Was Franklin Delano Roosevelt America's first Socialist president?

Marxism in any form is diametrically in opposition to our Constitutional Republic, and our Capitalist based economy. I think that is pretty straightforward.

Academics naturally play with different theories, an mix an match, and create all kinds of wild hybrids. Nothing new there. It is the virtual monopolization of colleges an universities by the German academia in the late 1880s that has produced this continued patty cake game with various forms of Marxism that still goes on to this day. Bismarck rejected many of the ideas after they had been tried in Germany, but that did not stop "our ever so smart people here", Wilson, FDR, et all from insisting on trying them out for themselves. Furthermore, all kinds of different forms of Marxist governments have been abject failures anywhere they have been tried, and yet that does not stop "our smarty pants academics" from suggesting we try this one to that one, or try a newly retooled version of one of them.

What is the problem with doing any of this? That is simple to answer: The architecture of the United States government, and economy is not set up to be a command, or a control-command economy, nor is it set up to give the federal government the power it would need to run some sort of Marxist type of governance. The reason it is set up that way is because the first and foremost hallmark of our Constitutional Republic is personal liberty/freedom. There is no personal liberty/freedom under centralized big government, or in controlled economies, there are only government approved "rights" granted to the citizens by the government. Our form of government is the other way around, we the people grant power to the government on our behalf.

Our country is based upon rights granted by the Creator to all human beings that supersede any government authority (but it is only in the United States, and in full to American citizens, that those rights are guaranteed). That very standard secures our individual freedoms, but also makes it necessary for us as individuals to take personal responsibility for ourselves and our actions. We can own, possess, and in most places carry firearms in this country. Firearms are of course potentially dangerous, but since we are responsible for ourselves and our actions, we have a right to have them. Many other countries where the government is the parent of the citizen do not allow their citizens to have firearms, as the little darlings might hurt themselves. The first acid test of the freedom of a nation's people can be easily ascertained by finding out if the citizens are armed, or not. Under Marxists governance they are not. Under command-control economies they are not. The United States is not set up for a government created Utopia, it is set up for personal liberty/freedom.

Anyone who goes against that very essence of what America is about, by trying to make "things better" by cherry picking Marxists ideas to "improve things", has surrendered the Constitution to academic theory (ones that have been proven wrong in the past 150 years), and that in the United States makes a person a Marxist of some sort, but typically it has been a Socialist of some sort.

Well, I am of American stock. I was born in the UK but my family came here from the US in 1974.
What I mean is that Marxism is misunderstood in that it is anti-government but those on the right like to convince people of the opposite. Marxism is the historical idea that human history has been defined by powerful ruling elites using their monopoly of the state to their own advantage and that the best situation for mankind would be to abolish government altogether and replace it with a form of self-governance where everyone is equal. Although the latter part is impractical, I think we can all agree on the fact that ruling elites use the state for their own purposes seen as it is a proven fact that they do.
Secondly, the US constitution is not about liberty at all. If you define liberty (as many scholars do) as the ability to live your life the way you wish to live it, the American system does not allow for that. How free is a black person from Appalachia to become a doctor or a lawyer? Not very. They are disadvantaged by an unfair system. I do not have a problem with markets or with inequality per se, but surely we can all agree that everyone deserves the equal opportunity to succeed? This cannot be realised under the American system. I do not call that liberty. 'You have freedom to be poor and have no ability to change it' should replace E. Pluribus Unum. It would be more accurate. I do not call a society where millions are systemically destined for poverty a free system at all. I am a firm believer in liberty and what America offers insnt it. All you need to do is look at their living standards indicators compared to their wealth to see that.
And, although there is a difference between European and American political classifications; socialism is not a political idea, it is an economic model. One that America has never even come close to. By no standards has America ever come anywhere near a socialist president.
And I thank you for your respectful and dignified reply.

