Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialism vs. Progressivism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 4:18:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Besides the Capitalist system itself, has there ever been a greater enemy to the cause of Socialism than that of Progressivism? Truly, Conservatives have FDR to thank that the whole world is not Socialist today.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 4:19:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 4:18:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Truly, Conservatives have FDR to thank that the whole world is not Socialist today.

Really? Because I was going to say that Conservatives have human nature to thank for why the whole world is not Socialist.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 4:18:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Besides the Capitalist system itself, has there ever been a greater enemy to the cause of Socialism than that of Progressivism? Truly, Conservatives have FDR to thank that the whole world is not Socialist today.

Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 4:29:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:18:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Besides the Capitalist system itself, has there ever been a greater enemy to the cause of Socialism than that of Progressivism? Truly, Conservatives have FDR to thank that the whole world is not Socialist today.

Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

That is very true. Stalinism was key to the anticommunist hysteria started under Truman. However, I think it is second to Progressivism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 4:40:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.

Don't forget that he essentially exterminated all the people of the former Lenin government.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 4:55:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 4:40:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.

Don't forget that he essentially exterminated all the people of the former Lenin government.

Of course, that goes with the paranoia. Even though communism itself was designed for already wealthy nations, such as the US and much of western Europe, the Russians had a good chance with it. They had their own oil, a lot of farm land and plenty of other resources. Had they given back their parts of Germany, and eastern Europe without even being asked, that would have been a big boom for them as it would have given ammunition to the anti-interventionists in the USA to fight against McArther and McCarthy. That ought to be the first goal of any communist nation, to get all other nations to leave you alone, so that you can thrive or fail on your own (since I believe that if communism is done properly, it can thrive). Then you focus on building a strong nation that can take care of itself. Then focus on building goods that can be sold to other nations, and let other nations see you and wish to imitate you.

However, it is also worth noting, that Trotsky absolutely hated Nazi, and would have gone to war with them much sooner, and so would probably have had less efficient weapons and unless they could convince England and France to join them (and preferably the USA) in attacking Germany once they invaded Poland, might have lost the war (I doubt they could have done it on their own).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 5:04:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.

I strongly disagree. Trotsky policy of Permanent Revolution would have been the end of the USSR. By attempting to sustain revolutions abroad while the revolution within Russia itself was barely stable would have been disastrous. Russia would have been defeated militarily, pushed back, had to sign a humiliating peace treaty along the lines of Brest-Livotsk, with Trotsky being overthrown for someone else, and assuming NEP would still be in place, which it would be, Russia would be clusterf*cked by the Great Depression.

So yeah, but no.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 5:11:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 5:04:32 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.

I strongly disagree. Trotsky policy of Permanent Revolution would have been the end of the USSR. By attempting to sustain revolutions abroad while the revolution within Russia itself was barely stable would have been disastrous. Russia would have been defeated militarily, pushed back, had to sign a humiliating peace treaty along the lines of Brest-Livotsk, with Trotsky being overthrown for someone else, and assuming NEP would still be in place, which it would be, Russia would be clusterf*cked by the Great Depression.

So yeah, but no.

If it wasn't for the United State's progressivism, continued revolution would have been no problem.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 5:20:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 5:04:32 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.

I strongly disagree. Trotsky policy of Permanent Revolution would have been the end of the USSR. By attempting to sustain revolutions abroad while the revolution within Russia itself was barely stable would have been disastrous. Russia would have been defeated militarily, pushed back, had to sign a humiliating peace treaty along the lines of Brest-Livotsk, with Trotsky being overthrown for someone else, and assuming NEP would still be in place, which it would be, Russia would be clusterf*cked by the Great Depression.

So yeah, but no.

Except that Trotsky did not support a singular dictatorship, as was the case under Stalin, but a DotP governed more democratically, and so extremists ideas would not be implemented. As such, his ideals of a constant revolution would have the breaks applied to it by other. As opposed to Stalin who would kill those that did not agree with him (including Trotsky).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 5:37:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 5:20:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:04:32 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.

