The most Socialist of all US presidents? [Archive]

Tseka

5th May 2009, 21:59

Which president do you believe has been the most Socialist of any and why?

I personally believe it's Lyndon Baines Johnson, the man increased the role of Government in the economy, increased the role of Federal Government in education, forced pre-schools to provide free education for everyone and passed many civil rights bills. On top of that he also changed the justice system by giving more power to the accused and allowing them to be defended against state accusations.

He's no Fidel Castro, but compared to any other American president, Lyndon Banes Johnson was an angel.

Stranger Than Paradise

5th May 2009, 22:02

I personally believe it's Lyndon Baines Johnson,

By invading Vietnam?

Tseka

5th May 2009, 22:03

By invading Vietnam?

I still stand by my choice.

вор в законе

5th May 2009, 22:04

And supporting a coup in Greece.

вор в законе

5th May 2009, 22:04

I think Roosevelt.

STJ

5th May 2009, 22:06

I think it was FDR.

Tseka

5th May 2009, 22:07

FDR sent Japanese American citizens into interment camps, regardless of ideology, he was an ignorant Racist.

Bringing back ideology into topic, Racism kills the whole idea of Socialism.

Dimentio

5th May 2009, 22:09

FDR sent Japanese American citizens into interment camps, regardless of ideology, he was an ignorant Racist.

Bringing back ideology into topic, Racism kills the whole idea of Socialism.

Stalin stuffed all of Chechnya and Ingushetia and relocated the countries to Kazachstan.

Tseka

5th May 2009, 22:11

Stalin stuffed all of Chechnya and Ingushetia and relocated the countries to Kazachstan.

I never really considered Stalin a Communist.

And ethnically, I belong to a group of people that were exiled by Stalin.

FreeFocus

5th May 2009, 22:12

вор в законе

5th May 2009, 22:18

Thank god you told us, we didn't knew that already.

Anyway, economically speaking, as Tseka puts it (big government, etc) FDR was more on the left.

Tseka

5th May 2009, 22:21

Thank god you told us, we didn't knew that already.

Anyway, economically speaking, as Tseka puts it (big government, etc) FDR was more on the left.

And to an extent, socially speaking.

bezdomni

5th May 2009, 22:22

Dimentio

5th May 2009, 22:28

What a ridiculous post. It's like asking "Who is the most atheist fundamentalist?" Socialism and capitalism stand in opposition to each other.

Moreover, all US presidents have been capitalist and imperialist, none of them deserve praise.

None of them has been socialist, but some were borderline populist.

In most capitalist societies - heck in most class societies - there has been two kinds of rulers within the ruling class. The first one is the oligarchic figurehead, who builds his legitimacy on keeping the plebs down. The second one is the populist orator, who enrage the people with semi-revolutionary rethoric against the other members of his own class, to opportunistically gain power.

I tend to prefer populists. By a chance, their presence could persuade the working class to take a little more power, or to gain power through chance.

вор в законе

5th May 2009, 22:30

I think it goes both ways - meaning that the radicalization of the working class might also lead for the system to produce populist leaders so as to pacify the workers.

Dimentio

5th May 2009, 22:47

I think it goes both ways - meaning that the radicalization of the working class might also lead for the system to produce populist leaders so as to pacify the workers.

I guess some populist leaders are produced in order to soothe the masses, while others are producing themselves because they are seeing an opportunity to carve out their own influence through the power of the masses. A third, rare category is composed by populist elite leaders who seriously look upon themselves as liberators and truly care about the masses.

What one individual does or says do not have so much importance for the capitalist system though. What produces reactionaries and radicals, elevates them into power or strikes them down, is the continuous development of the productive forces of society (technology, organisation, scientific and cultural level, class relations).

I think what perpetuates and destroys class relations is technology and its application on the surrounding society.

Capitalism would have been impossible a thousand years ago, because of technological limitations.

