Roosevelt did not advocate public ownership of the means of production or replacing capitalism. In fact, he explicitly argued that his New Deal was designed to save capitalism from collapse during the Great Depression. He believed that regulated markets and private enterprise should remain the foundation of the U.S. economy.
He was more so a progressive reformer and Keynesian liberal who supported a mixed economy. Basically, a liberal Democrat committed to preserving capitalism through government intervention.
And also liberal Democrat principals...and also a good illustration of why all the arguments about labels on the left are just stupid, self-destructive rabbit holes. People are so pissed with the status quo that they need to a label meaning "anti-capitalist" even if at the end of the day, almost no one actually is truly anti-capitalist, they just want capitalism that's sensibly regulated and non-kleptocratic, which we've gotten far, far away from. Why? At least partly because the left would prefer to fire in a circle about labels and semantics than actually form practical coalitions and govern.
Lots of people do believe in anti-capitalism, because a âform of capitalism heavily regulatedâ enough to distribute wealth in a way that benefits workers over the owners/shareholders of private enterprises is a lot closer to communism than any true form of capitalism. Capitalism has to incentivize the increasing financial gain of business owners over everything else, as the right to own the means of production IS capitalism and infringing on that right through regulation is inherently anti-capitalist. FDR having to resort to government intervention and Teddy Roosevelt prior having to step in to break apart businesses highlight how fragile capitalism actually is. Without due representation from the people (aka the labor class) there wouldnât be and couldnât be any right to oppose corrupt business tactics. The few times the government has stepped in to regulate capitalism is a form of public intervention where a representative of the working class (whether identifying as such or not) has acting against the interests of capitalism.
When left wingers call themselves capitalists for believing a mixed system, it is because the inclusion of markets is antithetical to communism. This is just another semantic game dividing the left, people agreeing on substance but not labels. Social democracies socialize some industry, while allowing private ownership of industry economy wide
In communism (notably: not socialism, but communism) markets are not âantithetical,â just simply not needed. Why would you ever decide to âbuyâ anything when anything you could ever want (that does not violate the rights of other individuals) is simply available for free?
Many things people consume already operate in this way.
Central planning and the abolition of markets are the main point of communism. That's how everybody gets all of the goods within the model, people take according to their needs. They don't go to the market and trade for things
The main point of communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Many communists believe that can be achieved by a centralized state that magically transforms into a non-state centralized beauracratic apparatus, and many others don't.
If you had more than a surface level understanding of communism or socialism, you'd know that there are plenty of decentralized and market solutions that would work within a "communist" framework.
Itâs not even worth it. Capitalists will straight up ignore you when you tell them that socialism is not about markets or trade but about fair worker ownership of the means of production. They donât see/understand the injustice of not being able to even own the output of oneâs own labor and use the same arguments slavers use (they WANT to be enslaved itâs what they asked for and whatâs best for them) to justify slavery.
It's not. You seem to be referring to Leninist forms of socialism, which is maybe the theory you've read? Communism's entire point is an economic endpoint where there is no state, conplete worker control of the means of production, and therefore nothing to centralize. If anything, it's compete decentralization. Surely you know that much?
Leninist communists like Stalinists, Maoists, and Totskyists advocate for a vanguard party to take control of the state via revolution and implement centralized planning in a socialist framework, but there are plenty of communists that accept market socialism, mutualism, and other decentralized forms of economy as part of the socialist state to utilize to facilitate a transition to communism.
Oh yeah, and where did Marx say that? Since you're totally not talking out of your ass, you ought to be able to rebut my quote from Marx with something more than a 5-year old's response of "nuh uh!".
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State"
Communist manifesto
Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
I'm sorry, you're just wrong. Central planning is the entire point of communism.
Oh, so you're just disingenuous then? The centralization is a key component of Marx's early view of transition to a communist/anarchist society, but it is no way the "entire point".
