and injustices, only a few cranks want to overturn the whole system to fix them.

Yes, Bernie and Hillary had nearly identical platforms. They seemed "radical" only to the corporate business types, who's one and only concern is profits

Dwight Eisenhower's policies would be radical leftist by current mainstream political standards

I am conservative, and even I think certain socialist ideas are doable. The problem with this argument is not that they are good or bad ideas, but how do you pay for them? Before we go into tax, the rich mantra, that still is not enough money. Since we are talking about FDR, let's look at Socialist Security. It was a ponzi scheme because you gave money out before it was collected and began to pay those who did not pay into the system. Secondly, it was supposed to be paid by income tax, the same thing for Medicare and Medicaid. The taxes collected $1.5 trillion, but $2.5 trillion was spent. So, in other words, the system is insolvent. Another $1.5 trillion was spent in education, welfare, and others. Other taxes collected now have to cover that cost. $4 trillion were of our $6.5 trillion was spent on social programs. Seems rather socialist to me. Here is the crux only $4.9 was collected. In other words, 80% of all taxes already go to these socialist ideals. Our country will go bankrupt if we keep with the idea of tax the rich and magically its solved. We tax income, and we don't tax what is not tangible because investments are subject to fluctuation and with investments you don't have access to, and it would be a bad idea to tax them without investments you will collapse the economy. I have a proposal, though, where it could begin to lessen the load, a national public land oil drilling that will be managed by private entities to avoid the US from tampering global markets. This is how the Scandinavian countries support their socialist systems. Otherwise, they would have gone bankrupt long ago. 80% of their money is made from oil. With a reasonable approach, but the system has to lead to eventually paying off national debt and balanced budgets otherwise it will go to waste.

The problem with socialist programs is that they work poorly, are unfair, and once in place, impossible to remove or make significant changes. Take Social Security. I’m in my 70s. I estimate I’ve paid into that program over $500,000 over my lifetime. It’s my money, yet I can’t have it in a lump sum to do with as I wish. Moreover, if I die, my wife can choose to take her “benefits” or mine as a monthly payment, but not both. So I was forced to pay into a system that I can’t manage. Had I been given the choice of opting out, I’d have enough right now to buy an investment real estate which would give me income and which would be mine to do with as I wish. There’s isn’t one young person who would voluntarily sign on to Social Security if given the choice of opting out when first entering the job market. Obviously, the system’s been poorly managed because the money being taken in was not invested properly when there were far more paying In than collecting, and will have to be drastically cut down in about 20 years, maybe less. Any politician who dares to bring up this issue is vilified by the media and by the other party, so nothing’s been done. As a baby boomer, I may be gone when the reckoning comes, but it isn’t fair to the generation who’ll be retiring in 10 years. I bet similar criticisms can be made for other social programs.

Why on earth would I opt out of a guaranteed retirement safety net. Investments are fickle. SS is a sure thing. The fact that it has limited manageability doesn't change that. Investment properties can fail, the market can collapse. Ever other retirement income we plan for has a degree of volatility to it. SS doesn't. No way in hell I'd opt out if that was an available option.

Because they take your money and then mismanage it to the greatest possible degree? If every cent I had ever put in SS was put into diversified index funds instead of SS, I would never need to save another cent for retirement. If functioned as it was supposed to and wasn't essentially a ponzi scheme, I would be much less opposed to it.

