Well that's just because they're delusional idiots 🤷🏻

Not even MAGAts, my great grandmother allegedly hated FDR so much she refused to utter his name or refer to him as the President.

Dude the cognitive dissonance necessary to hold that point of view is insane. Like ... FDR's policies were squarely pegged to government spending to boost the economy - you can't say that higher taxation for the ultra wealthy paired with government spending kept the depression going longer then turn around and say the exact same thing got the economy going again.

It's maddening to me how folks can even think like that. What kind of brain must one possess to believe these sorts of lies?

I met Americans telling me that these poor corporations can't survive if they have to pay a minimum salary and how it was meant for teenagers ... it was weird. I was like, you live in SF ... what's the minimum again? how much is rent again?

Ben and Jerry had it right. We need to take their policy and turn it into a federal law.

A static multiplier that is the most that they can receive based on the lowest salary level.

Let's find a way to work in some math so that they make everybody part-time to avoid the trouble, like Walmart. They suffer harder.

and this is why minimums should be pegged to some cost of living measure so they constantly adjust

In my honest opinion, ever CEO should make only 25x more then the average American

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection

Lmfao, no. FDR repeatedly positioned the US with the Nazis over the alliance. Even after Pearl Harbor FDR and his entire administration tried to keep us as friendly with Nazi Germany as possible, our declaration of war against Japan (as well as those famous speeches of FDR's during those 2 days) specifically stated that we only had an interest in going after Japan, that the US would stay partnered with Nazi Germany and that business and politics would with them would continue unchanged. FDR as well as the vast majority of our population then loved Nazis, Nazi Germany was literally "Little America" after all.

Hell, take a look at what we did as soon as Nazi Germany was defeated. We still hadn't even finished the war in the Pacific and yet we already were pushing the allies to complete the Nazis original plans...and we actually all fucking did it, literally beat the Nazis and then just did the earlier, more expensive version of the Nazis grand plan.

I think the joke is many American democratic socialists have policies comparable to just FDR

I think FDR - maybe better than any president since - really “understood the assignment” in regards to the POTUS being the manager of international capitalism in the post-war world. Part of that is understanding that the working class, in times of crisis, need to be pacified with carrots because sticks only heighten contradictions in the long run (even if he didn’t see or understand it that way nexessarily). FDR understood that capitalism is a global system and thus requires global coordination. He saw what happened between the wars where the bourgeoisie of each nation turned inward and disregarded this global nature of capitalism. Recently it seems the bourgeoisie are forgetting this lesson.

While there may be some truth here, I wouldn't call The New Deal a "concession". It was a complete paradigm shift about how government can work.

They're not lying so much as they just don't know what those terms mean. They don't know what socialism is, or what the difference between social democracy and Democratic socialism is.

All they hear is "government does good things and must be socialism of some kind."

Democratic Socialist is mostly a U.S. centric (post) Cold War era term, designed to work around red scare propaganda. Older references I have been able to find are mostly either French mistranslations of social democrat (the grammar has a different word order) or intended as adjectives (socialists who are democratic).

In 1944 it would have been considered a distinction without difference.

You just described anticapitalism without using the words anticapitalism. A capitalist system is a system where the owners of the capital decide who is in charge, what their goals are, and how to distribute profits. You described an anticapitalist system where the employees decide that. That's literally an entirely new economic system. If you believe your own words stop holding onto the idea that capitalism can be fixed and just admit you're a socialist.

It's okay, I get the cognitive dissonance. You're like me and you probably live in a capitalist economy. Which means that you need to participate in something you don't like and have to do some light double think to avoid going crazy. I have it too. It's a real thing and it takes maturity to really understand.

Why? They don't equally apply precedent like that to both sides.

Which song is that?

