The socialist left always criticized FDR by saying that he saved

[Jackpine Radical]

the capitalist system from itself; if Hoover had been elected again in 1932, things would have gotten so bad that a socialist revolution would have been inevitable.

I'm not sure I buy that line of reasoning (we could have gone to fascism as easily as to socialism--remember Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here?), but I was just thinking, from that perspective, about the two biggest initiatives of the Obama administration so far: the bailouts and health care reform.

Both measures have the purpose of saving capitalism from itself. The "solution" in the case of the banks was to pour our treasury into private coffers. The solution in the second case may turn out to be much the same, at least if things stand as they are now, with no further reforms. Neither of Obama's solutions cuts to the quick in the way FDR's actions did, and neither really solves the underlying structural problems.

It's true that Obama has a very different Democratic Party to work with than did FDR. In FDR's time, there were Wobblies and other leftist partisans of every strip all over the place, the universities were typically on the left, and Keynes was the God of economic theory.

Today we have the Tea Party and a globalized labor market working against us. It's a lot harder to be a leftist than it used to be. Nevertheless, I think we owe it to our ideals to keep up the pressure on the current administration, trying to move them in the direction of humanitarianism--which is to say, leftward.

The evidence is not in on whether the health care bill will turn into a disaster or a blessing. I think the public was ready for something better--I think single payer could have been sold to the electorate if an honest attempt had been made, but the corporate interests had their way, as proved by what has happened to health insurance stocks every time the bill got near passage, especially after the PO was scratched.

I have never thought that hitting bottom was a good formula for social change, and I truly hope that this bill alleviates more human suffering than it causes--because it will do both, as must any such bill that serves to entrench the interests of the moneyed classes.

For better or for worse, this is what we have. Let those of us on the left turn our efforts to the long, uphill battle to improve it. And let it be the first, halting step to a true system of universal health care.

[G_j]

1. I wish I knew what it would take

to have a real peace movement. A great deal of the emotion that propelled Obama into office concerned people's disgust with Bush's wars. Almost every day, I see cars w/ Obama stickers and anti-war stickers next to each other. People feel debilitated. It's almost as if the election was a nail in the coffin of the peace movement.

[The2ndWheel]

12. The Parable Of The Tribes

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm

"The new human freedom made striving for expansion and power possible. Such freedom, when multiplied, creates anarchy. The anarchy among civilized societies meant that the play of power in the system was uncontrollable. In an anarchic situation like that, no one can choose that the struggle for power shall cease. But there is one more element in the picture: no one is free to choose peace, but anyone can impose upon all the necessity for power. This is the lesson of the parable of the tribes.

Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one choose peace, and that one is ambitious for expansion and conquest? What can happen to the others when confronted by an ambitious and potent neighbor? Perhaps one tribe is attacked and defeated, its people destroyed and its lands seized for the use of the victors. Another is defeated, but this one is not exterminated; rather, it is subjugated and transformed to serve the conqueror. A third seeking to avoid such disaster flees from the area into some inaccessible (and undesirable) place, and its former homeland becomes part of the growing empire of the power-seeking tribe. Let us suppose that others observing these developments decide to defend themselves in order to preserve themselves and their autonomy. But the irony is that successful defense against a power-maximizing aggressor requires a society to become more like the society that threatens it. Power can be stopped only by power, and if the threatening society has discovered ways to magnify its power through innovations in organization or technology (or whatever), the defensive society will have to transform itself into something more like its foe in order to resist the external force.

I have just outlined four possible outcomes for the threatened tribes: destruction, absorption and transformation, withdrawal, and imitation. In every one of these outcomes the ways of power are spread throughout the system. This is the parable of the tribes."

[G_j]

18. the story makes a good point

thank you,

here is another that has been a great inspiration,

http://www.kahonwes.com/iroquois/document1.html

The Great Law of Peace

New World Roots of American Democracy
by David Yarrow
© September 1987

<snip>

The White Roots of Peace

The Peacemaker legend is a central tale of Iroquois history, constituting an Iroquois Bible, Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This inspiring story describes a people mired in violent bloody feuds who, guided by a spiritual teacher, set aside war to adopt a Path of Peace. It's a mythic tale of struggle between good and evil, order and chaos, and the triumph of Reason. It's a morality play depicting the transformation of humans rising above suffering and tragedy to establish a higher order of human relations. It's also a practical guide to establishing unity and balance amongst diverse human communities. It's a successful model of how to distribute power in a democratic society to assure individual liberty.

To portray the spirit of democracy, the Peacemaker gave The Tree of Peace as a symbol of the Great Law of Peace. This is a great white pine tree whose branches spread out to shelter all nations who commit themselves to Peace. Beneath the tree the Five Nations buried their weapons of war; atop the tree is the Eagle-that-sees-far; and four long roots stretch out in the four sacred directions -- the "white roots of peace."

The Peacemaker proclaimed, "If any man or nation shows a desire to obey the Law of the Great Peace, they may trace the roots to their source, and be welcomed to take shelter beneath the Tree."

Upon hearing the Peacemaker legend, Dr. Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, remarked, "This profound action stands as perhaps the oldest effort for disarmament in world history."

<snip>

[WeekendWarrior]

16. Not sure why

Obama only said that he would gradually pull out of Iraq and he is. Did these people not believe him?

[Zen Democrat]

2. The bailouts weren't Obama's initiative. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

7. True, but they were put together with his pre-inauguration consultation,

and Bernanke is still there. Hard to argue that he didn't endorse them.

