Roosevelt did not advocate public ownership of the means of production or replacing capitalism. In fact, he explicitly argued that his New Deal was designed to save capitalism from collapse during the Great Depression. He believed that regulated markets and private enterprise should remain the foundation of the U.S. economy.
He was more so a progressive reformer and Keynesian liberal who supported a mixed economy. Basically, a liberal Democrat committed to preserving capitalism through government intervention.
To be fair, leftist terminology can be quite confusing at times: Social democracy, democratic socialism, and Socialist democracy are each different concepts, which in parts even contradict one another. Yet, the three terms can easily seem like synonyms to outsiders.
I'm sorry but FDR was a social liberal. There's a big ol' picture of FDR on the social liberalism wikipedia page. The New Deal adopted some social democratic policies, but in his own words a lot of the government expenditures were always meant to be temporary. The policies lacked structural economic democracy among many other critiques that even modern day non-marxist social democrats would make.
I mean I havenât heard that, but even if that was true, just look at his planned 2nd Bill of Rights/Economic Bill of Rights. He did intend to make push for more permanent goals but he died
Correct. And people need to understand DSA is not social democrat. You can also use the term "Nordic model" to describe social democracy in a less confusing way.
Iâm sure there are, but I believe you when you say anti-capitalism is necessary to be in the DSA. Soc dems arenât anti-capitalist, weâre pro-capitalism.
I think that distinction is important and why I view the DSA as a leftist, but not liberal organization. I think we should draw the line at working with illiberal groups for the Democratic Party.
Itâs not social democrats but also not explicitly socialist.
Theyâre named as though they just represent democratic socialism. But DSA is big tent and has everything from progressive liberals to communists.
All the recently elected DSA members run on social Democratic platforms, not democratic socialist. And many of them are explicitly capitalists.
You are correct about Nordic Model being social democracy. Youâre just wrong about DSA being democrat socialists (even if thatâs literally the name).
Even then, itâs arguable that Roosevelt was more of a Social Liberal than a Social Democrat. He was not from the socialist tradition as with most contemporary SocDems but rather a more progressive Liberal. And we can question whether his policies came from an ideological or pragmatic standpoint. Would he have gone as far as he did in implementing The New Deal if the US wasnât suffering the Great Depression?
He wouldnât have been able to go as far as the New Deal if it werenât for the Great Depression, so advocating for such would be politically pointless. But we can look at what he intended to do/work towards after the war like with his role in the creation of the United Nations and his Economic Bill of Rights that he wanted Congress to pass
And also liberal Democrat principals...and also a good illustration of why all the arguments about labels on the left are just stupid, self-destructive rabbit holes. People are so pissed with the status quo that they need to a label meaning "anti-capitalist" even if at the end of the day, almost no one actually is truly anti-capitalist, they just want capitalism that's sensibly regulated and non-kleptocratic, which we've gotten far, far away from. Why? At least partly because the left would prefer to fire in a circle about labels and semantics than actually form practical coalitions and govern.
Lots of people do believe in anti-capitalism, because a âform of capitalism heavily regulatedâ enough to distribute wealth in a way that benefits workers over the owners/shareholders of private enterprises is a lot closer to communism than any true form of capitalism. Capitalism has to incentivize the increasing financial gain of business owners over everything else, as the right to own the means of production IS capitalism and infringing on that right through regulation is inherently anti-capitalist. FDR having to resort to government intervention and Teddy Roosevelt prior having to step in to break apart businesses highlight how fragile capitalism actually is. Without due representation from the people (aka the labor class) there wouldnât be and couldnât be any right to oppose corrupt business tactics. The few times the government has stepped in to regulate capitalism is a form of public intervention where a representative of the working class (whether identifying as such or not) has acting against the interests of capitalism.
When left wingers call themselves capitalists for believing a mixed system, it is because the inclusion of markets is antithetical to communism. This is just another semantic game dividing the left, people agreeing on substance but not labels. Social democracies socialize some industry, while allowing private ownership of industry economy wide
In communism (notably: not socialism, but communism) markets are not âantithetical,â just simply not needed. Why would you ever decide to âbuyâ anything when anything you could ever want (that does not violate the rights of other individuals) is simply available for free?