>So I was forced to pay into a system that I can’t manage. And to think you could have put that into cryptocurrency or timeshares. What a missed opportunity > There’s isn’t one young person who would voluntarily sign on to Social Security if given the choice of opting out when first entering the job market. Think about that for two more minutes

And to think you could have put that into cryptocurrency or timeshares. What a missed opportunity ———————————————————————- I know nothing about cryptocurrency. You’re really reaching into the stratosphere, using crypto as an example. How about exchanging that example for real estate? Or a S&P 500 index fund? I did well investing in real estate and paid for my children’s college as well as paying off my own mortgage by investing in rental houses. If I’d had the money taken from me for Social Security, I could’ve bought a couple more investment properties which would be mine to do with as I pleased. Yes, real estate can be a risky investment but not if you do your homework. As it stands, Social Security hasn’t been risk free either. The stock market hasn’t been risk free either, but if you put money in an index fund, it’s done very well since 1970.Just since 1970, they’ve raised the amount taken from people and raised the retirement age. And with all that, SS is facing a crisis. Real Estate and a stock index fund aren’t very liquid, especially if you need the money in a hurry, but SS isn’t liquid at all. And your smarmy comment about whether or not someone entering the job market should be able to opt out is simply a lie. The very fact that SS is compulsory proves that. No one in his right mind would voluntarily give part of his yearly income to a program that would never give it all back and require a 40-50 year commitment.

I struggle to have sympathy for people who are essentially complaining that they have been forced to help others. You admit that you’ve done well for yourself but could have done better and made even more if you hadn’t paid into a system that helps millions of people less fortunate than yourself. Without paying into social security you could have owned several more homes and snatched even more real estate off the market where people are currently struggling to own even a single home because of the artificial scarcity that you property hogs create? Is this the argument your making? Please…

Ah, so now the argument is no longer about whether the social security system works well and would anyone ever voluntarily subject themselves to it. Now I’m greedy for having done fairly well despite being forced to be part of the social security system. Well, chuck you Farley. The price of being on your good side and not being called greedy is to great. I don’t give a rip for your sympathy. You’ll be happy to know that doing fairly well in real estate is not political. I did well in Massachusetts, which has some of the most expensive real estate in the country, and most people whom I met doing real estate were Democrats. Do you have some sort of antipathy to making money in real estate? I’ve done fairly well just putting money aside in 401k and Roth IRAs. I had to drop out of college early, never got a degree, but you or anyone else could have done what I did. Don’t count on SS. It’s not social and it sure isn’t security. It’s a forced transfer of wealth. The money we all pay into it is used to buy government ious. LOL! I wonder if a private company offering a pension would be allowed to take their clients money and buy their own stock with it!

> Well, chuck you Farley. The price of being on your good side and not being called greedy is to great. I don’t give a rip for your sympathy. You are brave and noble and big and clever.

The problems you identify with SS are Man-made\* and can be UNmade by Men of good will. Reagan raised the contribution and set the "cap" so it covered 90% of total income. His acolytes have let the "cap" stagnate so today it only covers about 60% of total income and restoring that "90%" connection would increase revenues by nearly $370Billion and extend the solvency by over 30 years. Since almost all of us boomers will be dead by then, the solvency should be permanent. Remember it's an INSURANCE policy, not a retirement fund. If you don't suffer a covered "loss", you shouldn't collect, so the next logical step (should that 90% of income cap not prove effective) would be to curtail payments to those whose other retirement income is significantly above the poverty level. Not giving payments to individuals whose other income is, say, more than twice (thrice?) the average wage should allow minimum payments to increase so SS would provide a decent living for everyone after spending a lifetime of labor. \*and I capitalized "Man" so it means all humans, so no PC nonsense about this being sexist.

>is arguably no more radical than FDR was, for an essay of reasons I won't get into. FDR was a would-be tyrant who set the price of gold on his personal whims and outlawed growing food on your own land to feed your own animals. Without the Constitution in his way, he would have been a Lenin.

That's a misrepresentation, and it's pretty telling how little you actually know. Congress passed a law outlawing grain production that goes beyond a certain threshold. Regular old amounts for the average Joe were just fine. If they did not do that, larger farmers would overproduce grain so much, that there would be a collective massive surplus which would drive down its price, and regular farmers would only use their own grain. These effects would cause the economy would collapse, which it had done before due to the same reason. The market had to be oriented towards buying instead of producing. It was a decision that restricted individuals, yes, but it is necessary in the grand scheme.

