Michael Moore just said FDR was a democratic socialist.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

No, Michael, he wasn't. FDR was a capitalist. Most historians think he saved capitalism by regulating it, and he was hated as much by the left - for that reason - as he was by the right.

[UniteFightBack]

1. I'll take a Rob Riener over a Michael Moore any day of the damn week. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Moore is starting to sound kind of deranged.

[UniteFightBack]

4. He has become completely intolerable. nt

[still_one]

9. If Sanders became the nominee, MM would insure another four years of trump

[onetexan]

66. K&R

[HarlanPepper]

7. I almost fell over when he went into a sermon

About being glad the GOP will drop a billion in ads on Bernie’s socialism. Yeah mike, that soliloquy sounds good until it’s actually happening and he’s getting crushed. It all sounds great right up until that moment. True believer types like that make me uneasy.

[Blue_true]

114. So the problem is this.

Say we nominate Bernie and essentially giv Trump a gift. When it is all said and done and the country is in hell, people like Moore will stfu and help us elect a democrat to start cleaning up the mess. But they will piss and moan about what the democrat is FORCED to do to have a prayer of saving the country. So the democrat works hard 8 years and the country is back on track, people like Moore and Sarandon will crawl out of the woodwork like nothing happened and help elect a republican to follow the democrat. Rinse and repeat.

[Cha]

14. Did anyone give any pushback or was

he just given a platform to rewrite history?

Thanks.

[radical noodle]

16. He was on with Chris Hayes

but I turned him off because I can't stand MM. Hayes is pretty in love with Bernie, so I'd guess he didn't contradict a thing MM said.

[Cha]

32. Oh right.

Thanks, rad

[tishaLA]

54. To his credit, and my surprise, Chris Hayes

Said that he never called himself that, but Moore said that's because they didn't have the term back then (!!!)

Also, Jesus was apparently one, too.

[Cha]

56. Thanks, tisha.. more Meaningless michael moore ..

"I've come to the conclusion that the old guard of the Democratic Party is a greater roadblock to social progress than Trump."

https://documentarynews.com/in-fahrenheit-11-9-michael-moore-compares-trump-to-hitler-and-hes-not-so-crazy-about-obama-either/

"Moore Slams Obama: HIstory Will Only Remember You Were a Black President"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10025513223

[Demsrule86]

77. Hi Cha...didn't see it but I have been so disgusted with the media that I really haven't watched

much. It almost seems as it they want to re-elect Donnie Bonespurs the terrible...and where is the outrage for what he did last night firing all those who testified against him? Yeah, Sen. Collins...he has truly learned his lesson.

[Cha]

110. I haven't watched the "media" in 18 years..

so I can understand.

[Demsrule86]

112. Yep, I used to watch MSNBC but honestly they have been awful this cycle...now they are on the Dems

hurt themselves with impeachment...yet they were all for it before...sigh.

[PatSeg]

44. Yeah, there's something not quite right

about him these days.

[still_one]

6. +++

[Demsrule86]

76. I would too any day of the week.

[brush]

3. Moore is such a gas bag. What a silly comment.

[Gothmog]

108. I turn the tv off or change channels when he is on

The man gave us Busn

[Cha]

5. MM said this, too.. "Moore Slams Obama: HIstory Will Only Remember You Were a Black President"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10025513223

[Scurrilous]

8. Drunk History. Again.

[Cha]

13. Yep and of course the m$$$$m is only too

happy to give him a platform.

[Demsrule86]

79. I guess getting healthcare was not a 'BFD' ...first president to ever manage it except for

Hillary Clinton's CHIP program.

[Cha]

111. This is what I mean about MMoore.. he just throws out

crap and hopes it sticks.

[Demsrule86]

116. I can't stand Michael Moore and think he is an opportunist and is just promoting himself.

[Iliyah]

10. Wrong. . .

His wife cared.

[Still Sensible]

11. I completely agree. Moore trying to rewrite history here. n/t

[Scurrilous]

12. FDR's enemies called him a socialist.

Calling him a socialist is using his enemies slur to define him. Moore is a fucking dumb ass.

[onetexan]

67. Moore is trying to stay relevant by saying controversisl things

[Scurrilous]

70. Yep.

He seems to have glommed onto Bernie. I cant wait to see them crash and burn.

