Social Democracy Is 100% American

Or as Thomas Paine ....

But there’s even more to the story. It was the American Revolution’s patriot and pamphleteer, Thomas Paine — a hero today to folks left and right, including tea partiers — who launched the social-democratic tradition in the 1790s. In his pamphlets, Rights of Man and Agrarian Justice, Paine outlined plans for combating poverty that would become what we today call Social Security.

... would encourage:

As Paine put it in the latter work, since God has provided the earth and the land upon it as a collective endowment for humanity, those who have come to possess the land as private property owe the dispossessed an annual rent for it. Specifically, Paine delineated a limited redistribution of income by way of a tax on landed wealth and property. The funds collected were to provide both grants for young people to get started in life and pensions for the elderly.

That is where the Social Democratic movement started in the USA. It's built into the history of this country. A history that - due to design - is not being taught in schools nor discussed in public.

Think again.

The social-democratic tradition was nurtured by Americans both immigrant and native-born – by the so-called “sewer socialist” German Americans who helped to build the Midwest and, inspired by the likes of Eugene Debs and Victor Berger, radically improved urban life by winning battles for municipal ownership of public utilities.

By the Jewish and Italian workers who toiled and suffered in the sweatshops of New York and Chicago but then, led by David Dubinsky and Sidney Hillman, created great labor unions such as the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.

By the farmers and laborers who rallied to the grand encampments on the prairies organized by populists and socialists across the southwest to hear how, working together in alliances, they could break the grip of Wall Street and create a Cooperative Commonwealth.

By African-Americans who came north in the Great Migration to build new lives for themselves and, led by figures such as the socialist, labor leader and civil rights activist A. Philip Randolph, energized the civil rights movement in the 1930s.

And then the Coporate Candidate turned Social Democrat:

And think again.

Think about the greatest president of the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt, whose grand, social-democratic New Deal initiatives – from the CCC, WPA and Rural Electrification Administration, to Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act — not only rescued the nation from the Great Depression, but also reduced inequality and poverty and helped ready the United States to win the second World War and become the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth.

Polls conducted in 1943 showed that

94 percent of Americans endorsed old-age pensions;

84 percent, job insurance;

83 percent, universal national health insurance;

and 79 percent, aid for students

— leading FDR in his 1944 State of the Union message to propose a Second Bill of Rights that would guarantee those very things to all Americans.

All of which would be blocked by a conservative coalition of pro-corporate Republicans and white supremacist southern Democrats.

And yet, with the aid of the otherwise conservative American Legion, FDR did secure one of the greatest social-democratic programs in American history: the G.I. Bill that enabled 12,000,000 returning veterans to progressively transform themselves and the nation for the better.

This history lesson was written in response to Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) attack on Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) calling him (him mind you - not his policy plans or ideas - but him) too extreme:

Clearly, McCaskill’s attack — which, to me, smacked of red baiting — was intended as a dismissal of Bernie Sanders’s candidacy based on the fact that Sanders, who has repeatedly won elections in Vermont as an independent and then caucused with the Senate Democrats, is a self-described “democratic socialist” or “social democrat.” And of course, we all know that social democracy is not just unpopular in the United States, it is un-American.

This is a great article to read for the Holiday weekend. I quoted a bit, mostly because I've come to believe that there are few 'readers' amongst ATS. There is a lot here, with plenty to follow-up on for those that are interested in history and the people that have contributed to our collective well-being. These people and the movements around them have gotten ignored in the last forty years, quite deliberatly. It's important, or I think it's important, to hear many viewpoints of history ones that support multiple agendas - not just those that support a single 'specific agenda'.

billmoyers.com...

billmoyers.com...

And don't forget to watch "1776" the musical this holiday weekend with your family.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Who is going to step up and put their life on the line to disrupt the "Globalist Cabal" that has not only hi jacked the US government but every other government?

I find it not only odd but disturbing that those on the extreme left, deem anyone crazy enough to belong or admit to belonging to a militia as a "terrorist", yet suggesting turning our country into a "Socialist Country" Is a sentiment of Unicorns and Rainbows? The United States is not a Socialist country! Yes, we do have programs to help those in need, but is that an excuse to transform the monster we have become?

