A History of Socialism in America

So as many are aware, I'm pretty excited about this new forum so I decided to christen it with a topic that everyone just LOVES. Socialism. Namely the history of it in America.

There is a popular saying among Americans who think we aren't Socialist yet. This is wrong. We've been Socialist since the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal.

For those unfamiliar with what the New Deal did, I'll outline its measures.

The initial New Deal gave changes to fiscal policy (the one non-Socialist measure in the policy since New Deal believers didn't believe in government spending to fix economic woes). This included cutting back on pensions to WW1 veterans as well as government salaries.

Firstly, there was banking reform. In other words banking regulations. This is Socialism in action. Included in these reforms is the Glass Steagall Legislation as well as the creation of the FDIC. This also established the regulation securities.

Second, we had public works. The government employed tons of people to create our national parks and infrastructure.

Third, was the creation of welfare programs: Food Stamps, Social Security, Workers union rights, as well as a progressive tax plan (that taxed the people more for the more money they made). The tax plan was done to redistribute wealth (sound familiar?)

Revenue Act of 1935

The Revenue Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 1014 (Aug. 30, 1935), raised federal income tax on higher income levels, by introducing the "Wealth Tax". It was a progressive tax that took up to 75 percent of the highest incomes.[1]

It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The 1935 Act also was popularly known at the time as the "Soak the Rich" tax.[2] To solve the problem of tax evasion through loopholes, the Revenue Act of 1937 revised tax laws and regulations to increase the efficacy of the tax.[1]

So all of these plans were done as part of the New Deal. As you'll notice, almost all of the things I mentioned are common Socialist talking points today yet they were implemented over 80 years ago. Now here is where things get interesting. Towards the end of the 30's, war broke out again (as I'm sure everyone is aware) so Socialism took a backseat for a while, but after the mid-40's when WWII ended our soldiers came home and created what is known as the "Greatest Generation". This generation would go on to build what is largely considered America's golden years. The late 40's to mid 60's.

Here's the thing about those years. Our levels of Socialism were at ALL time highs.

Taxes:
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: History Suggests High Tax Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy

It should be noted that even conservatives believed in government spending to fix things.
Welfare reform in the 1950s.

Contrary to the impression left by historians, neither welfare expansion nor welfare reform died in the 1950s. Even conservatives believed in the necessity of federal spending for welfare. Disagreements came over the proper ways to spend federal money. The Eisenhower administration propagated a rehabilitation approach in an attempt to use federal money to end individual, state, and local dependence on the federal government. The administration's 1954 social security and vocational rehabilitation laws reflected this approach. Bureaucrats in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, working with a Democratic Congress, managed to extend the 1954 laws into a major expansion of federal power, as the passage of disability insurance in 1956 demonstrated. Institutional continuity, not heroic individual effort, provided the dynamic for welfare reform in the 1950s.

Here's a list of new Social programs that went on the books in the 50's to Present:
MILESTONES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL WELFARE 1950s to Present

Oh yeah, we had the Civil Rights thing going on too.
Civil Rights Act of 1957

This heyday of American growth continued all the way to the 70's when Nixon started the war on drugs (a very NON-socialist answer to a drug "problem") which started the massive money drain that is government gestapo tactics. We all know how THAT has turned out at this point.

Then in the 80's a certain movie star beholden to the banks was elected and started talking about this magical thing called "trickle down economics". Somehow his rhetoric managed to change the landscape of conservative thinking and conservatives abandoned the successful economics of Socialism and started to say that Socialism would destroy the country.

It should be noted that when Reagan deregulated the banks all data since then has pointed to a growth of economic income disparity, wage stagnation, and excessive profits for the super rich.
The 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong

In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.

The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.

By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.

Yet we are told time and again that Trickle-Down Economics are the solution to the evil monster that is Socialism (which is supposedly destroying our country). Yet history tells us otherwise. Under a STRONG Socialist net, America thrived. Then under a more capitalistic approach, America has been stagnating and getting economically more and more corrupt. Yet we are told we need more of the poison while the cure is marketed as a poison.

Though, even TODAY we are still Socialist in nature. We still have Food Stamps. We still have Social Security. We still have housing assistance. Heck, we've even expanded into newer Socialist programs like the cell phone program or college assistance.

PS: Some may call Obamacare Socialist, but it's not. Obamacare is a capitalistic perversion of Socialism. Not that capitalism can't exist alongside Socialism (it totally can as the last 80 some years has proven in this country), but Obamacare is just a monstrosity and the worst of both worlds.

Now I'm sure many will tell me that Socialism is unsustainable, but I ask to you, how do you figure? When we had a stronger Socialist net, we did better than ever

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cloward-Piven Strategy comes to mind... overload the system en.wikipedia.org...

More and more people dependent on the system... it's so disheartening

a reply to: FamCore

So how was the system overloaded in the 50's and 60's?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ALSO - I found this. Surprising "answer" from snopes (not that it is the end-all-be-all source for everything, but I did find it interesting) www.snopes.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It wasn't overloaded, the 60's is just when that "political strategy" was introduced.