[brush]

87. Yep, like the Ann Coulter of the left.

[BlueIdaho]

15. By today's standards

He was also a Billionaire. So where do we go from there?

[radical noodle]

17. +1

[patricia92243]

36. See my tag line.

[brush]

40. Yes, comparatively FDR was a "billionaire" to the average worker back then but Moore didn't go...

near that. Wonder what Moore and fellow millionaire Sanders thoughts are on Bloomberg and Steyer?

Wait, I forgot. Sanders regularly rails against billionaires and the corporate rich.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. The Social Democracies of Scandinavia are all capitalist systems

FDR’s New Deal was absolutely a Democratic Socialist program.

[Quixote1818]

20. Thank you. nt

[Wellstone ruled]

23. Let's add this,FDR was a East Coast

Democrat which at the time was some what liberal but on the conservative side.

[MarcA]

29. True. n/t

[Dem4Life1102]

35. BS

Either you don’t know what socialism is or you are trying to rewrite history too.

[Fiendish Thingy]

90. I know the textbook definitions are NOT what Sanders and Moore use

Neither of them are talking about the government seizing the means of production and working towards a pure, Marxist style government.

Of course, that’s what the Republicans will claim.

Most Americans don’t know the difference between Socialism,, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy, and so the challenge will be on effective messaging.

[Dem4Life1102]

99. No they don't

because they are trying to confuse the issue.

[Fiendish Thingy]

106. Are you suggesting they are Marxists in disguise? Nt

[Dem4Life1102]

120. No

The are trying to rewrite history especially regarding FDR and the New Deal.

[Fiendish Thingy]

125. Please explain the difference between the New Deal and the programs of Social Democracies

Other than the fact that modern Social Democracies have only improved upon New Deal policies (as well as FDR’s stillborn Second Bill Of Rights), I see little difference.

[Dem4Life1102]

127. Social democracies are not socialist

So please don’t peddle the BS here.

[Fiendish Thingy]

129. Who's peddling BS?

Sanders and Warren both advocate policies that are common in social democracies.

[Dem4Life1102]

133. Not talking about Warren

So don’t try to change the subject.

Talking about Moore trying to rewrite history about FDR.

[Celerity]

50. no it definitely was not, it was social democracy, FDR went out of his way to say no to socialism

What FDR Understood About Socialism That Today’s Democrats Don’t

He ruled at the height of government activism, but saw ideology as something to fear, not embrace.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/democrats-socialism-fdr-roosevelt-227622

President Franklin D. Roosevelt arrived at Franklin Field on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania in characteristic style: beaming, from the back seat of an open car. He had earned this smile. It was June 27, 1936, and he had just been re-nominated by acclamation in the smoke-filled Philadelphia Convention Center a few blocks away. It was, arguably, the high-water-mark of his career. Thanks to the monumental initiatives of Roosevelt’s first term, it was also a moment of transcendent significance in the nation’s history, though none of the 100,000 people sweating in the yellow-brick football stadium realized it. This was the pinnacle of American socialism, by that or any other name.

In the four years just past, Roosevelt had transformed the purpose of the United States government, making it a constant companion in the lives of Americans. The Social Security Act of the previous year was merely the crowning achievement. Roosevelt’s initiatives, meant to curb the misery brought on by the Great Depression, directly funded millions of government jobs, employing everyone from photographers to brush-clearing conservation workers. To pay for this, he raised the income tax—which hadn’t even existed two decades earlier—to 75 percent on the highest incomes. The rich were subsidizing the poor, and that was A-OK with FDR.

The giant crowd bristled with excitement to hear their hero defend these policies. What followed was his so-called “Rendezvous with Destiny” speech, which historians rank among the greatest of his career, a tall order from the man whose oratorical roster included “nothing to fear but fear itself,” and “a day that will live in infamy.” But while those speeches perfectly captured individual moments, Roosevelt’s “Rendezvous with Destiny” speech came far closer to revealing his inner theories and motivations: Never before or after would he lay out his vision in greater clarity.

That vision included one truly insistent message: He was not a socialist.