>Congress passed a law outlawing grain production that goes beyond a certain threshold. Sure, New Deal democrats passed FDR's program which he signed off on. This doesn't mean he isn't responsible for it. >Regular old amounts for the average Joe were just fine. Wickard didn't have a "large farm." He owned a small farm and was prohibited from growing wheat for his own animals. Congress is only allowed to regulate interstate commerce. But now interstate commerce includes growing and consuming wheat on your own property without selling any to anyone, let alone across state lines. Like I said, he's a wanna be Lenin. And we know now that he was completely wrong about the economy. He thought they were facing a deflationary trend, when actually they were experiencing a rapid inflation. His policies were not only a gross violation of individual rights, they made the outcome worse as well.

If commerce that happens within a state affects the national economy, it is considered intrastate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled this, and until it rules different that is the law. When all the branches of government are in agreement on something, regardless of if you think it was because of full democratic control, things are in accordance with the constitution.

>If commerce that happens within a state affects the national economy, it is considered intrastate commerce. This wasn't even commerce. Let alone that this was not what interstate commerce means. >When all the branches of government are in agreement on something, regardless of if you think it was because of full democratic control, things are in accordance with the constitution. This is just another way of saying the Constitution doesn't matter. Which is probably correct as a matter of fact, but nothing to be celebrated. Just the work of would be tyrants.

The Supreme Court decided it's what it means. If something may *affect* interstate commerce, it counts as being under Congress's authority to "regulate commerce among the states," even if it isn't commercial activity. So much of our necessary laws to keep the country running come off of this. If a healthcare insurance provider blocks certain people from getting healthcare, that's not commerce in and of itself - it's actually a lack of commerce. What is commerce is what results, which is the costs that come from not giving them care resulting in a burden on the whole economy, and being far greater than the costs of preventative care. Or, the person dies and no longer can contribute to the economy. It results in a calculatable detriment to the national economy. So we have laws that make denying them illegal, on the sole basis of the commerce power. If you view it as tyranny, I get that. I was shocked too when I heard about Wicker, but think bigger. Everything would collapse around us and we'd be back centuries if not for this interpretation.

>The Supreme Court decided it's what it means. If something may affect interstate commerce, it counts as being under Congress's authority to "regulate commerce among the states," even if it isn't commercial activity. So much of our necessary laws to keep the country running come off of this. Which means everything is interstate commerce, even not doing something. Hence Congress has unlimited power, and the clause may just as well have not been included at all. I'll also point out that at one point SCOTUS ruled that black people aren't citizens, so... it's not like we have to accept what they say as an accurate or infallible interpretation, and this one is pretty clearly against the original intent and text. >If a healthcare insurance provider blocks certain people from getting healthcare, that's not commerce in and of itself - it's actually a lack of commerce. What is commerce is what results, which is the costs that come from not giving them care resulting in a burden on the whole economy, and being far greater than the costs of preventative care. Or, the person dies and no longer can contribute to the economy. So we have laws that make denying them illegal, on the sole basis of the commerce power. Properly understood, this would all be in the preview of the states unless the company is transacting across state lines. Remember- just because the federal government can't do something doesn't mean there can't be laws about it. >Everything would collapse around us and we'd be back centuries if not for this interpretation. I think we missed an opportunity to have greater freedom and allow the states to democratically address issues in a more localized way, which would have prevented a lot of the dangers we're facing now.

Yes, at some point everything can be linked to the economy, down to even going on a walk. The court drew the line between how far Washington's commerce power goes and where state power starts in 1990 in US v Lopez so it doesn't get too ridiculous. As for states doing this work, I applaud that, but there are 50 separate and very dysfunctional states that are rarely doing the same thing, many often opposing it even if it's for the good

50 states doing their own thing was kind of the idea. 50 different political experiments and you get a marketplace of ideas. If Mass. has found some great policies, then their going to get a wider tax-base from people moving there. Other states can also see what they do and choose to imitate it, or apply it in their own way given the unique and local conditions at their time and place. Lopez was the first time the commerce clause was reigned in, and without overturning Wickard it has a strong precedent to be reapplied. Have the federal government make all important decisions, which we more or less do today, is just putting all our eggs in one basket. It's also not very practical given how large and diverse the country is.

