comparing roosevelt era to obama era

[Geiseric]

So in the 1930s as we all probably know there was the Great Depression. What came with the depression in the U.S. was a rise in radically minded unions, political parties which were attatched to those unions and eve some bourgeois we would consider radical for american politics . Roosevelt declined the rise of the radicals by doing common sense things to give people gov't jobs which paid, bring in things like social security, and limit things banks can do in relation to loans and intrest rates. Obama era democrats have failed miserably trying to do the same thing, so can we predict a rise in class consiousness among the remaining working class, and a turn in politics to more radical left for american unions and workers organisations as well? This is coming from the point of view that nothing will get better due to who's in power currently, namely democrats and republicans.

[Fopeos]

I truly hope labor unions will shift further left. The capitalists will try to prop up their sagging profits by speeding up production, combining jobs, ignoring safety regulations, and holding down wages. They'll have to.
In response to our declining living standards and increasingly miserable work conditions, we workers will have to organize. We may have to confront the leaderships in our tired, class-collaborationist unions in order to effectively fight.
I believe a new union movement is on the horizon. Workers are fed up with the twin parties of capital, they just don't see a real alternative. We should follow the bolshevik strategy of getting into union jobs to help offer socialism as an alternative.
There won't be a "new deal" to divert workers' attention or mitigate the crisis. The ruling class doesn't seem to have the will or capital to spend their way out of this recession/depression.

[Shropshire Socialist]

Roosevelt could be seen as being socialist in terms of what he did and the way he stimulated the economy, but neither he or Obama are or were true socialists.

It always makes me chuckle when the GOP and similar wing nuts refer to Obama as a "socialist". Over here in Europe we see him as a social democrat and as about left wing as Tony Blair was.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Roosevelt could be seen as being socialist in terms of what he did and the way he stimulated the economy, but neither he or Obama are or were true socialists.

It always makes me chuckle when the GOP and similar wing nuts refer to Obama as a "socialist". Over here in Europe we see him as a social democrat and as about left wing as Tony Blair was.

What makes Obama even a Social Democrat? Everything he does seems to favor the rich. Shitty healthcare plan got passed which makes you buy from private companies, lowered taxes for everyone, bailed out the biggest capitalists, is going to cut probably billions if not trillions of spending on shit we need, etc. I just don't see him being even a Social Democrat, maybe your opinion is a little skewed because you don't live here or something.

[thesadmafioso]

As a general rule, whenever economic hardship is brought upon a population, the false consciousness of capitalistic hegemony generally loses its hold over that given population, with the extent of such falling into direct correlation with the degree of economic disparity. So a comparison between the two situations could be made on those grounds, to a certain point.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Roosevelt was hostile to union organizing and his jobs programs failed to employ millions of people. Just as the German chancellor Bismarck began the first social welfare programs to erode socialist consciousness, FDR's New Deal was designed to safeguard capitalism. The "New Deal" economic recovery was not made by empowering working people but by orienting the economy towards war production which solidified the basis for the all-powerful military-industrial complex that we see today. I would recommend that you read Labor’s Giant Step by Art Preis (1964) for a more detailed account of the reality of the "New Deal." Here is a short article about it. (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/12/04/roosevelt-new-deal-myth)

The great union battles of the FDR era were as successful as they were because of the militant mass organizing amongst the rank-and-file members. They achieved what they did in spite of FDR, not thanks to him. If the unions achieve victories now, it will be in spite of Obama, not thanks to him.

[Pretty Flaco]

But if I'm not mistaken, American unions were much more powerful in that era than they are today. Unions here are not very strong at all. And not to mention people with any sort of disillusionment with the republicans/democrats are mostly being attracted to rightist libertarian lines of thought. A lot of people with that thinking have very hostile opinions towards unions.

I don't think it's a parallel comparison at all.

[GPDP]

Obama era democrats have failed miserably

On the contrary, they have succeeded spectacularly in their goals - to defer popular expectations of relief and reform, and instead protect and empower the ruling class further. To say they failed implies they tried or even planned at any point to constitute New Deal-esque reforms.