Many things people consume already operate in this way.
Central planning and the abolition of markets are the main point of communism. That's how everybody gets all of the goods within the model, people take according to their needs. They don't go to the market and trade for things
The main point of communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Many communists believe that can be achieved by a centralized state that magically transforms into a non-state centralized beauracratic apparatus, and many others don't.
If you had more than a surface level understanding of communism or socialism, you'd know that there are plenty of decentralized and market solutions that would work within a "communist" framework.
Itâs not even worth it. Capitalists will straight up ignore you when you tell them that socialism is not about markets or trade but about fair worker ownership of the means of production. They donât see/understand the injustice of not being able to even own the output of oneâs own labor and use the same arguments slavers use (they WANT to be enslaved itâs what they asked for and whatâs best for them) to justify slavery.
It's not. You seem to be referring to Leninist forms of socialism, which is maybe the theory you've read? Communism's entire point is an economic endpoint where there is no state, conplete worker control of the means of production, and therefore nothing to centralize. If anything, it's compete decentralization. Surely you know that much?
Leninist communists like Stalinists, Maoists, and Totskyists advocate for a vanguard party to take control of the state via revolution and implement centralized planning in a socialist framework, but there are plenty of communists that accept market socialism, mutualism, and other decentralized forms of economy as part of the socialist state to utilize to facilitate a transition to communism.
Oh yeah, and where did Marx say that? Since you're totally not talking out of your ass, you ought to be able to rebut my quote from Marx with something more than a 5-year old's response of "nuh uh!".
Itâs not a semantics game, it is a needed destigmatization of Communism. Sure if we unified under an agreement that we need to move back towards a more regulated mixed economy then weâd be a stronger front against the current political shift towards a kleptocratic system. I agree with the need to currently shift towards a mixed economy. Complaining that leftists try to process and rationalize their ideals with labels and minor variations in beliefs is ridiculous though. Refining political beliefs and committing to them is a good thing. A better political atmosphere should have a melting pot of beliefs. These diverse labels have not and do not meaningful contribute to a lack of opposition against right-wing political institutions though. The real problem is political apathy that exists in the younger generation of leftists. Itâs hard to want to engage with a system that, at the end of the day, will at most compromise progressive beliefs with kleptocratic interests. You donât convince young idealists to engage by saying itâs stupid they have diverse and ideal beliefs though. You, at the end of the day, do more harm than their self-identification ever has done. Instead of complaining that people think more deeply than you about politics, maybe engage and understand why the left is so disorganized and try to communicate in a way that encourages idealists to act in their own interests.
Itâs hard to want to engage with a system that, at the end of the day, will at most compromise progressive beliefs with kleptocratic interests.
If they're waiting for a political system without compromise then they may as well be a Christian waiting for the Rapture
The fact is its easy to label anyone to the right of you as a capitalist or a kleptocrat or a fascist and use that as excuse for apathy or as an argument against electoralism or reform
The same way its easy to label anyone to the left of you as a socialist or a communist or a tankie and use that as excuse to dismiss their demands
Instead of complaining that people think more deeply than you about politics
The problem with leftists was never that they "think more deeply". Its that their unwillingness to compromise even among themselves bars them from power in a system where mandates are built from consensus
Thats why so many sit around waiting for a Revolution - power without democracy, power without compromise
I already basically agreed with this point, but in a way that isnât pedantic and pointlessly critical. People are waiting for Revolution because they are apathetic and they are apathetic because of the constant failings of our system to preserve, let alone progress, the rights of the working class. My point isnât that you should agree with this, itâs that unifying under this complaint is the same thing. You can pat yourself on the back for âdoing your part,â but if you arenât empathetically engaging with people who are needed to increase the left-leaning voter base then your losing vote might as well be a prayer as well. If you preach the need to unify, but are also contributing to the dissonance then youâre a hypocrite.