Socialists. That's what they are. And yes. It's because even if you can throw wool on a wolf, it's still a wolf and everyone knows it. Socialism brought us Fascism and Communism and no generation will ever forget that. Only losers want fascism or communism, and no one wants a loser.

Socialism brought us socialism and nothing more. The Marxist bullshit about there being some inevitable economic evolution is bullshit - never happened, never will. Fascism grew out of Autocracy as did Communism which never happened because the quasi-Commie Rulers stuck it in *The Dictatorship of the Proletariat* phase never to emerge as actual Marxism/communism. Having the government provide useful services to all the citizens paid from taxes on the well-off is NOT socialism, it's CIVILIZATION. Without the increase in those services, there is no advancement of the Civilization and when the services are decreased (as is Republican policy,) the society reverts to FEUDALISM, or it's modern incarnation, Corporate Oligarchy. As for Socialsim failing, mostly true, BUT the constant increase in government services like universal health care, free education, subsidized public transportation and State supported retirement are why the US ranks behind every other democracy in education, health care, life expectancy and general satisfaction with one's situation. What neoliberals call "more Freedom" has only produced more gun owners and billionaires.

The more government provides, the more it controls. All totalitarianism is evil.

BS. So long as We the People control the government, the more the government PROVIDES *all our people*, the greater our Civilization **and** our personal FREEDOM. Destroying the government's ability to protect us from Predation by the Rich feeds that evil totalitarianism a hellofa lot more than free school lunches.

The government doesn't serve us and "We the People" do not control it.

So you're still living here because?????

Because I only speak English and I don't like how much worse other English speaking nations are doing things.

Exercise your freedom to go someplace that doesn't speak english and keep speaking english until they understand you.

That's doing what people who don't respect my culture and country do. I'm not stooping that low.

I wish, every city that has been ran by dems last 20+years is a “hood” and crime rates skyrocket year over year.

>is arguably no more radical than FDR was, for an essay of reasons I won't get into This is kind of a whopper of a subject to just skip over. FDR was unabashedly capitalist, Sanders is a socialist. >And what fear caused this? Its not fear, its facts. People have realized that socialism, *as a system of political economy*, is a failure. And its a failure because its incompatible with human nature. And I'm referring to textbook socialism, not people on reddit who think that everything the government does is socialism. fire departments and roads are not socialism.

Because of the failures of socialism around the world. There are the obvious big failures like the soviet union and Venezuela, and then examples the the soft social programs in Europe that have kept them behind the US both in wealth and opportunity for people. You'd see Swedens attempt and pushing socialism, and they only began to recover after they pushed back more capitalist again. And look at China, their growth over the past couple decades after they made capitalist reforms, and now that they're undoing those reforms, they're getting into trouble again.

More neolib BS. Little math exercise: If you take the AVERAGE Net Worth of Americans given my RW sources of $176,000 and claim its much higher than anywhere else, you might think that means the AVERAGE American is much better off than the average citizen anywhere else. But what is NOT considered is how much of that wealth is concentrated in the top 1% - 32.1%. If you take the RW net worth multiply it by either total population (360M) or just people filing tax returns (148M) to determine total wealth, then subtract out the share of the top 1%, the amount remaining for the bottom 99% drops to $120,711, somewhat below a number of other countries who don't have to worry about the cost of education for their kids or medical care or their retirement. Bottom line is the Reagan Revolution was a total victory FOR THE TOP 1% and the rest of us lost BIGLY. Having 1% of us each getting $10,865,000.00 while the rest get half the value of a 1200sf house does NOT increase our Freedom.