I think we may be seeing it play out now. That's what the Republicans are claiming anyway (even though many Republicans in Congress are responsible for it as well)

But that's politics for ya!

a reply to: FamCore

That isn't saying what you think it is, just that the guy did go to college at the same time as obama and that he said it.

a reply to: FamCore

As I showed in my OP, the political strategy was implemented in the 30's. However (and this is something I didn't mention in my OP) Socialists have existed in some form since the 1900's.

a reply to: FamCore

As Sremmos pointed out, that is just one guy's opinion. Albeit a very smart guy, but it is still just an opinion. It should be noted that unemployment is at a low, GDP is at a high, and more jobs exist now than did pre-08 numbers.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I read your OP - it was full of great information. I was replying to your question about how the system was overloaded in the 50's/60's (which it wasn't, to my knowledge at least), and I was talking specifically about the Cloward-Piven Strategy, not Socialism in the broader sense.

a reply to: Sremmos80 I don't see what this guy going to college at the same time as Obama has to do with anything, don't want to derail thread so PM me if you want to talk about what I posted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

As Sremmos pointed out, that is just one guy's opinion. Albeit a very smart guy, but it is still just an opinion. It should be noted that unemployment is at a low, GDP is at a high, and more jobs exist now than did pre-08 numbers.

I understand that the Snopes thing is just an opinion... as you can see from my post I put the word "answer" in between quotation marks..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, yes we have been incrementally getting more Socialist and in the process losing our individual liberty and rights. A large Bureaucracy is needed to control the population and redistribute the wealth.

Things certainly used to be a lot better.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It should also be noted, since this is the history forum, that the way unemployment is calculated routinely changes to ensure that it doesn't look too bad on the official tally. If we were calculating unemployment the same way it was calculated 50 years ago, it hasn't budged much since 2009.

America has always plodded along behind Europe....We'll look the same as Europe does today in about 20-50 years.

a reply to: FamCore

Yea, I understand. Just making sure we understood each other.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

PS: Some may call Obamacare Socialist, but it's not. Obamacare is a capitalistic perversion of Socialism. Not that capitalism can't exist alongside Socialism (it totally can as the last 80 some years has proven in this country), but Obamacare is just a monstrosity and the worst of both worlds.

It is a craptastic bastardization of both Socialism and Capitalism. The wealth is redistributed to the insurance companies and poor people get coverage, but everyone else gets screwed. You can't blame anyone but Democrats for Obamacare. They own it and not one Republican voted for it...and yes, it sucks.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It should also be noted, since this is the history forum, that the way unemployment is calculated routinely changes to ensure that it doesn't look too bad on the official tally. If we were calculating unemployment the same way it was calculated 50 years ago, it hasn't budged much since 2009.

Very true. The "stats" on unemployment rates are very distorted.

On January 9, the US government told Americans that the unemployment rate had fallen to a comforting 5.6 percent, an indication that the Federal Reserve’s policy of Quantitative Easing was successful in restoring the US economy...

...the 5.6 percent unemployment rate (U.3) does not include unemployed people who have not looked for a job in the previous four weeks. These unemployed are called “discouraged workers.” If they have been discouraged for less than one year, they are counted in a seldom-reported measure of unemployment (U.6). This rate stands at 11.2 percent

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It should also be noted, since this is the history forum, that the way unemployment is calculated routinely changes to ensure that it doesn't look too bad on the official tally. If we were calculating unemployment the same way it was calculated 50 years ago, it hasn't budged much since 2009.

Have you done the math to confirm this statement is true or are you just saying it because it sounds good and might be plausible?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There's a History forum?

Awesome!

a reply to: FamCore

What's funny is that Wayne Allen Root on the one hand has insinuated that Obama didn't actually attend Columbia and then on the other hand is suggesting that while at Columbia, Obama embraced the Cloward — Piven strategy.

Which is it?

While CP was something to talk about in the mid-60's, the CP strategy is rather pointless now. Our own advancing technology continues to displace human labor. Where it hasn't, prices have been climbing steadily compared to the CPI. Two prime examples are education and healthcare.

We've been undergoing a transition from an industrial economy to a post-industrial economy for several decades. In the 1930's, Keynes saw this already starting and correctly predicted the pace at which first world nations' economies would grow. He also correctly predicted the reduced need for human labor.

Where he was wrong was in believing that everyone would equally enjoy in this prosperity and that the average work week would fall to something like 15 hours. Instead, the wealthiest few people continue to amass obscene fortunes while more and more formerly middle class people are being shifted into crappy paying jobs in the service sector or phased out of the labor force entirely.

This isn't any President's doing. In fact, there's nobody to blame and I think that's why it's not a popular topic of discussion.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

PS: Some may call Obamacare Socialist, but it's not. Obamacare is a capitalistic perversion of Socialism. Not that capitalism can't exist alongside Socialism (it totally can as the last 80 some years has proven in this country), but Obamacare is just a monstrosity and the worst of both worlds.

It is a craptastic bastardization of both Socialism and Capitalism. The wealth is redistributed to the insurance companies and poor people get coverage, but everyone else gets screwed. You can't blame anyone but Democrats for Obamacare. They own it and not one Republican voted for it...and yes, it sucks.

Not really. Obamacare was originally Romneycare. What happened is that Obama wanted universal healthcare but was willing to compromise with the Republicans to appease them (this was early in Obama's Presidency when he thought that compromise with them was something they actually wanted instead of just paying lip service to it). This resulted in the mess that is Obamacare. Naturally, as we both know, no Republicans voted for the bill, but that doesn't mean Republicans weren't responsible in any way for the end product we got.