FDR implemented socialist style policies and they were wildly popular. Hmmm. Maybe it is the balance between capital's needs and the social needs that were so successful for 40 years after the great depression?
This all or none style of thinking is so ignorant. This version of capitalism at present in the US is more corporate socialis…
FDR implemented socialist style policies and they were wildly popular. Hmmm. Maybe it is the balance between capital's needs and the social needs that were so successful for 40 years after the great depression?
This all or none style of thinking is so ignorant. This version of capitalism at present in the US is more corporate socialism or socialism for the rich. And it speaks to the nature of the question you ignore with your labels of "socialism", such that socialism will be a part of our overall system in some respect no matter what and the same with capitalistic undercurrents. The real question is qui bono, who benefits from these policies. And all the grown ups know the answer to this question.
Capitalism evolves into corporatism naturally without regulation and strong social state apparatus that does not bend to the will of finance, intelligence or the military.
And power seeks a vacuum and fills it. It is like you missed the entire neoliberal period from 1976 to present, and are talking about a fictional concept. Our tallest buildings in this country are corporate banks - our national debt is over 34 Trillion dollars, and covertly, we have been in secret wars in the last 15 years to overthrow anyone we did not like (PNAC 1998).
So, I am not here to answer your questions. I am here to say that the US does whatever the fuck it wants to, and then justifies it later. Tony Benn, someone I admire would say that if you can find money for war to kill people, then you can find it help people. FDR is not a bad model for balancing the social needs of a society while putting a check on finance and corporations.
But there was also the business coup with old Smedley Butler - group of businessmen who want to take Roosevelt out. There always is.
FDR implemented socialist style policies and they were wildly popular. Hmmm. Maybe it is the balance between capital's needs and the social needs that were so successful for 40 years after the great depression?
This all or none style of thinking is so ignorant. This version of capitalism at present in the US is more corporate socialism or socialism for the rich. And it speaks to the nature of the question you ignore with your labels of "socialism", such that socialism will be a part of our overall system in some respect no matter what and the same with capitalistic undercurrents. The real question is qui bono, who benefits from these policies. And all the grown ups know the answer to this question.
You did not answer the question other than a case to revert back in time to Make America Great Again.
Capitalism is fine, but corporatism... what we have today.. is not.
Capitalism evolves into corporatism naturally without regulation and strong social state apparatus that does not bend to the will of finance, intelligence or the military.
And power seeks a vacuum and fills it. It is like you missed the entire neoliberal period from 1976 to present, and are talking about a fictional concept. Our tallest buildings in this country are corporate banks - our national debt is over 34 Trillion dollars, and covertly, we have been in secret wars in the last 15 years to overthrow anyone we did not like (PNAC 1998).
So, I am not here to answer your questions. I am here to say that the US does whatever the fuck it wants to, and then justifies it later. Tony Benn, someone I admire would say that if you can find money for war to kill people, then you can find it help people. FDR is not a bad model for balancing the social needs of a society while putting a check on finance and corporations.
But there was also the business coup with old Smedley Butler - group of businessmen who want to take Roosevelt out. There always is.