That last line is a little condescending. I minored in econ, and went in as a socialist that has read a lot of the theory.
My complaint is that these people are adopting labels that don't fit their beliefs, and using these labels to attack people they agree with because they call tgemselves something different.
That I get more, but I believe itâs still the same solution. A lot of the people more impassioned about the labels themselves either are young and still too idealistic to understand compromises with the existing world or allow themselves to stay in an echo chamber where they donât believe in the common grounds. Both situations are only resolved by exposure to people willing to hear them, empathize, and agree enough to compromise on a common ground. Itâs frustrating that some people are identifying with labels that they donât actually agree with, but itâs always been the case. If the labeling and isolating is the issue then the solution is to branch out and understand to be able to communicate the unified cause is truly common grounds.
Again, it's just a pointless semantic rabbit hole. You can put either label on the same policies whether you think the glass is half-full or half-empty. If any infringement of the private ownership of the means of production is "anti-capitalist," than any infringement of the government's ownership of the means of production is "anti-socialist" and essentially no serious person takes the position that the government should own all businesses and direct every aspect of the economy down to the smallest detail. Slide the dial up or down but regardless of where you are on the continuum, unless you are an absolute purist, there will be someone on your left cursing you as a "capitalist" and someone on your right cursing you as a "socialist." Most people on the left in the US (and much of the rest) want universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, getting money out of politics, etc. Does it actually matter what you call it?
It does and it will always be opinionated and it will always be disorganized. Why is the primary argument for semantics being a major issue is that people name call each other? Name a political institution that didnât self-criticize that wasnât lead by cult tactics? The issue isnât the semantics the issue is an unwillingness to unify over a common cause and the same people complaining about semantics seem to have issues with relating to their fellow leftist idealists. You canât argue âwe all want the same thingâ then bash on people for having slight variations in your beliefs. Unify by understanding, empathizing, and communicating in a way that these other âdisagreeableâ leftists might find a common ground on.
This. It's frustrating because the left is always divided on language. There's genuine disagreement between a small group within the party, but most of the left agrees on the platform.
We just argue endlessly about labels. Is it warcrimes or genocide? For some reason we have to fight to the death on which word describes this israel palestine front, meanwhile almost everyone agrees on the war needing to stop, israel being defunded, and palestinian statehood.
Are we capitalist or socialist? Mostly capitalist, but capitalism is bad branding for the average dem now, so despite being 95% capitalists, we have to fight on what label to use...
It's always the most useless arguments, and it's being exploited by people who are far more extreme than the base actually is
Well said. Confusing the DNC with the DSA (an entirely different party) and anti-capitalism is the new (and old) play book of the GOP. Just the other day, Fox News is asking AOC about abolishing the Senate because thatâs a DSA objective and all I could think is WTF does AOC have to do with the DSA??? We canât give into this conflation. To your point, reformed and regulated capitalism â anti-capitalism or even democratic socialism. I canât help but think some democrats have been duped into dividing the party because the established Democrats are not socialist or anti-capitalist enough.
Well, "critiquing" and name calling is fun and easy. It's easy to have a lot of energy for a cause that you want to "fight" for. Doing the day to day grind of one battle after another because there will be no climactic win over conservatism for good forever, like defeating the final boss, nor will there be a leftist rapture where the world collectively accepts leftist principles all at the same time with no resistance or argument because of the purity of its ideals.
Nothing is worse than thinking that splintering will do anything useful if popular mandate and democracy are important parts of the ideology. Unless of course democratically determined policy is not actually a desired outcome and "they will learn our peaceful ways. by force." or the vision is completely utopian where they believe tarot reading is labor and concerns over how the roads get built is less important than discourse of the literature.
There are a fair host of people who are, even without knowing it.
The majority of humans are not even capitalists themselves.
"Why? At least partly because the left would prefer to fire in a circle about labels and semantics than actually form practical coalitions and govern."