I'm sorry if that comes off a bit harsh, but it must be said. Too many people give the Democrats way too much credit as people who mean well but fail to produce results, or at least it seems to come across that way when they talk of either party or even capitalism in general "failing." Do not take ruling class rhetoric and its stated goals at face value. Remember, politics should always be viewed through the lens of class struggle, and policies that hurt the working class are often made to empower the capitalists. From that perspective, a given policy is not a glaring failure, but a runaway success.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

“You would be hard-pressed to identify a piece of legislation that we have proposed out there that, net, is not good for businesses.” - Obama

[Geiseric]

I never said that, i meant they failed at looking as though they gave a shit. roosevelt was good at making it look like they care, but that's what he was good at, making it look like they care with small things that hired a few thousand people at a time, or some law that regulated intrest loans or something which they really should have put in place for the good of their capitalism in the first place. Obama has failed at that, which is the basis of my question.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So in the 1930s as we all probably know there was the Great Depression. What came with the depression in the U.S. was a rise in radically minded unions, political parties which were attatched to those unions and eve some bourgeois we would consider radical for american politics . Roosevelt declined the rise of the radicals by doing common sense things to give people gov't jobs which paid, bring in things like social security, and limit things banks can do in relation to loans and intrest rates. Obama era democrats have failed miserably trying to do the same thing, so can we predict a rise in class consiousness among the remaining working class, and a turn in politics to more radical left for american unions and workers organisations as well? This is coming from the point of view that nothing will get better due to who's in power currently, namely democrats and republicans.

The difference is that Roosevelt has to deal with a huge upsurge in working class struggle. His reforms were an attempt to save capitalism and stave that off.

Obama faces no such thing, and capitalism can't afford to give the same kinds of reforms now even if he did.

[Shropshire Socialist]

What makes Obama even a Social Democrat? Everything he does seems to favor the rich. Shitty healthcare plan got passed which makes you buy from private companies, lowered taxes for everyone, bailed out the biggest capitalists, is going to cut probably billions if not trillions of spending on shit we need, etc. I just don't see him being even a Social Democrat, maybe your opinion is a little skewed because you don't live here or something.

In terms of European politics he would be a social democrat, some of whom can be quite right wing in their policies (see one Anthony Lynton Blair for example...)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

In terms of European politics he would be a social democrat, some of whom can be quite right wing in their policies (see one Anthony Lynton Blair for example...)

Those still represent quite a sharp deviation even for what passed as a social-democrat twenty- thirty years ago. Blair and his ilk all across Europe and other parts of the world are no longer even social-democrats, the social-democratic politics outlived their usefulness to the bourgeoisie of the world, and as they did, those class-collaborationist groups packed their bags and walked over to greener pastures where there's money to be had, leaving their picnic set-up of ideology behind.

[Shropshire Socialist]

Those still represent quite a sharp deviation even for what passed as a social-democrat twenty- thirty years ago. Blair and his ilk all across Europe and other parts of the world are no longer even social-democrats, the social-democratic politics outlived their usefulness to the bourgeoisie of the world, and as they did, those class-collaborationist groups packed their bags and walked over to greener pastures where there's money to be had, leaving their picnic set-up of ideology behind.

Agreed.

[tanklv]

To answer this, I believe you need to realize the following:

The repuke party has become the party of greedy racists, bigots, homophobes, religious intolerant fundamentalists and the ultra rich - all the things actually not tolerated on this site. In other words, the bat shit sane. Most of whom are KKK, John Birchers, and other FORMERLY CONSIDERED extreme nutjobs, at least in the US.

All of the "sane" former "Republicans" have seen this transformation/takeover, and have drifted to and infiltrated/joined and taken over the Democratic Party. The old Democratic Party, party of the Unions, Workers, Poor (or at least Middle Class) no longer exists, except to fool those Unions, Workers, Poor, etc. that it "speaks for them" or is even a place for them.

Even the Republican Party of Eisenhower would not be welcome in the present day Repuke Party - it is really that bad. Out right racism is actually VOICED - loudly and proudly - by today's Repukes.

So what the US has today is a far extreme right wing party, and a right wing or corporate party. There is literally no "left", let alone "left of center" party in the US any longer. There isn't really any left voices being heard at all. You only have to look at the morning talk shows and the "approved" "democratic" or "left" view points consist of Lincoln Chaffee or Joe Lieberman!!! I mean - JOE FUCKING LIEBERMAN!!!

Any sane people like Alan Grayson or Cynthia McKinney are actually laughed at.

So it is in this context that the question arises as to whether FDR or Obama is more representative of socialist leaning policies.

FDR, altho quite wealthy and priviledged, at least had compassion and understanding for the common person. It can be claimed he was taught the concept of "noblise oblige" which at least gave lip service to the concept that those with much owed it to give back to those with less.

Obama, not born of wealth and priviledge, and complicated by his mixed race, I believe, has always sought to be included in/approved of by the upper classes, as evidenced by his education in the most exclusive private school in Hawaii. He literally hungers for inclusion in the upper classes, and will do anything to get it. He was raised and has bought into the whole Ronnie Raygun philosophy of "greed is good" and has only played lip service to, if at all, or especially tried to even avoid being caught saying anything that would be construed as to actually being supportive of those with less. We, "the people" have painted - assumed - assigned - our own hopes/desires/wishes on his "blank canvas" - at least in the beginning.

We were deadly wrong to have assumed that...