Though he never used the term socialism in his speech, Roosevelt’s anger at those who accused him of ideological motivations, of applying an economic theory that was anathema to the United States, exploded from the lectern. In line after line, the fiery president defended his actions as pragmatic responses to the real, glaring needs of a changing society. The rich who criticized him, who cloaked their greed in an affinity for capitalism, were dangerously missing his point. He knew the ideological threats of communism and of fascism were real, and were overtaking democracy in European countries. An etched-in-stone commitment to the status quo would be an invitation to extremists everywhere. By fulfilling the government’s obligation to assist its people, he was instilling confidence in the American system. He was vindicating the Founding Fathers.

snip



“Is the New Deal Socialism?” by Norman Thomas

Norman Thomas was the most prominent spokesperson for the Socialist Party of America in the 1930s and 1940s. He ran six times for president on the SP ballot line. Recently, an article by Seth Ackerman of Jacobin magazine argued that Thomas acknowledged that President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs had socialist aspects and this, essentially, is why Bernie Sanders isn’t wrong to invoke the New Deal legacy when he uses the term “democratic socialism.” Nevertheless, the pamphlet from 1936 that we partially reproduce here makes it clear that Thomas didn’t think that the New Deal equaled socialism and that Roosevelt was no socialist.



https://newpol.org/is-the-new-deal-socialism-by-norman-thomas/

Mr. Roosevelt and his followers assume that prosperity is coming back because of the New Deal. Al Smith and the rest of Roosevelt’s assorted critics assume that it is in spite of the New Deal and perhaps because of the Supreme Court. Mr. Hoover plaintively protests that the catastrophic depression of January – February, 1933, was due merely to the shudders of the body politic anticipating the economic horrors of the New Deal.

As a Socialist, I view the Smith – Roosevelt controversy with complete impartiality. I am little concerned to point out the inconsistencies in Al Smith’s record, or to remind him that in 1924 and 1928, when I happened to be the Socialist candidate for high office against him, more than one of his close political friends came to me to urge me as a Socialist not to attack him too severely since he really stood for so many of the things that Socialists and other progressive workers wanted.

But I am concerned to point out how false is the charge that Roosevelt and the New Deal represent socialism. What is at state is not prestige or sentimental devotion to a particular name. What is at state is a clear understanding of the issues on which the peace and prosperity of generations — perhaps centuries — depend. A nation which misunderstands socialism as completely as Al Smith misunderstands it is a nation which weakens its defense against the coming of war and fascism.

But, some of you will say, isn’t it true, as Alfred E. Smith and a host of others before him have charged, that Roosevelt carried out most of the demands of the Socialist platform? This charge is by no means peculiar to Mr. Smith. I am told that a Republican speaker alleged that Norman Thomas rather than Franklin D. Roosevelt has been President of the United States. I deny the allegation and defy the allegator, and I suspect I have Mr. Roosevelt’s support in this denial. Matthew Woll, leader of the forces of reaction in the American Federation of Labor, is among the latest to make the same sort of charge.

Roosevelt Not Socialist

Emphatically, Mr. Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher.

snip

[Fiendish Thingy]

92. Thank You for proving my point

Most Americans don’t know the textbook definitions of Socualism, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy.

The challenge will be to focus effective messaging on showing that America already has had social democratic policies and programs for years, as well as corporate welfare, to make the choice clear for voters.

[Demsrule86]

115. FDR was a capitalist...who was trying to save the Republic and millions from starvation...

He believed in the economic system and even when the there was a plot to assassinate him...the Businessman's revolt,he refused to allow prosecution fearing we would lose our economic system...providing healthcare was done under a capitalistic system....he was not any sort of socialist. He also believed in free trade. In those days GOP types were not for trade. Fascinating story..a Marine General Butler saved the day. Semper FI

https://timeline.com/business-plot-overthrow-fdr-9a59a012c32a

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b007tbs0

[Quixote1818]

19. You do realize Democratic Socialist countries are also Capitalist?

[Celerity]

26. lol, we here in the Nordics (I live in Sweden atm) are NOT socialist, democratic or otherwise

You are conflating social democracy with democratic socialism, the same as Sanders and a huge part of his supporting base foolishly does via false self-labelling. It is intellectually bankrupt to claim social democracy is the same as democratic socialism.

We have extremely vibrant capitalistic sectors here, more vibrant per capita than the US in fact when measured by a plethora of metrics. We just highly regulate them as well, and have expansive social safety nets as well.

[Quixote1818]

41. Regardless of the labeling Sanders has said he wants to mimic the Nordic system

Yes, I have heard the labeling is wrong but we all know what he means.