вор в законе

5th May 2009, 22:52

I agree.

gorillafuck

5th May 2009, 23:02

This thread is completely absurd.

mykittyhasaboner

5th May 2009, 23:06

OBAMA!!!! Becuase hes an A-RAB Marxist!!! Thats what everyone is saying!!!!!

communard resolution

6th May 2009, 00:01

gorillafuck

6th May 2009, 00:10

OBAMA!!!! Becuase hes an A-RAB Marxist!!! Thats what everyone is saying!!!!!
I heard he was blowing shit up with Bill Ayers when he was a toddler.....

mykittyhasaboner

6th May 2009, 00:11

Apparently, it was Carter. One of those political compass thingies gave me the following results:

Your political system: Socialism
Your ideology: International Communism
Your president: Jimmy Carter

:lol:
Of course he was!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Nicolae_Ceaucescu_1978.jpg

Here he is with Ceausescu while listening to the Internationale!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Carter_DengXiaoping.jpg

What a comrade! He even joked with comrade Deng Xiapong!

I heard he was blowing shit up with Bill Ayers when he was a toddler.....
He also had Marxist professors!! And so was his moms!!!
:lol:

STJ

6th May 2009, 00:12

FDR sent Japanese American citizens into interment camps, regardless of ideology, he was an ignorant Racist.

Bringing back ideology into topic, Racism kills the whole idea of Socialism.
He also sent American Nazi party memembers of German descent into those same interment camps.So its not just the Japanese.

Angry Young Man

6th May 2009, 00:30

Fucking stupid question. Like asking 'most liberal NSDAP member.'

mykittyhasaboner

6th May 2009, 00:32

Fucking stupid question. Like asking 'most liberal NSDAP member.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser\

Lol, that's about as liberal as it gets. But I agree stupid question.

KurtFF8

6th May 2009, 00:46

Show me a single US president who supported worker ownership over the means of production. (And no, getting a letter signed by Marx doesn't make Lincoln your candidate here)

h0lmes

6th May 2009, 00:48

Jefferson was an Anarchist.

KurtFF8

6th May 2009, 00:49

Jefferson was an Anarchist.

Didn't he support massive expansion of the Federal Government?

teenagebricks

6th May 2009, 00:52

Jefferson was indeed an anarchist sympathiser, but he was never an anarchist.

mykittyhasaboner

6th May 2009, 00:54

Jefferson was indeed an anarchist sympathiser, but he was never an anarchist.
Curious, how do you reason he sympathized with anarchism, did "anarchism" even exist as a current during his time?

Didn't he support massive expansion of the Federal Government?
Exactly what I was thinking.

FreeFocus

6th May 2009, 00:55

Jefferson was an Anarchist.

I didn't know anarchists could be racist, slave-holding expansionists.

teenagebricks

6th May 2009, 01:08

Curious, how do you reason he sympathized with anarchism, did "anarchism" even exist as a current during his time?
No, perhaps not as it exists today at least, like I said, Jefferson was no anarchist, but he was something of a free thinker, and a lot of what he did was almost certainly influenced by the ideas which we now know as anarchist. Here (http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/6880) is a good piece of writing on anarchists in modern history, it's a long article but the part about Jefferson is quite near the beginning. I'm quite sure that if Jefferson was alive today he would be in prison for some crime against the state.

Hoxhaist

6th May 2009, 01:16

no president has ever been anything close to REAL socialist maybe reformist but never true socialist or even revisionist

fabilius

6th May 2009, 01:42

The question could be rephrased into who was the most reformist.

I don´t agree with saying it´s like asking which fundamentalist is most atheist. It´s more like asking: which religious leader is most moderate.

Of course no US president has been anti capitalist. They vary.

I think the two Roosevelts are the biggest reformists. Teddy Roosevelt had a lot more ambitious agenda than he could have accomplished but Franklin had a luckier timing for a reformist.

Obviously neither of them is more radical than a swedish socialdemocrat.

Harry Truman, LBJ and Carter also come to mind. They all had their socialist pet projects while generally being capitalists.

Lots of things in Jefferson´s way of thinking are reminiscent of anarchism. His ownership of slaves is rather hypocritical and inconsistent, his rhetoric would make you think this was a man buying slaves and freeing them. (But that just shows you that you must judge a man by his actions rather than words).

Lincoln was no socialist but I´d be able to agree with him on a lot of issues. Especially for his time. I would not rule out Lincoln becoming socialist in a different era or environment. However, he wasn´t. But a reformer none the less, and definitely someone that changed american capitalism, and one might say even: improved.

nightazday

6th May 2009, 02:13

DancingLarry

6th May 2009, 02:25

A third, rare category is composed by populist elite leaders who seriously look upon themselves as liberators and truly care about the masses.

