All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on “saving capitalism from itself” under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.
It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.
The powers that were didn’t do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.
Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.
Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.
And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it’s been to the few good things we know in this country.
That’s fair, and we cover these points deeper in the thread. The whole point is that the New Deal was a leftist win and an electoral win. The system changed.
To claim it was just socialist activism that gave us the 8 hour workday without acknowledging the role of the shift in government that the activism actually achieved is unproductive. The New Deal wasn’t bought by oligarchs, it was built by workers.
To say there’s no point in trying to change things because the “system is corrupt”, and that supporting major paradigm shifts in the electoral system is a waste of time, is to forget the incredible effort and achievements of those movements. I perhaps overstated my piece there, I’ll acknowledge that. But only because this entire conversation started with “we have no use for honesty in a corrupt system”.
And there is the chance that the system is unfixable. That the core flaws can’t be changed from within. But that still wouldn’t be a good reason to oppose young progressives who are trying. If the system is completely overhauled, young progressives are exactly the type of people we want to be there, with platforms and networks in place.
Been on your side up to this point.
All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on “saving capitalism from itself” under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.
It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.
The powers that were didn’t do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.
Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.
Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.
And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it’s been to the few good things we know in this country.
That’s fair, and we cover these points deeper in the thread. The whole point is that the New Deal was a leftist win and an electoral win. The system changed.
To claim it was just socialist activism that gave us the 8 hour workday without acknowledging the role of the shift in government that the activism actually achieved is unproductive. The New Deal wasn’t bought by oligarchs, it was built by workers.
To say there’s no point in trying to change things because the “system is corrupt”, and that supporting major paradigm shifts in the electoral system is a waste of time, is to forget the incredible effort and achievements of those movements. I perhaps overstated my piece there, I’ll acknowledge that. But only because this entire conversation started with “we have no use for honesty in a corrupt system”.
And there is the chance that the system is unfixable. That the core flaws can’t be changed from within. But that still wouldn’t be a good reason to oppose young progressives who are trying. If the system is completely overhauled, young progressives are exactly the type of people we want to be there, with platforms and networks in place.