Itâs not a semantics game, it is a needed destigmatization of Communism. Sure if we unified under an agreement that we need to move back towards a more regulated mixed economy then weâd be a stronger front against the current political shift towards a kleptocratic system. I agree with the need to currently shift towards a mixed economy. Complaining that leftists try to process and rationalize their ideals with labels and minor variations in beliefs is ridiculous though. Refining political beliefs and committing to them is a good thing. A better political atmosphere should have a melting pot of beliefs. These diverse labels have not and do not meaningful contribute to a lack of opposition against right-wing political institutions though. The real problem is political apathy that exists in the younger generation of leftists. Itâs hard to want to engage with a system that, at the end of the day, will at most compromise progressive beliefs with kleptocratic interests. You donât convince young idealists to engage by saying itâs stupid they have diverse and ideal beliefs though. You, at the end of the day, do more harm than their self-identification ever has done. Instead of complaining that people think more deeply than you about politics, maybe engage and understand why the left is so disorganized and try to communicate in a way that encourages idealists to act in their own interests.
Itâs hard to want to engage with a system that, at the end of the day, will at most compromise progressive beliefs with kleptocratic interests.
If they're waiting for a political system without compromise then they may as well be a Christian waiting for the Rapture
The fact is its easy to label anyone to the right of you as a capitalist or a kleptocrat or a fascist and use that as excuse for apathy or as an argument against electoralism or reform
The same way its easy to label anyone to the left of you as a socialist or a communist or a tankie and use that as excuse to dismiss their demands
Instead of complaining that people think more deeply than you about politics
The problem with leftists was never that they "think more deeply". Its that their unwillingness to compromise even among themselves bars them from power in a system where mandates are built from consensus
Thats why so many sit around waiting for a Revolution - power without democracy, power without compromise
I already basically agreed with this point, but in a way that isnât pedantic and pointlessly critical. People are waiting for Revolution because they are apathetic and they are apathetic because of the constant failings of our system to preserve, let alone progress, the rights of the working class. My point isnât that you should agree with this, itâs that unifying under this complaint is the same thing. You can pat yourself on the back for âdoing your part,â but if you arenât empathetically engaging with people who are needed to increase the left-leaning voter base then your losing vote might as well be a prayer as well. If you preach the need to unify, but are also contributing to the dissonance then youâre a hypocrite.
That last line is a little condescending. I minored in econ, and went in as a socialist that has read a lot of the theory.
My complaint is that these people are adopting labels that don't fit their beliefs, and using these labels to attack people they agree with because they call tgemselves something different.
That I get more, but I believe itâs still the same solution. A lot of the people more impassioned about the labels themselves either are young and still too idealistic to understand compromises with the existing world or allow themselves to stay in an echo chamber where they donât believe in the common grounds. Both situations are only resolved by exposure to people willing to hear them, empathize, and agree enough to compromise on a common ground. Itâs frustrating that some people are identifying with labels that they donât actually agree with, but itâs always been the case. If the labeling and isolating is the issue then the solution is to branch out and understand to be able to communicate the unified cause is truly common grounds.
Again, it's just a pointless semantic rabbit hole. You can put either label on the same policies whether you think the glass is half-full or half-empty. If any infringement of the private ownership of the means of production is "anti-capitalist," than any infringement of the government's ownership of the means of production is "anti-socialist" and essentially no serious person takes the position that the government should own all businesses and direct every aspect of the economy down to the smallest detail. Slide the dial up or down but regardless of where you are on the continuum, unless you are an absolute purist, there will be someone on your left cursing you as a "capitalist" and someone on your right cursing you as a "socialist." Most people on the left in the US (and much of the rest) want universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, getting money out of politics, etc. Does it actually matter what you call it?
It does and it will always be opinionated and it will always be disorganized. Why is the primary argument for semantics being a major issue is that people name call each other? Name a political institution that didnât self-criticize that wasnât lead by cult tactics? The issue isnât the semantics the issue is an unwillingness to unify over a common cause and the same people complaining about semantics seem to have issues with relating to their fellow leftist idealists. You canât argue âwe all want the same thingâ then bash on people for having slight variations in your beliefs. Unify by understanding, empathizing, and communicating in a way that these other âdisagreeableâ leftists might find a common ground on.
32
u/33TLWD Jul 27 '26
Roosevelt did not advocate public ownership of the means of production or replacing capitalism. In fact, he explicitly argued that his New Deal was designed to save capitalism from collapse during the Great Depression. He believed that regulated markets and private enterprise should remain the foundation of the U.S. economy.
He was more so a progressive reformer and Keynesian liberal who supported a mixed economy. Basically, a liberal Democrat committed to preserving capitalism through government intervention.