Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many authors, labor leaders and/or politicians claimed to have been a "socialist" or "liberal" during the early 1900's or even as late as the 1960's but that must be understood in context. The struggles likely had clearer "bad guys" and "good guys." The "bad guys" were the owners of coal mining or other mining or manufacturing "company towns." Or factories where the workers were locked in, or even tied to their machines so they couldn't take breaks. The consequences, in the case of the Triangle Shirt Waste Factory were gruesome and fatal.
In the early 1900's, when authors such as Jack London wrote or singers such as Joe Hill performed, the industrialists were a pretty raw lot, and that's being kind. Heartless owners paid workers peanuts, and often robbed their meager earnings in charges to live in company towns. Goons enforced the rules. And that was not optional. Thus, books that railed against the power and cruelty of bullies were often written by "socialists" but few could disagree with their message.
One of my favorites, Jack London, wrote a novel White Fang. The protagonist is a dog/wolf hybrid named, appropriately, White Fang. White Fang was bought from Native Americans (called First Nations in Canada) by a person who used the dog as a fighter, "Beauty" Smith. White Fang was "deputized" to fight with just about every dog or wolf that could be found. The dog put in to fight him was invariably ripped to piece, to the wild cheering of drunken crowds. Finally a bulldog was launched into the pen, who grabbed White Fang's throat. When White Fang was almost throttled and near death, a pair of decent people burst in, kicked the offending fight artist and sent the fight promoter sprawling, and then separated the animals and nursed White Fang back to health.While it was a childhood or young adult novel it illustrates what people should do. This is universal.
Appropos of Jack London, I do not think the fact that being relatively conservative makes a difference. No conservative in his right mind would advocate the kind of working conditions and deprivations of rights that were typical during that era.
So, while Jack London presented himself as a "socialist" in this days it was hard for any decent person to be "pro-capitalist"; that meant supporting the Rockefellers, Andrew Carnegie and some almost indescribable brutes.Even in the days of the "I Have a Dream" speech, being "against" what Martin Luther King was advocating was almost unconscionable.
It was far easier to support those "left-wing causes" than transgender bathrooms. The debates are so much harder now.
The debates are harder now because terms are not being used correctly! Politics 101:
A Republican believes laws should be applied conservatively (according to small unit of government) and a Democrat believes laws should be applied liberally (across the States - makes sense for environmental issues for sure). Thus a Republican can be anti-choice, pro-prostitution, whatever but it's gotta be in their own unit of government whereas a Democrat believes those same ideals should be across the States. Really, a liberal Republican actually is a compliment when we think of how the party was anti-slavery. However, I think most can agree, both parties are a mere shadow of what they used to be. One thing is for, the terms liberal and conservative are not being used correctly by the recent journalists.
One clear example of the contrast of liberalism circa 1960's and even early 1980's and current leftism is the two Democratic governors of New York named “Cuomo.” They look alike – father and son. Their voices are somewhat similar. There the similarity ends. Mario’s speech at the 1984 Democratic Convention (Link to Mario Cuomo 1984 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address) was soaring in its delivery and content. Excerpts below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Cuomo
Now for 50 years -- for 50 years we Democrats created a better future for our children, using traditional Democratic principles as a fixed beacon, giving us direction and purpose, but constantly innovating, adapting to new realities: Roosevelt's alphabet programs; Truman's NATO and the GI Bill of Rights; Kennedy's intelligent tax incentives and the Alliance for Progress; Johnson's civil rights; Carter's human rights and the nearly miraculous Camp David Peace Accord.
*********
We know we can, because we did it for nearly 50 years before 1980. And we can do it again, if we do not forget -- if we do not forget that this entire nation has profited by these progressive principles; that they helped lift up generations to the middle class and higher; that they gave us a chance to work, to go to college, to raise a family, to own a house, to be secure in our old age and, before that, to reach heights that our own parents would not have dared dream of.