When you get one of those... well, Huey Long got assassinated, didn't he?

If we're talking about what president to date did the most to advance socialism in America, I'd say Herbert Hoover. By responding to the chaotic early years of the great depression with timid and stodgy "free-market" policies of balanced budgets, low taxes, and government bailouts of banks through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, he forced a desperate population to look away from titled leadership and DC for direction and action, and the result was an upswell of leftist broad-based grass-roots organizing and agitation never seen before or since in US history.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th May 2009, 02:36

This is a stupid question. The President of the United States is the command in chief of the largest imperialist country in the world, no US president could be anywhere near socialist simply because the office requires commanding an imperialist state.

When do you date the founding of the US? 1900? 1945?

Anyway, after clearing out the natives (a most unfortunate event, to be sure), the United States had the most socialist land distribution policy of any country in the modern era.

-Find 160 acres you like
-Sit on it for 5 years
-It's yours!

What this meant was that millions of Irish, German, Swedish, Polish, and other European natives who had been living in a hut owned by some Monarch had the opportunity to own their own peace of land for nothing but the cost of the trip there. I'm not claiming it was the perfect system, which it was not, but hundreds of thousands of impoverished people got a lot of land for very little.

And with exactly zero famines since it makes a total farce of the Bolshies crap system of farm ownership after the revolution, that's for sure.

I would say Lincoln, for this and several other measures. FDR would be next.

Black Dagger

6th May 2009, 02:40

Moved to learning.

bezdomni

6th May 2009, 02:45

When do you date the founding of the US? 1900? 1945?

Anyway, after clearing out the natives (a most unfortunate event, to be sure), the United States had the most socialist land distribution policy of any country in the modern era.

-Find 160 acres you like
-Sit on it for 5 years
-It's yours!

What this meant was that millions of Irish, German, Swedish, Polish, and other European natives who had been living in a hut owned by some Monarch had the opportunity to own their own peace of land for nothing but the cost of the trip there. I'm not claiming it was the perfect system, which it was not, but hundreds of thousands of impoverished people got a lot of land for very little.

And with exactly zero famines since it makes a total farce of the Bolshies crap system of farm ownership after the revolution, that's for sure.

I would say Lincoln, for this and several other measures. FDR would be next.

If your conception of socialism is compatible with the history and social organization of the United States, then it is completely and totally fucked beyond any hope of repair.

Seriously, how can you say FDR and Lincoln were at all socialist - when they were the leaders of a country that didn't even grant basic civil liberties to black people.

The U.S. is built on a history of genocide, the oppression of the black nation, and capitalist-imperialist exploitation of human labor. There is no way we can even begin to talk about any leader of the United States ever remotely resembling a revolutionary communist.

Black Dagger

6th May 2009, 02:54

the United States had the most socialist land distribution policy of any country in the modern era.

How can it be 'socialist' if it was only for the benefit of european men, and premised on genocide?

I personally believe it's Lyndon Baines Johnson, the man increased the role of Government in the economy, increased the role of Federal Government in education, forced pre-schools to provide free education for everyone and passed many civil rights bills. On top of that he also changed the justice system by giving more power to the accused and allowing them to be defended against state accusations.

What does that have to do with socialism? I don't get it. Increasing the role of government and providing social services isn't socialism, it's called Social Democracy. And how on earth you can call LBJ the 'most socialist' president when he was responsible for invading 'Socialist' Vietnam, a large part of a bigger war against socialism (see: the Domino Theory) is just mind-boggling. Ditto for his policy in Latin America - the same old US tactic of ousting popular left-wing governments and installing right-wing dictators to stem the tide of rebellion.

Oh and please don't try to peddle that shit about LBJ as a 'civil rights' proponent - he passed some laws JFK was about to before he was assasinated, they weren't LBJ's idea or interest - but he wasn't about to shit all over JFK whilst people was lauding him as some great martyr for justice. LBJ just took the credit, he was a pragmatist not a social liberal - and don't forget his 'socialist' policy of sending in the federal army to shoot Black folks in Detroit during 'the long hot summer'

Brother No. 1

6th May 2009, 03:06

Which president do you believe has been the most Socialist of any and why?