I strongly disagree. Trotsky policy of Permanent Revolution would have been the end of the USSR. By attempting to sustain revolutions abroad while the revolution within Russia itself was barely stable would have been disastrous. Russia would have been defeated militarily, pushed back, had to sign a humiliating peace treaty along the lines of Brest-Livotsk, with Trotsky being overthrown for someone else, and assuming NEP would still be in place, which it would be, Russia would be clusterf*cked by the Great Depression.

So yeah, but no.

Except that Trotsky did not support a singular dictatorship, as was the case under Stalin, but a DotP governed more democratically, and so extremists ideas would not be implemented. As such, his ideals of a constant revolution would have the breaks applied to it by other. As opposed to Stalin who would kill those that did not agree with him (including Trotsky).

Again, I disagree. The terror Stalin implemented allowed him to remain unquestioned. A more democratic regime would have meant vocal opposition to Trotsky and the formation of opposition to him.

Even if Trostsky regime would have been more effective, it still doesn't affirm the feasibility of permanent revolution as a policy.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 5:41:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 5:11:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:04:32 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.

I strongly disagree. Trotsky policy of Permanent Revolution would have been the end of the USSR. By attempting to sustain revolutions abroad while the revolution within Russia itself was barely stable would have been disastrous. Russia would have been defeated militarily, pushed back, had to sign a humiliating peace treaty along the lines of Brest-Livotsk, with Trotsky being overthrown for someone else, and assuming NEP would still be in place, which it would be, Russia would be clusterf*cked by the Great Depression.

So yeah, but no.

If it wasn't for the United State's progressivism, continued revolution would have been no problem.

Are you even aware of US foreign policy in the 20's and 30's?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 5:49:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 5:37:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:20:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:04:32 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.

I strongly disagree. Trotsky policy of Permanent Revolution would have been the end of the USSR. By attempting to sustain revolutions abroad while the revolution within Russia itself was barely stable would have been disastrous. Russia would have been defeated militarily, pushed back, had to sign a humiliating peace treaty along the lines of Brest-Livotsk, with Trotsky being overthrown for someone else, and assuming NEP would still be in place, which it would be, Russia would be clusterf*cked by the Great Depression.

So yeah, but no.

Except that Trotsky did not support a singular dictatorship, as was the case under Stalin, but a DotP governed more democratically, and so extremists ideas would not be implemented. As such, his ideals of a constant revolution would have the breaks applied to it by other. As opposed to Stalin who would kill those that did not agree with him (including Trotsky).

Again, I disagree. The terror Stalin implemented allowed him to remain unquestioned. A more democratic regime would have meant vocal opposition to Trotsky and the formation of opposition to him.

Remaining unquestion =/= a successful leadership or a successful nation.


Even if Trostsky regime would have been more effective, it still doesn't affirm the feasibility of permanent revolution as a policy.

true, I don't think a permanent revolution is a wise policy. Democracy allows others to say "you know, that's not really gonna work." and weed out the bad policies and promote the good ones (assuming that everyone is mostly logical). A complete dictatorship doesn't have that luxury.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 6:02:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 5:49:14 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:37:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:20:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:04:32 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:36:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:21:55 PM, wamba wrote:
At 12/26/2010 4:20:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
Actually, they have Stalin to thank for that. If he didn't botch the USSR with his tyrannical dictatorship, socialism and communism could have appeared mush more positively to the general public.

Stalin didn't botch it, the entirety of the USSR did.

Stalin's paranoia, misallocation of funds, and general actions of not following communism botched it. He felt that he had to compete with the USA on everything. Billions wasted in military arms, space races, extravagant living for the chosen, expansionist wars, and foreign aid, which could have been much better spent on the USSR and her people. Trotsky would have been a far superior successor then Stalin, and we would likely see a very different world today.

I strongly disagree. Trotsky policy of Permanent Revolution would have been the end of the USSR. By attempting to sustain revolutions abroad while the revolution within Russia itself was barely stable would have been disastrous. Russia would have been defeated militarily, pushed back, had to sign a humiliating peace treaty along the lines of Brest-Livotsk, with Trotsky being overthrown for someone else, and assuming NEP would still be in place, which it would be, Russia would be clusterf*cked by the Great Depression.