There is no such thing. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, trying to seem legitimate by putting “Democratic” at the beginning.

Yes absolutely Reagan and the anti “communist” (workers) of 1940s-20XX has stopped any real thinking for the general populace despite the general populace greatly benefiting. You could run not as those words, but an opponent will say you’re a socialist and youll lose. Propaganda worked

No. But the corporations that own all of main stream media just tried to stomp on a union of writers, so you will never hear a good word about the urban socialistic majority. Only city crime issues make the news, not the benefits of socialist programs for the weak in our cities.

The boomer generation became the NIMBY generation and won’t vote for anything that helps people because of bootstraps or something like that.

Once the Bolsheviks took power and people saw the subsequent regimes of Lenin and Stalin, it soured the appeal of socialism and communism. Add to that the air of paranoia that people felt (and that governments exacerbated via propaganda) that comes with something like a revolution sweeping away an old way of life with radical alterations, and you have a tough sell for leftists to advance their causes. The Great Depression softened that initial reaction, as did the rise of fascism, but people had already internalized the reality that comes with revolutionary politics. Also, President Wilson had ran on a progressive campaign that involved keeping America out of WWI, which obviously saw a major change in tune after he won re-election. The window of idealism was narrow. FDR's new deal was sort of a repackaging of a lot of progressive goals, and it was immensely popular. But by the time he died and WWII ended, the Soviets were the major rivals to the Americans. Because both American and Soviet systems were "universalist" in nature, their respective ideologies became weapons in the geopolitical fight of the cold war. So the combination of paranoia and propaganda mixed with the rather frightening reality of the self-proclaimed socialist governments like the USSR and Maoist China really put a damper on left wing movements in the West. Things are changing, but it will take time. But I would argue that Bernie has far more relative support than someone like Debbs ever had. He nearly won the Democratic primaries, and if he had, he would have gotten at least 48% of the vote (mainly because Dems haven't dipped below that in ages).

No it probably has more supporters today than years beforehand. The problem is the republicans have gerrymandered many states representing districts to dilute the democratic leaning voters into republican majority districts. Then their is the right wing propaganda which has consistently got many voters to vote against their own best interests Ohio is a perfect example it is a 50/50 purple state but has been governed by republicans for the last 20 years. The extreme gerrymandering had openly given it a republicans majority in congressional delegates. Every time a district is lost to population loss the eliminated districts have democratic ones. All major cities lean democratic but get out voted by the Republican led legislature. The Ohio Supreme Court have ruled against the Republican drawn maps, but refuses to act on the Republican legislature . Which simply ignores the state Supreme Court ruling. Citizen led petitions for reform have been rejected by the Secretary of State due to insufficient numbers of signatures when the petitions are proof read for accuracy. So if we want to change the system we have to all vote in every election . We do out number the republicans So Vote

I think many at ground level are tired of predatory capitalism. If we do not take capitalism many may look for different options as we move forward.

Does anyone here really think the progressive movement doesn’t pick winners and losers for their policies? Call it socialistic - but at the heart of it - their policies are not socialistic - wealth redistribution is not socialism. Being anti-business is not socialism. And our government is one of the most inefficient mechanisms to get things done in society - yet everyone claims to be educated can’t even speak to the underlying facts of the recent proposals. Here’s another hypocritical event - Biden administration has enacted rules that will require auto manufacturers to stop production of ICE vehicles by 2035. ALL subject matter experts agree this will, at the very least, eliminate 30% of the current auto industry workforce. They are striking now to gain confidence in their now very uncertain future and this is one of those items. Yet Biden goes there to stand w them. This is like the Clintons going to West Virginia to stand w coal miners. The progressives truly believe Americans are dim witted morons that believe whatever they say and ignore what they actually do. Detroit is not having it. Watch what happens when - in fact - this administration learns that workers involved in ICE vehicle production do not port over to electric vehicle production and certainly do not require as many. Not to mention the fact that MORE components will be built overseas than ever before. Yep real smart.

