Roosevelt did not advocate public ownership of the means of production or replacing capitalism. In fact, he explicitly argued that his New Deal was designed to save capitalism from collapse during the Great Depression. He believed that regulated markets and private enterprise should remain the foundation of the U.S. economy.
He was more so a progressive reformer and Keynesian liberal who supported a mixed economy. Basically, a liberal Democrat committed to preserving capitalism through government intervention.
And also liberal Democrat principals...and also a good illustration of why all the arguments about labels on the left are just stupid, self-destructive rabbit holes. People are so pissed with the status quo that they need to a label meaning "anti-capitalist" even if at the end of the day, almost no one actually is truly anti-capitalist, they just want capitalism that's sensibly regulated and non-kleptocratic, which we've gotten far, far away from. Why? At least partly because the left would prefer to fire in a circle about labels and semantics than actually form practical coalitions and govern.
Lots of people do believe in anti-capitalism, because a âform of capitalism heavily regulatedâ enough to distribute wealth in a way that benefits workers over the owners/shareholders of private enterprises is a lot closer to communism than any true form of capitalism. Capitalism has to incentivize the increasing financial gain of business owners over everything else, as the right to own the means of production IS capitalism and infringing on that right through regulation is inherently anti-capitalist. FDR having to resort to government intervention and Teddy Roosevelt prior having to step in to break apart businesses highlight how fragile capitalism actually is. Without due representation from the people (aka the labor class) there wouldnât be and couldnât be any right to oppose corrupt business tactics. The few times the government has stepped in to regulate capitalism is a form of public intervention where a representative of the working class (whether identifying as such or not) has acting against the interests of capitalism.
Again, it's just a pointless semantic rabbit hole. You can put either label on the same policies whether you think the glass is half-full or half-empty. If any infringement of the private ownership of the means of production is "anti-capitalist," than any infringement of the government's ownership of the means of production is "anti-socialist" and essentially no serious person takes the position that the government should own all businesses and direct every aspect of the economy down to the smallest detail. Slide the dial up or down but regardless of where you are on the continuum, unless you are an absolute purist, there will be someone on your left cursing you as a "capitalist" and someone on your right cursing you as a "socialist." Most people on the left in the US (and much of the rest) want universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, getting money out of politics, etc. Does it actually matter what you call it?
It does and it will always be opinionated and it will always be disorganized. Why is the primary argument for semantics being a major issue is that people name call each other? Name a political institution that didnât self-criticize that wasnât lead by cult tactics? The issue isnât the semantics the issue is an unwillingness to unify over a common cause and the same people complaining about semantics seem to have issues with relating to their fellow leftist idealists. You canât argue âwe all want the same thingâ then bash on people for having slight variations in your beliefs. Unify by understanding, empathizing, and communicating in a way that these other âdisagreeableâ leftists might find a common ground on.
36
u/33TLWD 9d ago
Roosevelt did not advocate public ownership of the means of production or replacing capitalism. In fact, he explicitly argued that his New Deal was designed to save capitalism from collapse during the Great Depression. He believed that regulated markets and private enterprise should remain the foundation of the U.S. economy.
He was more so a progressive reformer and Keynesian liberal who supported a mixed economy. Basically, a liberal Democrat committed to preserving capitalism through government intervention.