Since when has the most Anti-Socialist Country on this Earth ever had a Socialist, or even near to it, president???:confused: No president in these United Elite states of America has ever been or close to socialist. They were all imperialists doing Imperialism/Capitalism in their own unique way.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th May 2009, 03:09

How can it be 'socialist' if it was only for the benefit of european men, and premised on genocide?

Never said it was socialist, but the most socialist of any modern state.

What I meant was that, in theory, it's the most socialist program of any that has existed. However, as I earlier stated, it obviously can't meet the definition.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th May 2009, 03:13

If your conception of socialism is compatible with the history and social organization of the United States, then it is completely and totally fucked beyond any hope of repair.

Seriously, how can you say FDR and Lincoln were at all socialist - when they were the leaders of a country that didn't even grant basic civil liberties to black people.

The U.S. is built on a history of genocide, the oppression of the black nation, and capitalist-imperialist exploitation of human labor. There is no way we can even begin to talk about any leader of the United States ever remotely resembling a revolutionary communist.

Read the OP.

It wasn't, Which of the US Presidents was a Revolutionary Communist?

It was, Which of the US Presidents was the most socialist?

For their time period, that is easily answered with Lincoln and FDR.

mykittyhasaboner

6th May 2009, 03:18

Cultofabelincon:

the United States had the most socialist land distribution policy of any country in the modern era.

Could you clarify? How in the world can the land distribution of the US be considered socialist at all?

Black Dagger

6th May 2009, 03:38

Never said it was socialist, but the most socialist of any modern state.

What I meant was that, in theory, it's the most socialist program of any that has existed. However, as I earlier stated, it obviously can't meet the definition.

I understand the context of the thread, but that doesn't give unlimited qualification to everything. Yes there is a difference between 'socialist' and 'most socialist' but the latter can still be contested. I was doing exactly that. Socialism is premised on equality of access to the maximum extent possible, access to land in that program was however premised on restricting access, essentially the opposite premise. Even if we are talking about degrees of 'socialist' rather than things that are in fact 'socialist' (i understand you are not making that particular claim) i don't think your point is valid.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th May 2009, 03:39

@MyKitty

Giving away millions of acres for nothing.

As I noted earlier, the US was the last real expansionist power and removed huge numbers of natives prior to this, but that's notwithstanding the land policy itself.

Random Precision

6th May 2009, 03:43

By invading Vietnam?

For the sake of accuracy, Johnson did not "invade" Vietnam. He supplied American troops to aid "democratic" South Vietnam in is war with North Vietnam after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was the logical continuation of the policy of the Kennedy and Eisenhower administrations, which had been supplying "military advisers" to South Vietnam.

During the 1964 Presidential campaign, SDS endorsed Johnson and printed stickers saying "Half the Way with LBJ", that is to say, support for the Great Society and opposition to the American role in Vietnam. Of course, it's ridiculous from a historical perspective to say that the two could be separated, although that seems to be what Tseka is trying to do.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th May 2009, 03:59

I understand the context of the thread, but that doesn't give unlimited qualification to everything. Yes there is a difference between 'socialist' and 'most socialist' but the latter can still be contested. I was doing exactly that. Socialism is premised on equality of access to the maximum extent possible, access to land in that program was however premised on restricting access, essentially the opposite premise. Even if we are talking about degrees of 'socialist' rather than things that are in fact 'socialist' (i understand you are not making that particular claim) i don't think your point is valid.

Yes, it was obviously restricted against Native Americans, I concede that point in full, which easily disqualifies it from being a truly socialist program. (One could argue this is no different from later 'socialist' states which removed people who were unwilling to amend their land practices to a more efficient system, but that's a more academic debate nobody without a law degree could buy).

It was open to everyone else, though, including black people. And I would say that's "pretty socialist," especially in a country which was practicing slavery just a few years prior.

It's possible that Asian people were denied access, though I do not know either way.

JimmyJazz

6th May 2009, 04:44

Thomas Jefferson was a strong anti-capitalist and opposed to wage labor, but that's because he wanted to preserve an agrarian economy of small farmers and artisans. So, he was reactionary as far as historical materialism is concerned.