With that being said, I'll leave you with one statement!

"The biggest threat to any government, is a man/woman who promotes peace."

a reply to: FyreByrd

Social Democracy Is 100% American

Even though Thomas Paine was an Englishman.

Not read all your post but a welfare state that included old age pensions began in Britain in 1908. so The U.S. was behind then times.

I remember a poster before who argued that the U.S. invented democracy
Somehow Ancient Greece didn't exist?
a reply to: alldaylong

a reply to: AlphaPred

the U.S. invented democracy

There are two versions of world history.

1) The American Version.

2) The Real One.

The quote comes under number 1

Or 100% Native American as that was the source of the Constitution.
Europeans didn’t and still often don't get the concept having been chattel for many centuries under the Serf system.
Just ask the Queen ; )
The problem now is that we have become a corporatocracy.
Where only corporate persons with immense cash matter.
a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm sure that when they founded a Constitutional Republic, they meant for it to be a social democracy instead.
Clearly, it was an accident that no one bothered to correct ... no one that is, until liberal progressives valiantly took up the cause.

....... leading FDR in his 1944 State of the Union message to propose a Second Bill of Rights that would guarantee those very things to all Americans.

FDR also was in favor of dissolving the Bank for International Settlements.

But he suddenly "died" in office.

Hmmm.

I have an honest and open question:

Why not just turn social programs over to the states?

I'm of the belief that this country is far too large to provide social programs effectively on such a grand scale. I think the states, if they choose to do so, would provide greater efficacy. As a citizen, if you don't like what your state provides, vote
your local guys out, or vote with your feet. If everyone's moving to...say....Michigan, because they provide the social programs a citizenry desires, other states will take notice and fall into line.

I don't know. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic. I just think the feds are biting off more than they can chew.

Oh...And they're evil.

originally posted by: TomLawless
I have an honest and open question:

Why not just turn social programs over to the states?

I'm of the belief that this country is far too large to provide social programs effectively on such a grand scale. I think the states, if they choose to do so, would provide greater efficacy. As a citizen, if you don't like what your state provides, vote
your local guys out, or vote with your feet. If everyone's moving to...say....Michigan, because they provide the social programs a citizenry desires, other states will take notice and fall into line.

I don't know. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic. I just think the feds are biting off more than they can chew.

Oh...And they're evil.

Think of the Federal government as "Loan Sharks".

Most states are like welfare recipients holding out their hand for Federal Funding from the Mafia we all call the Federal Government.

Do as we say or we will WITHHOLD any Funding.........

Sound familiar?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: FyreByrd

Social Democracy Is 100% American

Even though Thomas Paine was an Englishman.

Not read all your post but a welfare state that included old age pensions began in Britain in 1908. so The U.S. was behind then times.

Thomas Paine was arguably the single most important vioice of the US Revolution.

Thomas Paine advocated for such 'socialist' programs, as did others long before 1908.

Great Britain instituted it before the US. Good for them. It is totally irrevelant to the OP.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
I'm sure that when they founded a Constitutional Republic, they meant for it to be a social democracy instead.
Clearly, it was an accident that no one bothered to correct ... no one that is, until liberal progressives valiantly took up the cause.

The 'constitutional republic' was envisioned as a social one. The two are not mutually exclusive as history well tells us - listen to her.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Thomas Paine advocated for such 'socialist' programs, as did others long before 1908.

Talk is cheap. It's actions that count.

originally posted by: TomLawless
I have an honest and open question:

Why not just turn social programs over to the states?

I'm of the belief that this country is far too large to provide social programs effectively on such a grand scale. I think the states, if they choose to do so, would provide greater efficacy. As a citizen, if you don't like what your state provides, vote
your local guys out, or vote with your feet. If everyone's moving to...say....Michigan, because they provide the social programs a citizenry desires, other states will take notice and fall into line.

I don't know. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic. I just think the feds are biting off more than they can chew.

Oh...And they're evil.