[Celerity]

45. no, most just hear socialism

It is a massive self-inflicted wound by Bernie, AOC, et al. that will be used to tar and feather us all. It is foolish to use a completely wrong term when the falsely claimed term is so negatively framed for the last 100 plus years in reactionary America.

[Blues Heron]

80. I think those 1950's era slams (socialism BAD!) are fading away

now that we're well into the 21st century.

[Celerity]

91. Regardless of the framing or not, it is simply factually inaccurate to conflate social democracies

with democratic socialism.

They are two entire different things. The negative connotations of socialism in the US is still very strong, rightly or wrongly, and that is what makes it a damaging mistake politically on top of being erroneous.

[Blues Heron]

95. I disagree, most people know that a little socialism is a good thing

That Commie scare stuff has lost a lot of its mojo, thankfully.

[Celerity]

96. all I can say is wait until you see 1 billion USD in 'COMMMMIE!!!!' red baiting dropped on Bernie

by Rump and the Rethugs if he wins the nomination.

Hell the MSM will join in to a large degree. I would be shocked if more than 5 or 10% of the American public could correctly define social democracy and how it is different from democratic socialism, AND 90% of those who are clueless will think they are the same thing, and a massive amount of those will erroneously conflate socialism directly with communism.

If only people in my age cohort (I just turned 24 so call it 18 to 30) voted, then fine, but it doesn't work that way.

[Blues Heron]

98. Bring it

It's a new dawn, a new day - people know the stakes here. Give the people some credit - you can't fool them all all the time right? Nobody's going to sweat the diff between dem soc or soc dem. We've been squeezed by capitalism for 40 years since Reagan - people know they're being screwed.

[Celerity]

100. that is a path to electoral suicide nt

[Blues Heron]

102. No, it's not.

I think you're wrong.

[Celerity]

104. and I think you are wrong, but we shall never find out because Sanders will not get the nomination

[DanTex]

46. This is correct.

Bernie is a social democrat, not a democratic socialist. For some reason he mislabels himself. And it’s too late for him to change it now.

But that’s all it is, a choice of words. What Bernie is proposing, obviously, is social democracy, not seizing the means of production.

Calling that “intellectually bankrupt” is a bit harsh. It’s technically wrong but at least in the US the word “socialist” is used informally a lot, basically to mean redistributionist. And in other countries too, there are political parties that have “socialist” in their names but actually advocate social democracy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

48. THIS!! SPOT ON!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[TwilightZone]

74. "conflating social democracy with democratic socialism"

As you noted, that happens all the time here. Some of it - perhaps most of it - is intentional. I have a hard time believing that Sanders doesn't know the difference, so it starts with him.

[chia]

83. Well said, except for many, perhaps it's not so much intellectually bankrupt as it is

simple ignorance (or in the case of MAGAs, willful ignorance...)

[Blue_true]

117. No they aren't. They are social democracies, which is an informed version

of capitalism, where the rich aren't allowed to stuff their pockets and leave society way behind. Those countries still have billionaires, something Bernie says should not exist.

[wnylib]

21. Somebody loved FDR -- 4 times worth

The people who say that FDR was a democratic (small d) socialist claim that democratic socialism is about regulating capitalism and not about government ownership of production. They compare it to "Nordic" European mixed economies. I have heard Moore promote the idea of worker owned businesses where employees have shares in the business, with no outside shareholders. Not sure how well that would work with some of the co-workers I have had.

That's all I know about them. Haven't looked any closer into their political philosophy beyond Moore's statements and the ideas promoted by Sanders.

I have doubts that anyone promoting a political program with the word "socialist" in it could win in the US, no matter how they explain it.

[emmaverybo]

33. Good one. Yeah, explaining it just digs the hole. Better not to say the S word. In America. To

Americans.

[wnylib]

55. I'm just being realistic. It is ingrained

in the American psyche to oppose and resist the word socialism.

If democratic socialism really is like FDR's programs, or Scandinavia's mixed economies, I could live with it. In fact, in my early working years, I did live with it. FDR's legacy was still around then. The markets were regulated and anti trust laws restrained development of conglomerate monopolies better than today. Utilities were considered natural monopolies for the sake of efficient, smooth operation, so they were regulated by government oversight but privately owned. Unions were stronger and protected by law.