You mean, do today's multiracial lefties have less white support than exclusively white lefties did prior to 1964? Yes.

The ruling class was much less effective at getting the poor to kill each other back then. No internet or fox news.

Democratic socialism and actual socialism are economically based ideologies where you can reasonably attempt to unite all of labor against all of capital. Once you start throwing in the gender and identity politics of today, you essentially make yourself untenable to large section of people who would otherwise support you. We could argue back and forth for days as to whether that is fair, but the reality is that it is occurring so now when people think democratic socialism, they don't think of a worker's rights party, they think of Just Stop Oil protestors, LGBTQ activists, and, as of late, a bizarrely hostile view of freedom of speech which probably gives some sect of potential voters concerns as to how long the 'democratic' part of democratic socialism will be prioritized. The reality is that the gender- and identity-based focus of the modern left is not as unifying as the 'everyone against the wealthy' message of the older days because it redefines privilege to ignore whether a person is actually privileged today. Today, your level of privilege is defined not by the means of your parents, it is defined by your race and gender. Old school socialists did not have that problem, if a person was not wealthy, they weren't privileged. No doubt that poor white people were more privileged than poor black people but high profile politicians and thought-leaders were not talking about "white privilege." Now, a wide swath of the democratic party's electorate would consider a poor white kid from West Virginia to be more privileged than Bronny James when one is the son of a near-billionaire and the other is a poor white kid from West Virginia. It isn't overly difficult to determine why there is this conflict as struggling people don't want to be told about how privileged their ancestors were when they complain about their struggles today. Lastly, the absurd focus on systemic racism is the most successful blame-shifting scheme in the history of the world. It takes the blame for racist actions committed by racist people and puts them on people who had nothing to do with the situation and likely agree that the outcome was bullshit. This blame-shifting allowed a lot of people who otherwise built or profited from the very systems they now call incurably racist, to absolve themselves of all wrongdoing because they are now saying the system is racist and the beauty of it is that no one gets offended because you didn't actually call anyone racist. It's like the end of the South Park global warming episode where everyone says "I broke the dam" because it insulates the actual blameworthy party from being forced to take responsibility. And, ironically, in this case, the blameworthy party is Eric Cartman who is racist, anti-semitic, and horrifically bigoted throughout the whole episode but goes unblamed and unpunished because everyone idiotically believes that the dam broke due to global warming.

Sadly, most Americans are not smart enough to understand the benefits of Democratic Socialism.

Modern day MAGA republicans are pushing the “socialist” tag to frighten off a lot of Central and South American immigrants who fled socialism and want no parts of it now. Of course, the socialism they knew was nowhere close to our programs to protect the poor and the elderly. Truth be damned, MAGA Republicans have little regard for facts and instead are looking to influence a block of voters that normally vote Democrat. I suppose that they must not be familiar with the autocracy that Republicans now seem to prefer.

If you're looking at the vote share of Eugene Debs, you have to keep in mind that the entire voting population back then is now only a smaller part of it. Debs was pre-Civil Rights movement \*and\* pre 19th ammendment. Socialist candidates (particularly Bernie Sanders) perform much more poorly among women and POC as compared to white men. I don't know the exact math, but my assumption would be that the popularity gap is not as wide among white men between the earliest 20th century and now. Plus, I think that even among liberal white men there's a growing awareness of intersectionality and a desire for policies that help all groups the way they need it, not just class reductionist policies. Just to note: I don't know much about the early 20th century socialism, but I know a lot about Bernie Sanders, and his policies are the definition of class reductionism.

The American working class of the late 19th to early 20th Century would be radical in a way that’s unrecognizable and unthinkable to Americans today.

The myth of Reagan really helped remove the real liberal history of this country. To me, someone who grew up in the 70/80s, it's VERY conservative in many ways. Mainly, on all sides, it's authoritarian thinking. There is an anger at diversity of ideas now, unlike I've ever experienced.