politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yes. Look up 'the New Deal.'
FDR was a Social Democrat, not a Socialist.
If it wasn't for his Secretary of Labor, Francis Perkins, who was socialist, none of the things that he passed would have ever come to fruition. He gets way too much for credit for the ideology of a female socialist
Slow motion is better than no motion.
It's pointless to argue over who is a 'real' Socialist. I can come up with arguments about anyone you care to name to prove they weren't 'real' Socialists. What are the policies that actually improve people's lives?
FDR was okay, then his safety nets were stripped away. They were only ever temporary concessions because Capitalists were always the ones in control, and they still are. In this manner, it was eventually no motion.
Almost as if the point of socialism is to strip away the the means of production from the capitalists in order to install a dictatorship of the proletariat, and not simply apply social safety-net band-aids so that capitalism can continue to function.
American liberals are so exhausting in their selective application of definitions.
100%, I'm trying to get them to come to that conclusion on "their own."
Would make things a lot easier, lol
Almost as if it's important to get out and vote in every election.
Ronald Reagan sabotaged Jimmy Carter's Iran policy and squeaked in with the help of spoiler John Anderson.
You yourself said it; there were good policies in place, the Right hated them, and used a lot of dirty tricks to get rid of the good policies.
Having good government is like controlling diabetes; you have to be vigilant all the time.
No, I fundamentally disagree with your entire view of historical development, ie the why behind everything.
History is a progression of material conditions, not people and ideas, not Great Individuals making Big Moves. Social Democracy came at a time when the Soviet Union was rising, and Capitalists within America feared similar uprisings in America, compounded by the Great Depression. Concessions were allowed in that context, temporarily.
Neoliberalism came later, after WWII, during the height of the Cold War. It was a way to further seek profits in the Global South.
Fascism is rising now because Capitalism is undoubtedly in decline, and is decaying further.
Material Conditions drive the ideas that drive the masses that drive what's salient, not random Great People doing everything.
History isn't people? History is nothing but people.
Also, nothing you wrote disproves what I said.
We had the New Deal in place, and Reagan came along and stripped away things like banking regulations.
We could have a 90% tax rate tomorrow if people voted for it.
History is the process of Material Reality moving through time. The events of history are guided by the past, they aren't random, chaotic events. In your analysis, Social Democracy came because FDR came, in my analysis, Social Democracy came because America was recovering from the Great Depression and the Ruling Class was terrified of a US Revolution, coming hot off the heels of the October Revolution.
Why was Reagan elected in the first place? Why did he have the ideas he had, and why did people vote for them?
Where's the ballot measure for that?
Now you're just playing word games.
What you call a 'Process of Material Reality' could as easily be called G*d or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You can't disprove what I wrote about voting, so you're trying to change the discussion.
Assuming God exists, God is outside material reality, as is the fsm. People are a part of material reality, and also not the entity of it, despite our grandiose illusions. As US citizens, ourselves have very little say so, regardless of who is in office. Until we decide we do. Voting isn't the deciding factor, is what I'm understanding.
What tf does God have to do with anything, are you mental? Your entire comment is ridiculous.
What you're "understanding" is make believe.
It was the other user who mentioned God first, maeve was just replying to it
Please read the entire thread.
Maeve said that history wasn't people, it was an inevitable process. I pointed out that they were making history into G*d.
There's a difference between history being people and history being Great Men tm. They are including people in material reality and saying that material reality is what creates the basis for the procession of history, not the appearance of great individuals who stand outside it and move it unilaterally.
I don't understand why people are even arguing against this. It's widely understood even in popular liberal academia that Great Man Theory is primitive, idealist, childish, and absurd and that you need to look at material circumstances, class interests, popular movements, and so on to understand why things happen.
That isn't what happened at all, by the way.
I said history is the course of physical reality, not Maeve, Maeve merely added on because you weren't making any sense
Humans and their actions are a part of physical reality, I did not at any point say otherwise
I was not making history into god, nor saying it was an "inevitable process."
What did happen, was I was pointing out how you follow Great Man Theory even if unintentionally, which I firmly reject as idealist, and instead was trying to explain Historical Materialism. You then went off on a million tangents and never grasped what I was saying, making it useless to continue.
So, you know a lot about history, but were amazed to find out about the 90% tax rates?
I suggest you forget about unprovable theories and concentrate on the facts that did occur.
No. You said we could have 90% tax rates tomorrow if we voted for it, I asked when that was on the ballot. You then went on and spoke about Eisenhower, a long dead President. This is more Great Man Theory, ie you believe the 90% tax rate was because of Eisenhower, and not because the greater political context at the time required concessions. Eisenhower was president right after WWII, where the US was becoming a superpower. If Eisenhower was President today, he would not make a 90% tax rate.
