Posted on 04/27/2016 1:35:11 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
[...]
Sanders is wrong about the New Deal "putting people to work" since their government-funded activity did nothing to create wealth or end the depression. The Depression lasted until 1945. And the New Deal certainly isn't "the foundation of the middle class" which grew and thrived in the second half of the 19th century. However, when he classifies the New Deal programs that dominate US policy today as "socialist," Sanders is absolutely correct. In fact, if a democratic socialist of the 19th century were to get into a time machine and travel to the modern United States, he'd be forced to exclaim "mission accomplished!"
FDR was careful to not call his programs socialist, since Americans were sure to oppose anything called "socialism." But, the voters of the 1930s were at least as easily tricked as they are today, so FDR took what was orthodox 19th-century democratic socialism, and imposed it on the United States while calling it "fair play" or some other folksy-sounding label that would appeal to the sort of people Mencken often described as "the booboisie."
To get a sense of what has constituted socialism, historically speaking, it is a mistake to rely on Marxism as the benchmark. Marxism was just one type of socialism in the 19th century, and it failed to gain traction in western Europe. Part of this is because, by the mid-19th century, it was already becoming clear that the predictions of Marxism were wrong. The ownership of capital was not becoming more concentrated. It was becoming more diffuse. The working classes were not descending into a wretched proletariat in western Europe. They were experiencing gains in their standard of living...
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
Redistribution is socialism. Socialism is legislated theft. Social programs redistribute tax dollars from earners to non-earners. Social programs are socialism and therefore legislated theft. Totalitarians have been trying to implement the perfect socialist system for the last two centuries. Were it not for the freedom loving western world standing against the fascists/socialists, Hitler Stalin or Mao may have brought the world under global socialism. But what happens when the western world leads a fascist/socialistic world-wide socialist transformation? The Bible foretells that in the last days before the return of Jesus, a powerful political system will rise on the scene. A European leader will figuratively "cross the Rubicon" by assuming control of this world-wide system...
Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying , Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
“Sanders is wrong about the New Deal “putting people to work” since their government-funded activity did nothing to create wealth or end the depression.”
While it didn’t create wealth, the CCC did move money around to keep people working. Even if it was make-work (and some of the work in parks was really well done), at the very least it kept people in the mind-frame that they would WORK - not just sit home, breed, and get paid.
Yes, there is actually a good argument for that. Once people become unemployed and go on the bench for more than a few months, the skills and habits that could get them into a new job deteriorate rapidly. It is likely cost-efficient to employ them short-term, even in a money losing venture, than to have them go on the dole.
A large number of people who have been sitting around since Obama took office are now likely unemployable.
It might help if we stuck with the long established definition of socialism as state or "social" control of the means of production, rather than apply it to every friggin' thing governments do.
That’s right; one of the problems that Western European countries had 30 years ago with socialism was the government was running jobs programs like that constantly. Anyone who wanted a job could get one cleaning sidewalks or something similar, and the financial burden was too much for the system. Now they (like us) pay them not to work...
As mentioned in related threads, low-information Bernie Sanders is an excellent example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified.
More specifically, Sen. Sanders, along with many other low-information senators, including former Senators Clinton and Obama, have evidently never understood that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to establish social spending programs like Social Security and Obamacare.
Which is why the US is steadily going down hill, and why freedoms are dissolving.
But like Maggie said, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
What would a nineteenth century socialist--with his economic fixation--make of today's "socialism," with its hatred of the working classes and its elevation of sexual deviancy to its number one cause?
My own father was in the CCC. It was organized like the military, with officers and sergeants who cussed out the rank and file just like in the army.
My handy definition of socialism is any government takings from private citizens that are not used for common benefit. That pretty much covers all socialist programs, while denying the socialists the ability to claim ordinary government project like roads, schools, hospitals, etc.
“For Mieso-Rockwellites like Ryan McMaken virtually every government around the world is socialist...”
Well, they are. Name me a country where the fruits of your labor won’t be redistributed to benefit private citizens or used for some leftist “social engineering” program, and maybe I will change my mind.
William Jennings Bryan, for one, would’ve been horrified.
Eventually the voters would put state governments in the hands of Socialists, who would send Socialist Senators to Washington. Rendering the 17th. Amendment moot.
He certainly would, though I don't know that Bryan counts as a "socialist."
I was thinking more along the lines of actual Marxists from the nineteenth century. Yes, they were anti-religion, but they did not exalt sexual deviancy over the working class.
I believe the aspect of socialism that is most repugnant is that somebody in a high-power position will always choose what THEY think is in the best interests of the COLLECTIVE at the EXPENSE of the rights and liberties of the individual.
In this country, historically at least, we believe what is best for the INDIVIDUAL is what is best for the collective. We have inalienable rights. Socialist countries don’t believe that. Your rights stop when somebody else believes the collective is better off without them.
This, along with your point about legislated theft (same concept though), is why socialism is so dangerous. How can anybody oppose what is “in the best interests of everyone”?? To say it is Orwellian would be an understatement.
Yes, there was that element that prepared young men for the war Roosevelt knew was coming. Even the Boy Scouts back then were like that (even through much of the Cold War).
Too logical. Thinkpol is headed to your home...
They may have seen it as the ends justifying the means. Whatever it took to get to the utopia, utilizing whatever or whomever to get to the promised land and overthrowing the entrenched order. Once accomplished, they could swiftly deal with the useful idiots (the deviants) via whatever means they saw fit to utilize (prison/gulag or execution).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.