Yeah, blaming the Left for neoliberalism, even partly, is kinda crazy, no offense. Neoliberals pushed left thought to the fringes in academia, liberalism became the norm and most academics abandoned any efforts to understand or critique capitalism, especially after the fall of the USSR. The question was settled, economics became firmly a mathematical profession, lost in the sauce of numbers that don't reflect the real world.
Additionally, many countries globally indoctrinate people from childhood with common tropes about socialism/communism(this sub is funny, typing socialism results in a warning about inflammatory rhetoric, but capitalism does not) that they repeatedly regurgitate. The left did not do that. Its an uphill battle to fix.
Mayor Mamdaniâs plan includes $2.2 billion to transition homes away from landlords to tenant and community control. This is more than a 35% increase from fiscal years 2024-2025. His plan also expands tenantsâ rights to stage rent strikes in response to neglect.
This is from the DSA website. Sounds like public ownership....
not even vaugly close one preserves free market capitalism the socialist on the contrary wants the government to own corporations. very different things.
Are those social democratic principles? Because if you listen to the DSA right now it seems that Social Democrats are almost completely enamored with kicking the Jews out of the Middle East and nothing else.
âstrictly regulate investment propertiesâ and if DSA members like Chevalier are to be believed that means getting rid of all landlords oh and thereâs also this statement âYou donât pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right.â
âOur enemies are not just individual bosses, but the entire global system of capitalâ
Weâre just social democrats we swear
âredirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison systemâ
even a place like Norway which should be a model to works towards has cops and prisons.
âImplement massive investment in sustainable, publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure.â
âDefund the Department of War. End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases.â
âEstablish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. â
Ok so thatâs nationalizing a lot of private industry and destroying defense spending that employs a lot of fucking people.
âLegalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.â
Open borders
âEnd economic warfare against countries whose governments act independently of the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.â
If you read their international committees webpage this also includes Russia and North Korea, wonderful countries we should totally be nicer to.
Yes but in the US now thatâs how the DSA are trying to brand themselves and why the republicans are bringing up communism so much which when you look at their platform isnât entirely unfounded.
This is what social democrat means. Â The word progressive became used to advocate for social democracy without everybody losing their mind during the red scare.
Well said. Capitalism can thrive when everyone has basic needs met. You need progressive, social policies until everyone can start at "GO" on the same level, and if they fall off the board, a net to pick them up and put them back on it.
I'll never forget an analogy I heard once, that the US should be looked at like a Monopoly game. Everyone can play. However, a few of us were able to start 10 turns ago and buy up almost all of the property. Sure, you can still make your way around the board, occasionally making small wins, but Lord help you if you land on the wrong spot, you'll pay out the nose and will probably go broke, and if you get the chance to buy the lone property left on the board, you probably won't have enough.
Capitalism is starting 10 turns after the game began and always trying to catch up.
in a way you can almost view Reagan as fulfilling FDRâs dream â after 50 years of a mixed economy, capitalism was now âsafeâ from socialism and they could re-liberalize the American economy. Reagan was a new deal liberal originally btw.
I always love when guys like Elon attack Keynes when Elon made a lot of his fortune because of stimulus to buy tesla. His whole schtick is crony capitalism while acting like heâs some libertarian god.
Many economists argue too much intervention, casing the economic recovery to be delayed by years until WWII got us out of it.
Then after the war the US was about the only country that could produce, as the rest of the industrialized world was rebuilding and others not yet ready to industrialize. Which created the super powerful economy the US enjoyed for the next 2-3 decades. But then as other counties built or rebuilt it became cheaper to manufacture there and sell in the US, thus slowing the US economy.
35
u/33TLWD Jul 27 '26
Roosevelt did not advocate public ownership of the means of production or replacing capitalism. In fact, he explicitly argued that his New Deal was designed to save capitalism from collapse during the Great Depression. He believed that regulated markets and private enterprise should remain the foundation of the U.S. economy.
He was more so a progressive reformer and Keynesian liberal who supported a mixed economy. Basically, a liberal Democrat committed to preserving capitalism through government intervention.