Did people accuse FDR of being a socialist or communist when he presented his plan for The New Deal?
Communist, no, but many major businessmen accused FDR of being a socialist and were simply shocked at what he was doing. In 1934, they recruited a US Marine General to overthrow FDR. The general went to the press and the whole thing fell apart. But there was no doubt that the bankers, top businessmen, and very rich hated FDR. What did he say about that? "They are unanimous in their hatred of me and I welcome it."As to this "hagiography" (saint-like praise) another respondent noted, yes, historians are generally agreement that FDR was an outstanding president. They may not agree on whether the New Deal "saved" America but they know the truth — that it cut unemployment from 25% to 15% before FDR pulled back on some programs. Then it got worse again until another government program ended the depression. That program was called World War II.
Why is Obama accused of socialism after he bailed out the banks and car industry? Aren’t such loans capitalist, whereas nationalisation would have been the true socialist option?
The question only further conflates an existing confusion about complex possibilities regarding business management in a broadly based economy and reduces it to the same tiresome, simplistic dichotomy, capitalism vs. socialism. In reality the failure of both the banks and the car industry were the result of an internal defect in an unregulated capitalist market. There was nothing socialist about Obama’s bail out of the auto industry and with the banking industry he simply rubber stamped the Tarp agreement designed by his predecessors.No one at the time dared offer a socialist solution which in the case of the auto industry would have involved a cooperative element where the workers would have a stake in management. Instead management was left with the same incompetent elite that showed little regard for job security, the consumer or its contribution to GNP for that matter.Nationalization is not a socialist solution when it is imposed from above without redirecting management from the ground up. No president has the power to nationalize without congressional approval but an opportunity was lost to provide leadership by educating the American public as to how their tax dollars are spent.The banking industry was yet another matter. Acceptance of the terms of the Tarp agreement without a vigorous debate was an outright endorsement of fraud, and in this respect Obama proved himself to be no better than his predecessors.
If Jesus wasn't a socialist then why did he say this in Matthew 19:21?
This has got to be one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. Comparing Jesus and His ministry to the present day progressive movement takes someone with an extremely intellectually stunted mind. Cherry-picking entries from the New Testament and using them out of context is just as bad as what the slave owners did to blacks to keep them bound to the enslavement. You should be completely ashamed of yourself. Oh, and by the way, Jesus DID forbid same-sex marriage. He always preached to keep Gods laws. Especially the one that says that ALL sex outside of holy matrimony is a sin. Also, if you had read through Matthew 19:21, the fourth paragraph reads: 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Notice how He didn't say "a man and a man" or "a woman and a woman". One last thing: You have read Matthew 19:21 out of context. Jesus was not giving people like yourself, permission to covet, which is the 10th commandment. He merely was pointing out how hard it is to enter the kingdom of heaven when you worship material wealth. Socialism worships material wealth and breaks the tenth commandment. Being covetous of someone else' material wealth AND scheming ways to steal it not only breaks the spirit of Jesus' words, but breaks the tenth commandment. It may be sinful to be rich from greed, but it's even worse to be a socialist scheming ways to steal that wealth. I give you an "F". Amateur attempt at best.
Joe McCarthy accused these people for being communist for what....?
Google Venona Files. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Venona Files became available through records kept by the KGB and FOIA and proved that much of what Joe MacCarthy accused people of was true. Many people supported Joe MacCarthy and they are still around. Joe MacCarthy was the godfather of RFK's oldest child. Joe MacCarthy was also a frequent guest at the home of Greta Van Sustern when she was growing up. Charlie Chaplin was a Communist. Lucille Ball's Grandparents used to hold Communist meetings in their home and urged her to vote communist party in the election of 1936. Kathleen Boudin of the Weathermen was in jail for 20+ years for her part in bombing govt bldgs, killing security guards, and robbing a Brinks, and is now professor at Columbia University in Social Work. blacklisted: http://www.nndb.com/group/109/000063917/ Many people were interested in making the world a better place to live. The idea of Communism predates Karl Marx by 200+ years as there was the kibbutzim movement, the Shakers, Oneida, Amana, Owenism and many other groups, often associated with a religion. I urge you to read the book, the Forgotten Man, by Amity Shales. It discusses how socialism and communism got hold of the universities and our government after WW1.
Was Robin Hood a Socialist?
Well now-since it seems someone mentioned that I'm somehow accusing the rich of getting their money unjustly-I have every right to point out that the equally harsh sterotype that those on welfare are lazy and don't want to work. So then, who's right? The truth is-neither of us. Most who are rich earned their money through hard work-and the majority of those on welfare legitimately need the help to get back on their feet. So with these facts in place it now can become a moral issue- Is it worse to take from the rich despite that most earned their money with hard work? Or is it worse to deny aid to the poor despite that most actually need it? Okay-lets assume that Socialism is "theft". Would you steal to survive? Of course you would. A mother who needs to feed her kids will not hesitate to steal to ensure they are fed. It's better to steal than to allow someone to starve-don't you agree?
Do American still use the word "commie" when talking about Socialist or Communist?
Only in a joking way. There are probably some Americans who still use the word "commie" unironically, but those are exceptionally rare, and probably pretty old. In America today, almost anyone calling someone a "commie" is doing it specifically as a joke, and most people would only use that term to mock the culture of 50's, when that term was used seriously. People might still be called a communist, or be accused of advocating communism, but even that is less and less likely to be done seriously. I've never heard the word "commie" be used seriously, and I don't ever expect to.
Is a homogeneous population more conducive to semi-socialist societies? If yes, is that racist?
This question is very germane to me, an for two reasons: First, because it is a subject that I’ve researched, read about, and pondered many times; and Second, because I was recently accused of being a racist for asserting something very similar.For me, my “investigation” of this topic was inspired by the fact that many commentators, professional and amateur alike, insist on unfavorably comparing the U.S. with other nations — most notably, Japan and select countries in Northern Europe — in areas directly relating to demographics, e.g. the poverty level in the U.S. vs. Finland, or the success of the public education system in the U.S. vs. Japan. To my find, flowing from my research and reading, these comparisons are utterly without merit, since the demographics of the U.S. are different from virtually every other country on the planet.And this the accusation of being a racist. I was hanging out with a group of people, and the someone compared the failures of the U.S. healthcare system with that of one of the Northern European countries (I think it was Denmark), raving about Denmark’s wild success and our utter failure. Strict data supports this person’s point. But I pointed out the invalidity of the comparison, because the demographics of the U.S. are so completely different. This led to an accusation of racism, since (in this guy’s mind), I was asserting that Black people are somehow “keeping the U.S. down.” (Full disclosure: He’s the type of guy who loves accusing others of being racist, so his accusation made me laugh.) My point had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with income level, and income inequality.Thus, Raymond McAneny’s answer is correct. A country with a homogeneous population — like Finland, or Denmark, or Japan — would have a much easier time instituting a semi-socialist system simply because the population is, in general, socially equal. The point isn’t that Finland doesn’t have Black people, it’s that Finland doesn’t really have poor people.
Why did Ayn Rand, who hated socialism, come to America, and accuse it of being socialist?
She doesn't speak so crudely.She would argue the USA is entrenched in mysticism. That the US gave explicit recognition to capitalism. Frankly I think this is an excessively romantic view of the US Constitution on her part, as the Constitution strikes me as a balancing act between individualism and utilitarian collectivism, and this is largely in keeping with developments in Britain and France. I would suggest new countries get a new start. Maybe that is what every country needs every century —a spring clean.