What you can vote for is limited by the context of the political environment, not random heroes influencing history.
Again, what on Earth are you talking about? If I throw a rock right now, do you think it will never land? Events have context, they are not random, chaotic people making big moves.
I'm disengaging, you clearly aren't operating in any kind of good faith.
I don't feel like you were ever actually engaged.
If you were, you would have noticed that I never said I believed in the 'Great Man Theory,' just that I believed that there are no solid rules in history and that people make their own choices. One civilization creates the wheel and another does not. One island nation isolates itself and another builds a giant navy.
Citation needed.
To which I pointed out how this was Great Man Theory by saying:
That's it. The 90% tax rate wasn't because of Eisenhower, but because of America emerging as the dominant superpower after WWII. What changes people can and do make depends on the context of their current conditions and what brought them there. Reagan wasn't a random wreckingball, he personally pulled the trigger but he couldn't have done so at any other point of time because Capitalism was doing much better under Eisenhower, and had naturally decayed.
There.
"Every great leader is born already possessing certain traits that will enable them to rise and lead on instinct".
"The need for them has to be great for these traits to then arise, allowing them to lead."
From the article you provided.
I never said Carter or Reagan had special traits, I just used their names as a placeholder for their administrations.
I never said that there was a giant need, they were both elected as part of the regular election cycle.
So again, you are proven wrong by your own article.
I am not proven wrong, the frame of your analysis necessitated the rest of the theory.
Why do you believe Reagan was elected?
Moving the goal posts again?
I never explicitly or implicitly endorsed the Great Man Theory. You were unable to show I did.
Adios
I outright proved it, lol.
Adios.
Why did you need to move the goal posts? If you'd proven your point you'd have shown where I was wrong. You couldn't, so you tried a different approach.
That's the funny thing about you. You keep shooting yourself in the foot and call it a win.
edit =by your 'logic' any historian who talks about a particular leader/inventor/general believes in the Great Man theory.
I thought you said "Adios?"
I proved it by illustrating your portrayal of history as important people doing important things, then I contextualized why they happened. Asking you why you believe events happen isn't "moving the goal posts," it's the entire point of this conversation. If you truly reject Great Man Theory, then give an explanation for why Reagan was elected that rejects Great Man Theory.
You're right.
I should have stopped responding to you several messages ago.
What on Earth could you have possibly meant? When could we have voted for a 90% tax rate?
Secondly, are you actually denying that history is a physical process? Like, if I throw a ball at someone, they will then be hit by that ball shortly after, right? Then they are hurt, and may retaliate, right? History is a series of reactions, not random special heroes and heroines being born.
I have never tried to change the discussion, you're resorting to weird debatelord logic and aren't worth engaging with anymore. Have a good one.
Eisenhower's presidency did see some tax rates above 90%, but that figure only applied to the individual income taxes of top earners. For married people filing jointly in 1953, for example, any income above $200,000 was taxed at 90%, above $300,000 at 91%, and above $400,000 at 92%.
For someone who claims to know a lot about history, you sure are short on facts.
And if history is a 'physical process' post some pictures of it working. Not pictures of people doing things, because that would prove my point. A discrete physical embodiment of history, please.
Why didn't that rate apply to corporations?
Corporate rates were also higher. 50% in 1940. In general, corporate taxes are lower than personal taxes because they encourage people to invest their money instead of hoarding cash.
Too bad you don't own a computer. You could use it do your own research.
Jesus christ, that's just not what socialism is.
There's a reason why social-democrats are castigated in communist circles. Social-democratic policy is always inevitably eroded because social safety nets don't solve the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. It isn't a matter of 'getting out the vote'
I've spent decades listening to Communists tell me that the revolution was just around the corner.
And i've spent decades listening to liberals tell me that capitalism just needs to be reformed.
So we agree. The Communist revolution isn't coming anytime soon so we should work with what we've got.
Errrrr, do we though? lmao
Well, either you think the revolution is close at hand, or you think it isn't and people should suffer as much as possible.
Either you think reform will liberate the working class from capitalist oppression, or you think it can't and people should just shut up about it already.
The US got an eight hour day, child labor laws, environmental laws, and things like Social Security and the ADA without a revolution, so yes, I do think reform is possible.
Lol, well sounds like everything is going swell then no need for revolution!
Funny thing is that I was taught by some old school Communists; folks who fought in Spain and came home to face the blacklists. Back in 1968 they were telling people to vote for Humphrey because they knew how bad Nixon would be.
How could I have possibly questioned your communist educational backround lol
Funny. You say you're all for a blood soaked revolution, but you aren't in Palestine or Ukraine or Yemen or any other place where real bullets are flying.
"You say you oppose capitalism, and yet you exist in it? Interesting...."