There was no universal health care. With unions, civerage was cheaper than today. Without a union, you were up a creek. When Medicare was established for seniors, there was a lot of hysteria about "socialized medicine" but people got over it and love it now.

Obamacare is an improvement for many people, but still too damned expensive for a lot of them. At a minimum, there should be a Medicare option. A single payer system like Medicare for all would not destroy us economically. Hasn't done that in Britain, Canada, or Scandinavia. And I don't hear their citizens begging to do away with it.

But attach the word socialism to any program or political position, and Americans conjure up communist Cuba or China and become frightened and resistant. Yet those same people will buy cheaper meds from Canada, even though it's illegal and risky over the Internet snd via mail.

We need economic and health reforms, but I believe that running a presidential candidacy based primarily on large scale reforms will not sell to the majority of people. Too much too soon. Our own party establishment will not support it. Better to make reforms longer term goals to achieve incrementally. In the long run, those reforms will be good for the nation as a whole.

[emmaverybo]

64. Good analysis. Convincing. Thanks. Things to think about. Agree we can't just sweep in with sweeping

change. Need to get in power first, then restore and protect Obamacare for now, bringing down those premiums! Expand Medicaid. Got to close up the coverage gap for elders without means to have an advantage plan. And grapple with a pubic option for self and unemployed.

[wnylib]

65. An expansion of Medicaid is good for those

those who need it because they can't afford the deductibles and co-pays on Obamacare or the premiums and co-pays on Medicare.

But I'm talking about expanded Medicare beyond just seniors. It has the same benefit as Obamacare regarding pre-existing conditions. And you can upgrade with an Advantage plan for meds, eyeglasses, hearing aids, etc. Co-pays are lower than other insurances because it is government subsidized via taxes and money paid into it by seniors during their younger working years.

So expanding Medicare would mean higher taxes. There's no getting around that because more people receiving care would mean a need for more money into the system. But it is still less costly than Medicaid because people on Medicare pay monthly premiums and co-pays while those on Medicaid don't. But even with higher taxes, it is true that people have more disposable income in the end because they are not paying huge premiums and deductibles. They are not suddenly hit with unexpected costs for emergency care or surgery when needed. Those sudden extra costs can be as high as the price of a new car.

BTW, during the years when the FDR legacy was still in effect, the prople at the top of the income pyramid paid a substantially higher percent in taxes. That was before the con game of trickle down or supply side economics reduced taxes for the wealthy, shifting the burden downward to lower income levels.

[emmaverybo]

94. If we are to have universal healthcare, however we get there, we must pay higher taxes and that

burden should fall more heavily on those who benefit the most within our economic system. As you say, a rise in taxes will be offset by drastically reduced medical costs. Now not all people on
Medicare pay monthly fees. Some retirement benefits pay those and the full cost of premiums,

Perhaps neither here nor there in the larger scheme, but the sell has to be for the greater good to those lucky folks, many of whom traded that benefit for higher salaries, not you don’t have a good deal and will get better. They won’t get better.

Medicare for all would need to be drastically transformed from today’s Medicare to serve the needs of those currently on Medicaid, including disabled with in-home care benefit which some states are, tragically, cutting. I would hope that attendant care benefit would be extended to seniors, which would be a beautiful thing, giving them a choice to get care at home or in a facility.

[Joinfortmill]

89. Excellent. Agree 100%

Best to use words and terms like 'democracy', and 'for the people'. Or something like a, democratic constitutional republic.

[oasis]

22. Michael Moore, take your tired ass shit somewhere else. nt

[redstateblues]

24. Wish he would go away

[McKim]

62. Moore Knows How to Reach People

Moore knows how to reach people. I wonder what the problem is here at this thread. Does he support the wrong candidate? I am tired of the bashing. I thought tonight’s debates were great, civil, interesting, dignified and most candidates came out well. I was proud of us.
Then I read this smear.

[betsuni]

63. "I've come to the conclusion that the old guard of the Democratic Party is a greater roadblock

to social progress than Trump." Michael Moore.

This is a forum for supporters of the Democratic Party.

[RandySF]

25. Nope

Henry Wallace was the Socialist.

[rusty quoin]

39. Yes he was. In fact there were actual communist at that time in America.

But the fact they were there was never a threat to capitalism. Henry Wallace was not a threat either.

He was trying to get us out of the Great Depression, and if that meant socialism, then so be it.