That struggle to live with dignity is the real story of the shining city. And it's a story, ladies and gentlemen, that I didn't read in a book, or learn in a classroom. I saw it and lived it, like many of you. I watched a small man with thick calluses on both his hands work 15 and 16 hours a day. I saw him once literally bleed from the bottoms of his feet, a man who came here uneducated, alone, unable to speak the language, who taught me all I needed to know about faith and hard work by the simple eloquence of his example. I learned about our kind of democracy from my father. And I learned about our obligation to each other from him and from my mother. They asked only for a chance to work and to make the world better for their children, and they -- they asked to be protected in those moments when they would not be able to protect themselves. This nation and this nation's government did that for them.
By contrast, Andrew Cuomo’s remarks yesterday (link to Andrew Cuomo remarks) were in my opinion carping, cheap and cheesy. Excerpts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Cuomo
“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.....We have not reached greatness, we will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged, we will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping against women, 51 percent of our population, is gone and every woman’s full potential is realized and unleashed and every woman is making her full contribution…”
Trump, an elected President, is being treated like a cartoon pin-up. While I did not vote for the Democratic candidate in 1984, I did not vote for Trump either.
However, the contrast is breathtaking. As is Andrew’s hypocrisy. His chosen Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, resigned in disgrace after spearheading the “me-too” movement and then turning out to be a serial abuser. Would that political debate return to the level of the 1960's or even 1984.
In one way it was easier. Progressives and liberals had a base, the USSR. The homeland of socialism.
Liberalism and progressive politics in the US extends way back before there ever was a USSR. OASDI (aka Social Security) was older than the USSR and an example of how progressive politics was trying to protect society. Same with early unions, trying to create better working conditions than were common at the time (like the OP's example of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory). Modern liberalism and progressivism do tend toward larger federal government, to spread policy across states (and some of that is necessary) but unfortunately, lately so does conservative politics, especially with the push of the hyperchristian right wing trying to force their belief system on everyone and using the federal government to do so. And what used to be tax and spend liberal welfare programs is now countered by tax and spend conservative military options.
But no, the USSR didn't have anything to do with classic liberals and progressives.
Liberalism and progressive politics in the US extends way back before there ever was a USSR. OASDI (aka Social Security) was older than the USSR and an example of how progressive politics was trying to protect society. Same with early unions, trying to create better working conditions than were common at the time (like the OP's example of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory).
While the Triangle Shirtwaist fire predated the Soviet Union's formation in 1917, the legal status of unions and Social Security were both circa 1937. I think you're out of date sequence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiffer E38
Modern liberalism and progressivism do tend toward larger federal government, to spread policy across states (and some of that is necessary) but unfortunately, lately so does conservative politics, especially with the push of the hyperchristian right wing trying to force their belief system on everyone and using the federal government to do so. And what used to be tax and spend liberal welfare programs is now countered by tax and spend conservative military options.
To be fair to the conservatives the federal government is the only proper party to have military power or policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiffer E38
But no, the USSR didn't have anything to do with classic liberals and progressives.
At the time, before the slaughters of the Holodomer and/or the famines became widely known the USSR was the shining light of progressives.
I'll give my best answer on this topic and this is coming from a staunch Libertarian. I think that many American citizens are emphatic to the causes of inequality and poverty. Yes our hearts bleed immensely. However, it is more difficult in todays times to satisfy everybody only because funds are so limited. Right now, this country is not far from entering a very long drawn out depression. We've attempted to elevate everybody's standard of living the best that we can but at some point, the OPM disappears. There simply aren't enough resources left to help everybody in need of financial assistance.
I think the only solution to global bankruptcy is attempting to live within our means. Unfortunately, this plan of attack would eliminate much of the entitlements currently afforded. We are broke and out of money....something needs to be done.
Democrats point the finger at non liberals and accuse us of being cruel and inhumane. However we non liberals tend to be financial conservative and are more accepting that "the world is not always fair" ideology.
So yes, as money is more and more scarce, it's certainly more difficult to be liberal.
Socialism in the US is a different story. It won't work because quite simply, we have too many "takers" and not enough "givers" to make this system work.
I'll give my best answer on this topic and this is coming from a staunch Libertarian.
... it is more difficult in today's times to satisfy everybody only because funds are so limited.
Nope. The funds are plenty adequate but far better secured by the top 10-1%...
except the allocation diverted to stupid, never should have been started, and never properly funded wars.
eta: And the burden of such a large underclass almost all of whom CAN'T earn enough...
and almost all of whom owe their existence to the policies of the conservatives.