Good Trump bot

In 1934, Stalin was interviewed by H.G. Wells, science fiction author, on the differences between FDR's Social Democracy and the USSR's socialism. Wells had just interviewed FDR, and went to the Soviet Union to interview Stalin. It's actually a very interesting interview and I highly recommend people read through it, but this portion in the beginning cuts straight to the heart of the matter:

Wells: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Stalin, for agreeing to see me. I was in the United States recently. I had a long conversation with President Roosevelt and tried to ascertain what his leading ideas were. Now I have come to ask you what you are doing to change the world.

Stalin: Not so very much.

Wells: I wander around the world as a common man and, as a common man, observe what is going on around me.

Stalin: Important public men like yourself are not “common men.” Of course, history alone can show how important this or that public man has been; at all events, you do not look at the world as a “common man.”

Wells: I am not pretending humility. What I mean is that I try to see the world through the eyes of the common man, and not as a party politician or a responsible administrator. My visit to the United States excited my mind. The old financial world is collapsing; the economic life of the country is being reorganized on new lines. Lenin said: “We must learn to do business, learn this from the capitalists.” Today the capitalists have to learn from you, to grasp the spirit of socialism. It seems to me that what is taking place in the United States is a profound reorganisation, the creation of planned, that is, socialist, economy. You and Roosevelt begin from two different starting points. But is there not a relation in ideas, a kinship of ideas, between Moscow and Washington? In Washington I was struck by the same thing I see going on here; they are building offices, they are creating a number of state regulation bodies, they are organising a long-needed Civil Service. Their need, like yours, is directive ability.

Stalin: The United States is pursuing a different aim from that which we are pursuing in the U.S.S.R.

The aim which the Americans are pursuing, arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity, without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system. Here, however, as you know, in place of the old, destroyed economic basis, an entirely different, a new economic basis has been created. Even if the Americans you mention partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system. They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganisation of society, not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its excesses. Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans think they are reorganising society; objectively, however, they are preserving the present basis of society.

That is why, objectively, there will be no reorganisation of society. Nor will there be planned economy. What is planned economy? What are some of its attributes? Planned economy tries to abolish unemployment. Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum.

But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Here you have one of the rents in the “planned economy” of bourgeois society. Furthermore, planned economy presupposes increased output in those branches of industry which produce goods that the masses of the people need particularly. But you know that the expansion of production under capitalism takes place for entirely different motives, that capital flows into those branches of economy in which the rate of profit is highest. You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people. Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create planned economy.

Wells: I agree with much of what you have said.

But I would like to stress the point that if a country as a whole adopts the principle of planned economy, if the government, gradually, step by step, begins consistently to apply this principle, the financial oligarchy will at last be abolished and socialism, in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, will be brought about. The effect of the ideas of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” is most powerful, and in my opinion they are socialist ideas. It seems to me that instead of stressing the antagonism between the two worlds, we should, in the present circumstances, strive to establish a common tongue for all the constructive forces.

Stalin: In speaking of the impossibility of realising the principles of planned economy while preserving the economic basis of capitalism, I do not in the least desire to belittle the outstanding personal qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative, courage and determination. Undoubtedly, Roosevelt stands out as one of the strongest figures among all the captains of the contemporary capitalist world. That is why I would like, once again, to emphasize the point that my conviction that planned economy is impossible under the conditions of capitalism, does not mean that I have any doubts about the personal abilities, talent and courage of President Roosevelt. But if the circumstances are unfavourable, the most talented captain cannot reach the goal you refer to.

Theoretically, of course, the possibility of marching gradually, step by step, under the conditions of capitalism, towards the goal which you call socialism in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, is not precluded.

But what will this “socialism” be? At best, bridling to some extent, the most unbridled of individual representatives of capitalist profit, some increase in the application of the principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat. The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt’s hands. All these are private property. The railroads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And, finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt’s command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world.

The State is an institution that organises the defence of the country, organises the maintenance of “order”; it is an apparatus for collecting taxes. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. That is why I fear that in spite of all his energies and abilities, Roosevelt will not achieve the goal you mention, if indeed that is his goal. Perhaps, in the course of several generations it will be possible to approach this goal somewhat; but I personally think that even this is not very probable.