Those work programs worked.

FDR was not a socialist in my opinion, but he did things that worked, whether or not they were considered socialist.

BTW, I have got no problem with socialism today since 90% of of revenue goes to the top 1 %.

I’ll take socialism over reverse socialism any day. I like regular people best.

[stopdiggin]

27. Michael Moore says a lot of sh**

our mistake for listening to any of it.

[SunSeeker]

28. A strong safety net is not socialism; it's the regulation needed to make capitalism livable.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

The Scandinavian countries are free market economies with excellent safety nets, that is all. And that is all FDR was trying was trying to do.

Moore is mangling the truth about FDR, and the definition of socialism.

[DURHAM D]

30. I know it is early in the year but

he should go ahead and take his 2020 shower and wash his hair now instead of waiting until summer.

[emmaverybo]

34. Killin' me, you are.

[murielm99]

68. LOL!

[DanTex]

31. Totally missing the point which is about policies and values versus terminology.

Bernie is straight from the FDR tradition. Look at his platform, policies, what he talks about. Like Moore said, the people scared by the word socialism are the right-wing brother in law who is never going to vote for any Dem anyway.

[Dem4Life1102]

43. FDR tradition?

Do mean turning a blind eye to segregation, the detention of Japanese Americans, building the military industrial complex, setting the minimum age for Social Security at 65 when the average life expectancy was 62? That tradition?

[DanTex]

47. No, I mean the New Deal.

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

[Dem4Life1102]

61. The new deal?

Which excluded African Americans? That new deal?

[trackfan]

37. FDR didn't deny socialism.

When asked if the New Deal was socialist or capitalist, he said something like 'it's neither fish nor fowl, but I think the people are going to like it.'

[Dem4Life1102]

38. I don't understand why MSNBC keeps bringing him on

to spew his BS. And the rewriting of history about FDR and the new deal is disgusting.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

42. Agreed

That's what I've pointed to many a deaf ear. Roosevelt was the centrist of his time.

[Gothmog]

49. Moore is never right on anything

I turn the TV off when this idiot comes on

[booley]

52. FDR's policies were Democratic socialist

Massive work campaigns, giving people jobs, social Security...

These are what many call "Socialist". Indeed, FDR's enemies frequently accused him of it.

Yes, FDR did indeed say he had saved Capitalism for generations. But he used socialism to do it.

It frustrates me how removed we have become from our own history.

[Celerity]

57. No they were not, as I have already posted, you either do not understand social democracy as opposed

to democratic socialism or are wilfully misrepresenting the latter. The New Deal did not seize and take over the means of production, which is a fundamental boilerplate modus operandi of actual democratic socialism.

see

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287488259#post50

and dozens of my previous postings on this very subject since I have joined DU back in early summer 2018

[Cha]

53. MM-""I've come to the conclusion that the old guard of the Democratic Party is a greater roadblock

"I've come to the conclusion that the old guard of the Democratic Party is a greater roadblock to social progress than Trump."

https://documentarynews.com/in-fahrenheit-11-9-michael-moore-compares-trump-to-hitler-and-hes-not-so-crazy-about-obama-either/

[Bradical79]

58. Social Democrat is a better description

[Nanjeanne]

73. Yes. I really wish Sanders et al would reclaim social democracy rather than democratic

socialism.

[PatrickforO]

59. Hmm. FDR was a member of the social aristocracy.

I've always thought he saved capitalism. When over one in five people are unemployed and there are no safety nets, things were getting hairy awful fast. Riots broke out in San Francisco, Oklahoma City, St. Paul and many other cities, including the Communist-led one, 35,000 strong, in Union Square in NYC.

In the words of Professor Brooks of Baruch College (CUNY):

In March 1930, members of the Communist Party organized an unemployment rally in Union Square that escalated into one of the worst riots in the city: “35,000 people attending the demonstration were transformed in a few moments from an orderly, and at times a bored, crowd into a fighting mob.”

Communist leaders brought their followers down to march on City Hall and “demand[ed] a hearing from Mayor Walker.” The purpose was to spread awareness about the corrupt and inadequate management of the monopolies who raised the cost of food and rent. To break up the mob, policemen broke out their billy clubs and lashed out at any person within their vicinity, suppressing the demonstrators and wounding two. This rally resulted in the appropriation of one million dollars for relief by the Board of Estimate.