[Zen Democrat]

17. Also hard to argue that he hasn't gotten most of the TARP money back.

And those strings were attached after January 20, 2009.

That Obama endorsed TARP in October 2008 is neither here nor there. I wasn't his watch. He had one vote.

[mrcheerful]

3. We would have went fascist if the R's had taken control, Hoover would have been made

President for life and declared war on commies and dissenters. Like the cons of today they would have pretty much pulled a terrorist act on the government and blamed it on liberals to set off an attack on anything liberal. As it was if it wasn't for FDR, the way things were in 1932, Hitler was seen by conservatives as a great leader.

[Frances]

4. I moved from Alabama to Massachusetts in 1967

I met a financial advisor (he was a part time instructor at a community college where I worked) who said he advised his client that growth was moving South. I think he meant economic growth, but along with economic growth goes political power.

The Southern outlook is dominated by religious fervor, where the Southern Baptist Church is the dominant religion. The Bible is the foundation for Southern thinking, not the Constitution. And, according to the Southern Baptist way of thinking, the Bible is not about helping the poor and turning the other cheek, it's about not questioning authority.

When I was growing up, because a person who asked a lot of questions would sooner or later get around to asking questions about segregation, questions were discouraged. Because working for the rights of a poor white man might lead to working for rights of blacks, working for rights of anyone was not acceptable. To appease the more ambitious of the poor white men, the rich white men, who controlled the judges and sheriffs and police, made sure that the leaders and members of the Ku Klux Klan were not prosecuted. That way the rich white men kept their riches and the poor white men had power over blacks. The wives of the rich white men were inferior to the their husbands but they were superior to the poor white men (who knew "their place"). The wives of the poor white men were seen as inferior to their husbands ("kept barefoot and in the kitchen"--I actually had someone say that to me in all seriousness), but they were superior to all black men.

That philosophy has softened somewhat, but it is still in existence. Witness the Baptists saying that women should be subservient to men.

So when you say that it is harder to be liberal now than in Roosevelt's day I would agree.

I would also argue that Huey Long could have been President if he had not been shot and if Roosevelt had not been as successful a politician as he was. Huey Long would have been another Fidel Castro IMO. He would have done things to keep the loyalty of the poor, but he would have taken away our liberties.

Today, the danger from the Tea Partiers is that they will make our government like Mexico's where there is a huge disparity between the wealthy few and the poor many. It's ironic because the "brown shirt" people who call names, spit at people, and throw bricks through windows will be much worse off economically if they get what they say they are asking for. I suppose though that the people in power will appease them by making gays, blacks, and Latinos the scapegoats the way Hitler did the Jewish people and gypsies and gays and the way white Southerners did the blacks.

[Enthusiast]

9. Poor white Southerners

died in huge numbers to preserve the life style of the rich white man. But the same people fail to recognize this today. I think they would send their young men to die once again for a similar cause.

[Frances]

15. Actually they died to preserve their station in life

The implicit promise was that black people would always be below them; the poor whites would never be at the absolute bottom of the ladder.

[izzybeans]

5. The bailouts were Bush, Obama passed the Stimulus act

and now this.

You are right about the criticism of FDR btw.

[EFerrari]

6. Now that's an interesting take on FDR that I've never read before.

Hmm.

I don't know if that's what Obama's doing with respect to capitalists. It's even money that so far, he's facilitating their latest binge -- so far. And, America Labor has lost the clout it once had, post Reagan and post Citizens United. It's hard to say what kind of pressure we still have at our disposal.

[OHdem10]

8. Part of FDR's cclaim to greatness__Saving Capitalism and Saving

Democracy . You have to make the pie bigger and let the
wealth (money) circulate through all layers of society.

Capitalism is an economic system which can be used for
good or not so much good.

Conservatives of our era have perverted Capitalixm and
that is what contributed to recent Financial Disaster.

Conservative Economic Fundamentalism.

[leftstreet]

10. We 'could have gone to fascism' ?? Uh, we have been

Very interesting OP

Unfortunately, as you indicate, there is no pressure today from an organized Left. FDR's initiatives (deliberately or inadvertently, depending on your perspective) helped crush that Left.

I say open the borders and let the Bolivarian Revolution make its way North!
It's our only hope

:-)

[Jackpine Radical]

13. I guess we could say FDR slowed down the advance of fascism in America.

It might have happened in 1935, but was delayed until Nov. 22, 1963.

[Overseas]

11. K&R. Thank you for expressing things so well.

You really summarized what I've been thinking very well.

[murdoch]

14. There are centuries of thinking and praxis on this

Capitalism is a social relationship. All wealth is created by labor. So where do rich heirs get their dividend checks from? By expropriating surplus labor time from workers. A carpenter works for six hours a day and keeps all the wealth he creates, then he works another three hours, and the heir gets all the wealth he creates in that period. The heir also controls the conditions the carpenter works in.

Within capitalism, the carpenter is almost always striving to ge out of this position. No matter how left or right or whatever he is, virtually none say they like being told what to do, or like having to work more hours where all their effort goes into the heirs pockets, or making less money as the hours he can keep the wealth he creates gets pared down. The political differences are in how the carpenter tries to escape this.

These concepts were talked about in Europe years ago, but back then people had family structures, communities etc. In the US, alienation and societal collapse help prevent organization against this.