Lincoln, if you buy Great Men theory, dealt a death blow to an outdated mode of production and ushered in pure capitalism. So, as far as HM is concerned he was progressive.

FDR, well...Keynsianism is a bigger obstacle to socialism than a pure free market, so obviously he was not remotely socialist.

Maybe this is a silly, dogmatic Marxist answer, but it is a silly question.

Edit: My answer is Eugene Debs. The 1912 and 1920 elections were stolen, I tell ya. We was robbed!

Revy

6th May 2009, 06:07

benhur

6th May 2009, 06:24

Thread title should be changed to: Who was the least capitalist of all?

And the answer: Jimmy Carter

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th May 2009, 07:33

On the side, look at Carter's 1976 electoral map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/1976_Electoral_College_Map.png

What the fuck? Doesn't even look recognizable. Of course, it was Carter, and Reagan, who changed all that until Obama altered it again.

JimmyJazz

6th May 2009, 08:34

Get a job, you liberal hippie Texans.

ZeroNowhere

6th May 2009, 18:14

Since when has the most Anti-Socialist Country on this Earth ever had a Socialist, or even near to it, president???:confused: No president in these United Elite states of America has ever been or close to socialist.
United Elite States of America? That's even worse than 'Amerika'.
Also, the US is no more 'anti-Socialist' than Venezuela.

If it counts, Marx wrote an appreciative letter to Lincoln. Not that Marx is some deity we must always agree with, but it puts things into perspective.
This doesn't make Lincoln at all socialist, however, any more than Alexander Hamilton.

It was, Which of the US Presidents was the most socialist?
Except that there's no sliding scale or shades of grey between capitalism and socialism (an important reason as to why the Political Compass is crap), so 'most socialist' necessarily entails them not supporting capitalism. If they're not socialists, then they are not at all socialist. Nader is no more socialist than Ron Paul.

Though yes, none of the above. Reagan, if I had to choose.

JimmyJazz

6th May 2009, 19:43

Also, the US is no more 'anti-Socialist' than Venezuela.

I would assume he meant foreign policy.

Revy

7th May 2009, 03:35

This doesn't make Lincoln at all socialist, however, any more than Alexander Hamilton.

Never said he was. I just thought it would contribute to the discussion.

KurtFF8

7th May 2009, 03:47

If it counts, Marx wrote an appreciative letter to Lincoln (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm). Not that Marx is some deity we must always agree with, but it puts things into perspective.

Well it wasn't Marx but his organization. And he was quite well aware that Lincoln was no socialist.

Diagoras

7th May 2009, 04:45

Obama, because he is a secret, time-traveling, Muslim, Nazi Communist. That, and raising taxes to keep the rich rich is socialism, didn't you hear?

Velkas

7th May 2009, 05:54

None of them: they were all capitalists.

More Fire for the People

7th May 2009, 05:59

The closest to workers' state + state capitalism? Lincoln, Theo Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Carter, and Obama

core_1

7th May 2009, 06:06

Possibly re-word your question, a past American president could only be described as a reformist socialist. There have been no revolutionary socialist presidents.

ZeroNowhere

7th May 2009, 08:42

Possibly re-word your question, a past American president could only be described as a reformist socialist. There have been no revolutionary socialist presidents.
Um, but reformists aren't socialists, and revolutionary socialism is redundant.

gorillafuck

7th May 2009, 21:34

Possibly re-word your question, a past American president could only be described as a reformist socialist.
None of them have even been "reformist socialists" (the only people who could even be called reformist socialists are the pacifist socialists I have met. yuck.). Some just wanted to increase welfare.

Except the democrats. I heard somewhere that they are all communists in disguise.

http://mkultra.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/21372.jpg

Tseka

8th May 2009, 00:10

None of them has been socialist, but some were borderline populist.

In most capitalist societies - heck in most class societies - there has been two kinds of rulers within the ruling class. The first one is the oligarchic figurehead, who builds his legitimacy on keeping the plebs down. The second one is the populist orator, who enrage the people with semi-revolutionary rethoric against the other members of his own class, to opportunistically gain power.

I tend to prefer populists. By a chance, their presence could persuade the working class to take a little more power, or to gain power through chance.

The second one sounds a lot like Hitler, you would support him?