If you look at the New Deal, it is Social Democracy. Problem is that we've never really had a labor party here in the US because everybody thinks their ship will come in and they'll become a millionaire by some miracle. All Social Democracy really is is a redistribution of wealth in the form of publicly funded projects to put people to work, and higher taxation of wealthy and of corporations.

Social Security is the prime example of this, and of course we also have the other safety nets: unemployment, worker's comp (42 states had these laws by 1920, but Texas struck down theirs in 2018, did you know?), welfare, food stamps, the workforce development system. The 40 hour work week came before, but it is definitely a 'leftist' law.

Same with child labor laws. Did you know in the 1912 Lawrence textile strike, kids as young as 10 held signs that said 'I want to go to school!' This was after Massachusetts passed a law that reduced their work week from 56 hours to 54 hours and those benign capitalists reacted by reducing pay. In the resultant strike women and children were beaten bloody by the 22 militia companies the governor called out. At least three people died.

A strong middle class, like America had from around 1955 to 1975, is also a VERY Social Democratic ideal.

Right now, the pendulum has swung way too far right, which is why we have the massive and oppressive imbalance of wealth, and why we have the current slow coup happening where the oligarchs are trying to take over the US. Put us under a dictatorship, impose a white supremacist theocracy on us and oppress the hell out of everyone. Rule by fear.

It may be that the left hated FDR, but probably not as much as the right did. A lot of leftists are far too 'pure' in their outlook. It has to be their utopia or the apocalypse. The reality is that what most people really want isn't ideology - they want a good job with reasonable security and a living wage, decent healthcare, good old age benefits and a safe working environment. I've often written in places like this that if there are any billionaires reading this, hey, throw us a bone - single payer healthcare! - and we'll be so happy you can go on screwing us for the next hundred years.

But no.....................they want it ALL.

Maher had an interesting show tonight. When he talked about the debacle in Iowa, Andrew Gillum said the low turnout was because many Democrats are 'agnostic' towards who our candidate actually is - we'll get behind whomever it is in force because getting rid of Trump is Job #1. There may be something to that.

But yeah, expect Bernie to be totally ratfucked by the corporate media and others. His mistake has always been putting the 'ist' on Social and putting that after Democratic. To split hairs, a Democratic Socialist is NOT the same thing as a Social Democrat. Social Democracy is the New Deal with social justice and healthcare. Democratic socialism usually ends in some kind of dictatorship.

[NNadir]

60. Michael Moore also said that Ralph Nader would be a good President. He's a moron. n/t.

[betsuni]

69. I want to watch but can't find a link. Anybody know?

[Amimnoch]

71. AND FDR was 1000% ESTABLISHMENT leadership.

FDR was the apex of what Establishment was in his day.. Of course, he didn't have some ridiculous clown figure heckling "establishment" back then either.

FDR was an incredible LEADER. He built a HUGE coalition. He may have been the ringleader, but it was the SENATE and HOUSE that he wrangled and worked with within the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that actually passed the great social programs stemming from the New Deal.

BS is almost the polar opposite of what ACTUAL FDR was.

[wyldwolf]

72. Michael Moore is becoming less relevant as time passes... like the right wing...

... he revises things to match his worldview.

During the Bush Jr. years it was popular among the GOP to claim Truman and JFK were really Republicans... and some on the left (even here on DU) agreed.

[Demsrule86]

75. Michael Moore is an idiot...blinded by ? I personally think much of his spiel is self interest.

[True Blue American]

78. I remember FDR

And you, Michael could not shine his shoes!

I wanted to say something else, but being the nice person I am.

My heart aches how few FDR’s we have had.

[Demsrule86]

81. My family had a picture of Roosevelt...first my Grandma...and then my Mom. I still have it...and

have hung one of Obama beside i How interesting to be able to remember Roosevelt. You should record all your memories on video for future generations. My kids talk about stuff that I lived through, and it is nothing like I remember in many cases...

[True Blue American]

82. As a small child I listened

To The Day Of Infamy speech my Dad was 35 with one child when they started taking men up to 37. I was terrified he would not come home.

[highplainsdem]

84. LOL! Absolutely desperate, foolish attemp to rebrand FDR to try to help Bernie.

[Cicada]

85. I am both a capitalist and a democratic socialist

I love markets and want them to create a huge economic pie. I want to use the pie for the good of all. I am both a capitalist and a democratic socialist. Like just about everyone on earth. Who opposes having a fire department? Preventing starvation? Schools for all?