Marxism in theory can be argued to be humanist, or benevolent, and it has been argued as being so by many, but in practice any form of Marxism that has been implemented has been oppressive. Marxism is not misunderstood, as many of us have learned the theories, and John Lennon's song Imagine is basically the manifesto rewritten. It is the practice of various forms of Marxist thought, from Bismarck's social programs, to Russia in the 20th Century, to Nazi Germany, to New Deal and Great Society programs in the United States that a conclusion has been reached, and that is it does not work. Not only does it not work, people suffer greatly, and government abuses are even worse than in other forms of governance.

The United States Constitution is all about personal liberty/freedom, as some of the very first issues it addresses are the rights, granted by the Creator, that can not be taken away. These rights come before the government is even invested with any power whatsoever. Personal liberty is indeed the ability to live your life as you see fit, but it does have limits, and those limits are primarily where your personal liberty would start to intrude on another person's personal liberty.

Your example of a black person in Appalachia needs to be tweaked. First of all, poverty in Appalachia is the worst poverty there is in the United States. People from Appalachia are typically from Scots-Irish stock, and are therefore considered "white". Rural poverty is predominately "white". Poverty in urban areas, in many places, is dominated population-wise by blacks. But there are also many other racial/ethnic classifications in urban poverty. The first mistake you make is you talk about poverty, and then you start to break it down by race. Poverty is either rural, suburban, or urban, and the racial component does not seem to matter so much, as it is an social problem defined by economics, not skin color. The economics is the root of the problem, and that is what would need to be addressed.

There are people who do become doctors and lawyers who are from poverty in the inner city, and from poverty in urban areas, it does happen. But what you are suggesting is you want an outcome. The only way to make something like you are suggesting happen in poverty sticker areas is to take the children and have them enrolled into residential schools away from the conditions their parent or parents live in.

Actually, since the American economy is based upon Capitalism, the opportunities of rising out of poverty, and improving your situation are better than anywhere else. That always seems to be missed. Criticism is always easy, but there are not any examples of anything better. Capitalism is about a free market, and therefore opportunity, but you are right it does not guarantee outcomes, and there are people who will be poor. However, there are poor people in any system of government or economics, always has been, yet it is under Capitalism that people have the ability to rise out of that.

Socialism is a Marxist idea, and is political, economic, social, and ideological. It is left on the political spectrum here in the United States because it calls for more government. Right on the political spectrum in the United States is less government. American Government is based on Classical Liberalism, and therefore is difficult to sync up with Old World political classifications of The Crown being right, and the people being left.

Under President Obama, the government gave a great, great deal of money to the private sector (although Bush 43 started with giving money for the finacial sector). That is tax payer money going towards private investment or ventures. Furthermore, ObamaCare seeks to socialize medical care and medical insurance as a government run behemoth. To you that might not seem like much, but to Americans European Socialized Democracy is Socialism. The eye of the beholder is important. No we are nowhere near a U.S.S.R., or a Nazi Germany. But it is the European model of Socialized Democracy that Obama is aiming for, and that ship is sinking over there as we speak. To most Americans what Obama is proposing is Socialism. To many Americans LBJ's Great Society, and FDR's New Deal were Socialism.

Respectful and dignified is a way to have a discussion. ;-)
Enjoy your weekend.

I agree with other posters here - Wilson has that distinction.

Wilson was the first president to criticize the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Wilson created the first official propaganda department in the US. Wilson harshly suppressed dissent and resistance among citizens and the press.


Wilson said that a “true leader” uses the masses of people like “tools.”

Other quotes from Wilson:

“The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much–everything–for the external uses to which they may be put."

“While we are followers of Jefferson, there is one principle of Jefferson’s which no longer can obtain in the practical politics of America. You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible…. But that time is passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise.”

Wilson took over the US economy, infringed on American civil liberties especially by suppressing dissent, oppressed the “unpatriotic,” and purposefully sought to drag the US into war. This Marxist, totalitarian, jingoistic, and militaristic Democrat president was a fascist. He worshiped the power of the state, and such statolatry is exactly what fascism is.

http://conservativecolloquium...