My - off the cuff - answer would be:

1) The States, (mostly) wouldn't have the funds to maintainto provide any common resourses. Remember it's not just about providing penisons, healthcare and job security - it's about providing infrasture and public services.

2) It would create a vastly disparate 'living' standards between the states. States with large economies (such as New York and California) would (and do) provide more benefits but smaller and less weathly states would become ghettos. It's happening to some degree already and causes vast migrations of refugees with in the country.

It's a great question - one on my mind as 'states' rights is a huge deal with the right. I wonder why a Union was formed at all, if not to address these questions - if states rights is the answer to all social problems. It is apparent to me that the Union was formed for the very social reasons that Thomas Paine have advocated for thoughout our realitively short history as a Nartion.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I can't say for sure if I agree with everything you've posited here, but it's definitely food for thought. Eloquently stated.

One thing I'd like to comment on specifically, if I may. Your "states rights is big with right wingers" statement got me to thinking. This could be a very enlightening discussion if we choose to take it in that direction. I don't personally subscribe to the left/right paradigm. It's my belief that some of these divisions we put between us can quash an honest exchange of ideas. It's a big problem in this country. We are often to quick to label each other so we can shut them out or shut them down. Please don't think that I'm pointing the finger directly at you. It was an off the cuff, innocuous statement. It's just that something clicked in my brain: I hadn't even thought of who is what, or where on the political spectrum. It was just people civilly bouncing ideas and counter points around.

We need more of this around here. We need to start actually talking to, and not past each other.

originally posted by: TomLawless
a reply to: FyreByrd

I can't say for sure if I agree with everything you've posited here, but it's definitely food for thought. Eloquently stated.

One thing I'd like to comment on specifically, if I may. Your "states rights is big with right wingers" statement got me to thinking. This could be a very enlightening discussion if we choose to take it in that direction. I don't personally subscribe to the left/right paradigm. It's my belief that some of these divisions we put between us can quash an honest exchange of ideas. It's a big problem in this country. We are often to quick to label each other so we can shut them out or shut them down. Please don't think that I'm pointing the finger directly at you. It was an off the cuff, innocuous statement. It's just that something clicked in my brain: I hadn't even thought of who is what, or where on the political spectrum. It was just people civilly bouncing ideas and counter points around.

We need more of this around here. We need to start actually talking to, and not past each other.

The way I use the terms right and left is mostly as a matter of convenience rather then idealologically. I consider myself quite conservative (in the dictionary sense of the word) fiscally but most would not because it includes that 'social' agenda of collective responsiblity for each other.

I, too, think it's a very important discussion to have but difficult in light of the 'sound bite' world that we live in. Hence this Post and others like it.

Ralph Nader has written a book (Unstoppable - the comming aliance of right and left - something like that) on this very subject. However many will not even consider putting aside differences to work towards common goals even when all believe in there necessity such as Publicly Funded Elections. The devil is in the details and it's time to throw the devil out.

I don't know how to start the discussion here... though I keep plugging away hoping a few will read and respond thoughtfully. Myself included.

I don't need to agree with everything someone says but I do need to have clarity about their meaning. I may still disagree but with understanding.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: FyreByrd

Thomas Paine advocated for such 'socialist' programs, as did others long before 1908.

Talk is cheap. It's actions that count.

And your implication? (or am I supposed to read your mind?)

a reply to: FyreByrd

"...I think it's important, to hear many viewpoints of history ones that support multiple agendas-not just those that support a single 'specific agenda'.

You made a major point with this valid observation, one that isn't focused upon by many of us when reading/researching historical events. Too many times history is re-interpreted to support an ideology or a specific political identity. I loath revisionist histories, especially when skewed to promote a twisted vision for our country or self.

Thanks for what looks like an interesting Holiday weekend read. Kudos!

Preaching to the converted good sir
a reply to: alldaylong

a reply to: FyreByrd

Weather or not it's built into this country I believe in the principle of it.

It's time to start changing anyway.

It's takes fewer and fewer people to produce more and more goods.

Why are we still living in the 1920's?