The deeper difference between 'then' and 'now' is dilution of media and news sources.
It is NOT an advantage to have 100 cable and internet sources for general news.
With quality local newspapers that were actually read and only 3 or 4 news channels ...
everyone received the same basic information and opinion/observation and at the same time...
and everyone could discuss (or argue) with everyone using the same well sourced and edited material.
Does anyone think that what the IRAQ war has become could have even started without the divisions?
Last edited by MrRational; 01-22-2019 at 05:08 AM..
Socialism in the US is a different story. It won't work because quite simply, we have too many "takers" and not enough "givers" to make this system work.
You have to go all the way back to a feudal society to find any government that is not socialist. EVERY functional government is socialistic - in fact the very concept of having a government at all is socialistic.
Might be worthwhile to have some discussion about the means and the ways and the strategies of our flavor of socialism, but the alternative is anarchy.
-haven't read the thread, so please excuse redundancy--
On the personal level, we're naturally socialists- we grow up in and later raise our own families that operate under socialistic values-- Grandma & Grandpa take care of the kids while ma & pa hunt/gather/work the fields. We share & share alike, often making sacrifices for each other's well being.
Then we started living in towns, and found occasionally we needed to help a neighbor out when he ran into hard times. Sometimes things go bad enough for so many that we even organized into social & civic societies-- churches, service organizations, charities etc to help the less fortunate. You joined and helped to the extant you could-- if you wanted to.
But then things got so big that big govt decided it needed to get involved and force everybody to help, even if they had reasons not to. Now we are forced at risk of incarceration to even help neighbors we don't know living thousands of miles away even when we don't want to.
Remember that Mother Nature is the ultimate capitalist: she constantly tries new mutations-- some work and are successful; most don't work and are discarded as failures....But when a Socialist Govt choses The One Way to Do Things, then it's success or failure for all-- and it's more likely to be failure than success.
In one way it was easier. Progressives and liberals had a base, the USSR. The homeland of socialism.
It supported progressives all over the world with money, guns, advisors, etc. It worked through labor unions, media and film companies it controlled to spread the progressive line and incite discontent against existing regimes. It also worked with progressives to overthrow non-socialist governments and prop up socialist ones that the people rose up against. It used money, espionage and propaganda to further the progressive line.
So they had a lot more help then.
But, the USSR and it satellites also were examples of what progressives wanted. People could see for themselves what the progressive goal was. I remember one progressive saying that the fall of the USSR was the greatest thing that ever happened to progressivism. No longer would there be an example of its ideology it would have to defend. It would be free to criticize freedom's imperfections with a theoretical vision of progressive perfection.
So it cuts both ways.
This is what happens when your "knowledge" comes from Fox news.
Liberalism is much older than communism. Its roots lie in the enlightenment. Its foundations are reason and humanism.
Your rant is totally disconnected from easily observable fact. Liberalism and progressivism is simply what dominates in the entire first world that constituted the cold war opposition to the USSR. Its what dominates in various flavors in every single mature 1st world economy today. When you look at North vs South Korea, what you see isn't northern liberalism vs southern conservative pro capitalism. What you see is northern communism vs southern modern, liberal capitalism.
Your misinformed rant is just the product of an American right wing propoganda cartoon caricature crafted for the rubes, in the service of corporate lobbying for lower tax rates and regulation.
The working and middle class dupes (mostly male and conservative) who buy it will babble neo libertarian nonsense in their youth. Then they will retire as middle class regulars and collect social security and fall ill and benefit from universal healthcare and medicare.
Liberal, perhaps. Socialist, no. Socialism is, in truth, is at odds with liberalism, because it restricts individual choice. While liberalism excels in providing civil liberties, Socialism takes away economic liberty. Given the number of moribund economies that resulted from Socialism you'd think we'd learn. After all, Venezuela was the most prosperous Latin American country a scant twenty years ago. Now look at it. Even Sweden has backed far away from its once-ballyhooed promises of its particular variant. I mean, when you realize that corporate taxes in Sweden sit at 22.5%, it's really hard to call that country socialist either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Andrew Cuomo's Remarks
