You’re absolutely right - the New Deal was possible because:
They also gained unprecedented political capital for progressive policies by grassroots support in response to the horrifying economic conditions all across the United States.
That is in fact the grassroots support I’m talking about, thanks.
How do you think we had a Congress and a President who were willing to listen to those grassroots movements?
That’s right - Americans elected a whole bunch of people like the candidate in this article.
I genuinely do agree that we do not have the same party or candidates or support as we did in the 1930s. I genuinely agree that we need systematic change, or any progress we make will only be undone within a century, like last time.
But they didn’t have that party, those candidates, or that support in the 1920s. The Great Depression changed everything.
Violence alone did not make it happen. And lol no, the current Republican Party would absolutely let the United States collapse into civil war before they passed anything like the New Deal. You know, like… the, American Civil War.
Referring to progressive movements in the 1930s as “grassroots” doesn’t fucking whitewash anything. Socialists weren’t alone in the 1930s, and socialism didn’t have anywhere close to enough support in the 1920s to get the New Deal passed.
They elected the people who made the difference. It wasn’t “benevolent capitalists” that gave us the New Deal - it was people voting for change. Real change, not the half-assed shit we talk about these days.
I wish we could skip over the terrible economic suffering that pushed Americans in that direction, but it probably will happen all over again.
Your socialist movement is possible. We’re walking into all the conditions required to make it happen. And here you are, claiming that you have no use for the exact type of people you need to see it through.
The last time the status quo was truly threatened, the South started a war. The Republican Party would do the same thing today.
Plenty of socialists et al were threatening the status quo in the 1920s. The Republicans didn’t listen. But the Great Depression itself upended the status quo, and made Americans willing to do anything to make it stop.
That lead to Democrats gaining complete control, and it lead to Democrats being persuaded to actually use that control to enact real change. Yes, part of that persuasion was absolutely intimidation. Much of that intimidation was bought with the blood of leftists.
The same exact conditions are precipitating now. The United States has had its tariffs and its deregulations and its tax cuts and its spending cuts. The stock market points wherever the fuck it wants, but the actual economy is pointing straight down.
And I completely agree that the solution isn’t “let the Democrats fix it”. Far from it.
But the solution certainly doesn’t involve opposition to the type of electoral candidates that would help fix things, like a 26 year old who seems genuinely interested in helping people.
Lol ok. I am aware that they started to demand socialism. We are saying the exact same thing there.
Where we disagree is where you’re pessimistic in claiming that:
the candidate in your article will fade into irrelevancy because there isn’t a mass leftist movement to support radical change like there was back then.
I am optimistic in claiming that:
Your socialist movement is possible. We’re walking into all the conditions required to make it happen.
I get the desire to reduce an extremely complex situation into simple answers. But the New Deal wasn’t just a compromise. The New Deal was an incredible leap forward for labor. And we didn’t completely stop - and later regress - just because we had reached a compromise. Republicans had regained control in the late 1930s, and Americans would have witnessed in real time as their amazing economic growth completely faltered. But that didn’t happen.
We regressed so dramatically because the Second World War gave us economic hegemony that allowed the US to flourish without actually doing anything to deserve it.
Neoliberalism and laissez faire capitalism would never have achieved such popularity in the modern day if not for the fact that the US economy was so strong following the New Deal and the wartime boost, and if the global economy hadn’t just been completely eviscerated.
These policies would have failed much sooner and much more obviously. But full-on Middle Ages Feudalism would have been popular for an entire generation of Baby Boomers, as long as a feudalistic United States was the last major industrial nation standing in the ashes of the 1940s.
The New Deal was socialism in action. To claim it was nothing but a compromise is what actually whitewashes all of the blood spilled to make it happen. We still benefit from the legacy of the New Deal, and we are actively fighting over its legacy as we speak.
The United States could have kept moving in that direction. The United States can move in that direction again. If you won’t support electoral candidates that can help make that happen, the least you could do is get out of the fucking way.
Go oppose electoral candidates that are diametrically opposed to socialism.
The system itself was massively corrupt in the 1920s, too. It’s literally called the Gilded Age. The New Deal didn’t fix everything - not even close! - there are core issues that have never been addressed.
But it did fix a lot.
The SEC, FDIC, National Labor Relations Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act took a massive fucking crowbar to the kneecaps of oligarchs whose boots were absolutely grinding into the throats of the working class, and the Works Progress Administration undercut all exploitative businesses by becoming the nation’s largest employer.
The goal was to pay the local prevailing wage, but limit the hours of work to 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week; the stated minimum being 30 hours a week, or 120 hours a month
We live in unprecedented times. We are capable of unprecedented things. But there are many precedents for change and progress being possible both inside the system and out.
I think there are absolutely structural issues in the system that need to be ripped out and rebuilt, and I think it’s highly likely it will take big things to ever make that happen. Things that might indeed prove to be impossible within the current confines of the system.
But whatever actions you take, however you use your voice, whatever support or opposition you choose to give - pick your goddamn battles.
Claiming we have no use for someone who is trying to help? Saying that - in your words - the best case scenario is another Bernie Sanders, as if that wouldn’t be fucking glorious? That we would be so fortunate to see another living legend of socialism stand for their beliefs for an entire lifetime?
A brilliant and uncorruptible independent in a sea of oligarchy and partisanship, who has constantly been ahead of the game, who constantly spoke for the rights of the worker, and who is one of the only reasons socialism is even close to mainstream in this country?
I’m sorry to say that you are a pessimist. You just think it’s realism, and I don’t blame you for that.
Whatever you think about the means that can be used to achieve your goals, you still need to change minds. Even if you burned the system down - which I’m quite certain you won’t - you still need people with clear heads, good hearts, and strong wills to rebuild something from the ashes. Maybe recognize that people like Bernie Sanders would be the ideal for that niche.
