- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I say this again for the hundredth time, FDR was a SOCIAL DEMOCRAT and not a Democratic Socialist. Two very and completely different things
Additionally:
The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which established presidential term limits, was ratified on February 27, 1951.
Prior to the ratification of the Twenty-second Amendment, there were no formal term limits for the U.S. presidency. The tradition of a two-term limit was established by George Washington, but this was not legally binding.
FDR died in 1945. The entire thing is false propaganda rage bait.
6 years after he passed sounds about correct for how fast our government moves.
ELI5 please?
A Social Democrat believes in a mixed capitalist economy, with strong social welfare to support the people. They aim to achieve this reform from within the democratic system of governance.
A Democratic Socialist is similar but with some added much more Socialist leanings. They believe in social ownership, a socialist economy, worker/public ownership of production means. Democratic control of the workplace. And lastly some Dem Soc’s believe in a revolutionary approach to change rather than working from within. A “Throw it all out and start over” approach if you will.
Was FDR really a democratic socialist? I know about New Deal, but still…
On a side note, a dem soc doesn’t force cooperativisation of a corporation, no? Is there any specific political ideology that talks about workers seizing means of production via this manner (the state forcing businesses to become cooperatives)?
He definitely wasn’t a democratic socialist. He was an establishment Democrat. He grew up rich and had a very distinguished pedigree. His life is a study in privilege:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born on January 30, 1882, in Hyde Park, New York, to businessman James Roosevelt I and his second wife, Sara Ann Delano. His parents, who were sixth cousins,[3] came from wealthy, established New York families—the Roosevelts, the Aspinwalls and the Delanos, respectively. Roosevelt’s father, James, graduated from Harvard Law School but chose not to practice law after receiving an inheritance from his grandfather.
As a child, Roosevelt learned to ride, shoot, sail, and play polo, tennis, and golf.[8][9] Frequent trips to Europe—beginning at age two and from age seven to fifteen—helped Roosevelt become conversant in German and French. Except for attending public school in Germany at age nine,[10] Roosevelt was homeschooled by tutors until age 14. He then attended Groton School, an Episcopal boarding school in Groton, Massachusetts.
Like most of his Groton classmates, Roosevelt went to Harvard College.[12] He was a member of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity[15] and the Fly Club,[16] and served as a school cheerleader.
Roosevelt entered Columbia Law School in 1904 but dropped out in 1907 after passing the New York Bar Examination.[24][b] In 1908, he took a job with the prestigious law firm of Carter Ledyard & Milburn, working in the firm’s admiralty law division.
In 1903, Franklin proposed to Eleanor. Following resistance from his mother, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were married on March 17, 1905.[12][28] Eleanor’s father, Elliott, was deceased; Theodore, who was then president, gave away the bride.[29] The young couple moved into Springwood. Franklin and Sara Roosevelt also provided a townhouse for the newlyweds in New York City, and Sara had a house built for herself alongside that townhouse. Eleanor never felt at home in the houses at Hyde Park or New York; however, she loved the family’s vacation home on Campobello Island, which Sara also gave the couple.
He grew up rich and had a very distinguished pedigree. His life is a study in privilege
What does that prove? Karl Marx came from a wealthy family.
I just looked this up. Marx’s family was upper middle class, not wealthy. Marx was not “President’s cousin” wealthy. Marx wasn’t “get a job as a lawyer after dropping out of law school” wealthy.
Marx had to rent rooms to live in. FDR’s mother just gave him a townhouse in NYC. Marx’s father died which resulted in his family having less money. That means he worked for their money. FDR’s father died when he was in college. He was sad but it didn’t affect the family income.
That’s wealth. Marx was not wealthy.
i still don’t see how pointing out the circumstances of their birth is so relevant to discussions about their later political achievements.
OK, continue reading and you’ll find his uncle was the founder of Philipps electronics and his main sponsor.Anyway, someone already replied what I hinted at: the wealth of your family doesn’t define your political leaning.his uncle was the founder of Philipps electronics
Philips was founded in 1891 and Karl Marx died in 1883, so how does that work? Explain that to me. This should pop out to you and tell you to check again. His relationship was not an “uncle” either. Frederik Philips was the son of Karl Marx’s wife’s sister. So a distant nephew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Philips
Do some people just have an opinion in mind and then look for any tiny evidence to support that? There’s no comparison between being born into the wealth of three old money families and knowing one dude who loaned you a few bucks. Why do people upvote these random unsourced incorrect comments?
Ah, right Lion Philips was the founder’s gramps. Still wealthy though.
Do some people just have an opinion in mind and then look for any tiny evidence to support that?
I really hope you see the irony in that statement. Marx may not have been rich but a lawyer’s son at that time wasn’t exactly proletariat either.
… He was literally working class. The literal definition of the proletariat. He was exactly proletariat. Earning more or less money is not the distinguishing characteristic.
Is there any specific political ideology that talks about workers seizing means of production via this manner (the state forcing businesses to become cooperatives)?
You mean kids? For real i dont think theres any serious political movement that is so naive
Ummm this was Marx’s idea (kinda)…
This technically fits under libertarian socialism. I wanted to know if there was a specific name for this particular thing within this (like anarchism is a subset of libertarian socialism).
Id suggest lenins “state and revolution” (i think thats the name in english), it will clarify things