[PubliusEnigma]

86. Even though he dresses like a slob, Michael Moore is part of the 1%.

He has earned his millions building Ivory Towers.

[Joinfortmill]

88. I doubt that, but

Eleanor might have been - secretly in her heart. But who cares? It isn't a sin to be a democratic socialist.

[MineralMan]

93. A lot of people say a lot of things about FDR.

Almost nobody alive today was an adult when FDR was President. Nobody really remembers FDR from real experience. We remember him now from history books and second-hand accounts.

In some ways, he was a wonderful President. In others, he was not. That's the thing about historical figures. We can selectively pick what we want from their history and ignore the rest. Usually, none will be the wiser if we do that.

FDR did some good things. FDR also did some horrific things. He was a President for his times, not ours. His record needs to be fully explored and examined in that light, not the LED light of today.

[Blue_true]

121. Aren't your parents in their nineties?

Wouldn't they have been young adults when he first got elected?

[MineralMan]

122. Yes. I said few people.

[Blue_true]

123. Sorry, I missed the qualifier. Have your parents talked about FDR and Truman much? nt

[MineralMan]

128. Not a lot. Those times were

All taken up with the war and getting on with life after it. I don't remember either President being mentioned once I was old enough to talk about stuff I was born in 1945.

[Zolorp]

97. Michael Moore lies like a Trump.

[Iliyah]

101. Father-in-Law is reading a 3 book series on . . .

Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor per book was basically the trigger for the programs he initiated. Therefore, if anybody was a Socialist Democrat it was her.

[DBoon]

103. Socialist Norman Thomas knew better

When asked if FDR carried out the Socialist program, he replied, "Yes, he carried it out in a coffin".

https://books.google.com/books?id=XNiRDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383&dq=new+deal+carried+out+socialist+in+a+%22coffin%22&source=bl&ots=sEZP8vF0uX&sig=ACfU3U0kHyYElUad9OpgZ1813dI4FeHfhA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWsZaJ6sLnAhXFmq0KHV3-DrgQ6AEwCXoECA4QAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20deal%20carried%20out%20socialist%20in%20a%20%22coffin%22&f=false

[Gothmog]

105. Listen to FDR explain why Michael Moore is wrong

FDR Says New Deal Isn't Socialism

[ehrnst]

107. Alrighty, then.

[Cha]

131. Michael Moore is Wrong once again.

[Gothmog]

132. Has moore ever been right on anything?

[doc03]

109. What about all his socialist programs WPA, NRA,

CCC? Those public works programs built parks, lakes,
electrical grids and roads all over this country. If that isn't socialism I don't know what is.

[Demsrule86]

118. Infrastructure spending...Keynesian stimulation of the economy.

Good works and public works are not socialism.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

119. Government-funded projects aren't "socialism" just because

they're government-funded. Just about all governments everywhere fund public works projects (that's why they call them public works projects). There's also the fact that these days large parts of most of those projects are subcontracted to private companies.

WPA was simply an emergency measure to stimulate the economy during the Depression by providing jobs for unemployed people to build roads, bridges and other public structures. Full employment, which was reached in 1942 because of WWII (and the WPA was then disbanded), was not the goal of the WPA; rather, it was intended to provide one paid job for each family in which the breadwinner suffered long-term unemployment. If the intent had been to create a permanent socialist economic structure the WPA wouldn't have been disbanded as soon as unemployment was no longer a serious problem. It's a huge mistake to call anything funded by the government socialism. Even during the Depression the government wasn't controlling the means of production and distribution; all it was doing was providing a temporary jobs program. It was more like how the government bailed out the auto companies after the crash of 2008.

[Blue_true]

113. The revisionism around what FDR was and did makes me lose

my latest meal.

[myohmy2]

124. I love Mike...

...he's right you know...

[Kurt V.]

126. I'm positive he wasn't. im equally positive there wouldn't be DS without him.

[NurseJackie]

130. Michael Moore is an idiot.

[Cha]

134. No doubt.

[Gothmog]

135. an outright lie as detailed in article, the second, saying Sanders is FDR reincarnate is laughable.

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

136. This picture.... I ...

Link to tweet