You’re absolutely right - the New Deal was possible because:
That is in fact the grassroots support I’m talking about, thanks.
How do you think we had a Congress and a President who were willing to listen to those grassroots movements?
That’s right - Americans elected a whole bunch of people like the candidate in this article.
The one you claimed we “have no use for.”
deleted by creator
My friend, you’ve gone too deep.
I genuinely do agree that we do not have the same party or candidates or support as we did in the 1930s. I genuinely agree that we need systematic change, or any progress we make will only be undone within a century, like last time.
But they didn’t have that party, those candidates, or that support in the 1920s. The Great Depression changed everything.
Violence alone did not make it happen. And lol no, the current Republican Party would absolutely let the United States collapse into civil war before they passed anything like the New Deal. You know, like… the, American Civil War.
Referring to progressive movements in the 1930s as “grassroots” doesn’t fucking whitewash anything. Socialists weren’t alone in the 1930s, and socialism didn’t have anywhere close to enough support in the 1920s to get the New Deal passed.
They elected the people who made the difference. It wasn’t “benevolent capitalists” that gave us the New Deal - it was people voting for change. Real change, not the half-assed shit we talk about these days.
I wish we could skip over the terrible economic suffering that pushed Americans in that direction, but it probably will happen all over again.
Your socialist movement is possible. We’re walking into all the conditions required to make it happen. And here you are, claiming that you have no use for the exact type of people you need to see it through.
deleted by creator
The last time the status quo was truly threatened, the South started a war. The Republican Party would do the same thing today.
Plenty of socialists et al were threatening the status quo in the 1920s. The Republicans didn’t listen. But the Great Depression itself upended the status quo, and made Americans willing to do anything to make it stop.
That lead to Democrats gaining complete control, and it lead to Democrats being persuaded to actually use that control to enact real change. Yes, part of that persuasion was absolutely intimidation. Much of that intimidation was bought with the blood of leftists.
The same exact conditions are precipitating now. The United States has had its tariffs and its deregulations and its tax cuts and its spending cuts. The stock market points wherever the fuck it wants, but the actual economy is pointing straight down.
And I completely agree that the solution isn’t “let the Democrats fix it”. Far from it.
But the solution certainly doesn’t involve opposition to the type of electoral candidates that would help fix things, like a 26 year old who seems genuinely interested in helping people.
deleted by creator
Lol ok. I am aware that they started to demand socialism. We are saying the exact same thing there.
Where we disagree is where you’re pessimistic in claiming that:
I am optimistic in claiming that:
I get the desire to reduce an extremely complex situation into simple answers. But the New Deal wasn’t just a compromise. The New Deal was an incredible leap forward for labor. And we didn’t completely stop - and later regress - just because we had reached a compromise. Republicans had regained control in the late 1930s, and Americans would have witnessed in real time as their amazing economic growth completely faltered. But that didn’t happen.
We regressed so dramatically because the Second World War gave us economic hegemony that allowed the US to flourish without actually doing anything to deserve it.
Neoliberalism and laissez faire capitalism would never have achieved such popularity in the modern day if not for the fact that the US economy was so strong following the New Deal and the wartime boost, and if the global economy hadn’t just been completely eviscerated.
These policies would have failed much sooner and much more obviously. But full-on Middle Ages Feudalism would have been popular for an entire generation of Baby Boomers, as long as a feudalistic United States was the last major industrial nation standing in the ashes of the 1940s.
The New Deal was socialism in action. To claim it was nothing but a compromise is what actually whitewashes all of the blood spilled to make it happen. We still benefit from the legacy of the New Deal, and we are actively fighting over its legacy as we speak.
The United States could have kept moving in that direction. The United States can move in that direction again. If you won’t support electoral candidates that can help make that happen, the least you could do is get out of the fucking way.
Go oppose electoral candidates that are diametrically opposed to socialism.
deleted by creator
The system itself was massively corrupt in the 1920s, too. It’s literally called the Gilded Age. The New Deal didn’t fix everything - not even close! - there are core issues that have never been addressed.
But it did fix a lot.
The SEC, FDIC, National Labor Relations Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act took a massive fucking crowbar to the kneecaps of oligarchs whose boots were absolutely grinding into the throats of the working class, and the Works Progress Administration undercut all exploitative businesses by becoming the nation’s largest employer.
We live in unprecedented times. We are capable of unprecedented things. But there are many precedents for change and progress being possible both inside the system and out.
I think there are absolutely structural issues in the system that need to be ripped out and rebuilt, and I think it’s highly likely it will take big things to ever make that happen. Things that might indeed prove to be impossible within the current confines of the system.
But whatever actions you take, however you use your voice, whatever support or opposition you choose to give - pick your goddamn battles.
Claiming we have no use for someone who is trying to help? Saying that - in your words - the best case scenario is another Bernie Sanders, as if that wouldn’t be fucking glorious? That we would be so fortunate to see another living legend of socialism stand for their beliefs for an entire lifetime?
A brilliant and uncorruptible independent in a sea of oligarchy and partisanship, who has constantly been ahead of the game, who constantly spoke for the rights of the worker, and who is one of the only reasons socialism is even close to mainstream in this country?
I’m sorry to say that you are a pessimist. You just think it’s realism, and I don’t blame you for that.
Whatever you think about the means that can be used to achieve your goals, you still need to change minds. Even if you burned the system down - which I’m quite certain you won’t - you still need people with clear heads, good hearts, and strong wills to rebuild something from the ashes. Maybe recognize that people like Bernie Sanders would be the ideal for that niche.