So yeah, but no.

Except that Trotsky did not support a singular dictatorship, as was the case under Stalin, but a DotP governed more democratically, and so extremists ideas would not be implemented. As such, his ideals of a constant revolution would have the breaks applied to it by other. As opposed to Stalin who would kill those that did not agree with him (including Trotsky).

Again, I disagree. The terror Stalin implemented allowed him to remain unquestioned. A more democratic regime would have meant vocal opposition to Trotsky and the formation of opposition to him.

Remaining unquestion =/= a successful leadership or a successful nation.

Depends on the nation, which is Russia, which was unstable with various factions prevalent.



Even if Trostsky regime would have been more effective, it still doesn't affirm the feasibility of permanent revolution as a policy.

true, I don't think a permanent revolution is a wise policy. Democracy allows others to say "you know, that's not really gonna work." and weed out the bad policies and promote the good ones (assuming that everyone is mostly logical). A complete dictatorship doesn't have that luxury.

Right, however Trotsky democracy would have been more dictatorship than true democracy. Permanent revolution would have invariably failed, leaving trotsky in a position ripe to be overthrown.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 6:22:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 6:02:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:49:14 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:37:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Again, I disagree. The terror Stalin implemented allowed him to remain unquestioned. A more democratic regime would have meant vocal opposition to Trotsky and the formation of opposition to him.

Remaining unquestion =/= a successful leadership or a successful nation.


Depends on the nation, which is Russia, which was unstable with various factions prevalent.

Killing all competitors is not the only solution for instability, and only creates more enemies.


Even if Trostsky regime would have been more effective, it still doesn't affirm the feasibility of permanent revolution as a policy.

true, I don't think a permanent revolution is a wise policy. Democracy allows others to say "you know, that's not really gonna work." and weed out the bad policies and promote the good ones (assuming that everyone is mostly logical). A complete dictatorship doesn't have that luxury.

Right, however Trotsky democracy would have been more dictatorship than true democracy. Permanent revolution would have invariably failed, leaving trotsky in a position ripe to be overthrown.

It is a DotP, which is more like a council of dictators, rather then a single one. This means that those that don't agree with the permanent revolution would be able to voice that, and try to convince others that other matters are more important, thus slow down or fully prevent the permanent revolution. In all likely they would not prevent the permanent revolution, but that they would move in baby steps, and not until the last one was complete. Meaning that once the USSR became stabilized, they would begin promoting other nations to begin their revolutions (or they would try to time it, since revolutions take time to build support) and assist other nations achieve stability after the revolution was done. But only work a few nations at a time.

Stalin was a little different, namely that if you voiced against him, you would be killed. So that there was no control on his ideas.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 9:18:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 5:41:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If it wasn't for the United State's progressivism, continued revolution would have been no problem.

Are you even aware of US foreign policy in the 20's and 30's?

As imperialistic as it has ever been but that is irrelevant seeing as I was not referring to foreign policy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 9:34:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 9:18:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:41:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If it wasn't for the United State's progressivism, continued revolution would have been no problem.

Are you even aware of US foreign policy in the 20's and 30's?

As imperialistic as it has ever been but that is irrelevant seeing as I was not referring to foreign policy.

President Harding - Imperialistic

Okayyyyyyyyyy. The 14 points movement and succeeding presidents were the least imperialist decades of the 20th Century USA. All Presidents after Wilson up until Roosevelt were isolationists.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 9:34:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 9:26:48 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Socialism - Progressivism

What?

What is your question?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 9:37:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 9:34:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:26:48 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Socialism - Progressivism

What?

What is your question?
Unrelated ideologies.

Define progessive.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 9:45:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 9:42:30 PM, Tidin wrote:
The assertion that we should thank FDR that we are not all socialists is comical to say the least.
Social Security Act (1933)?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 9:52:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 9:34:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:18:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:41:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If it wasn't for the United State's progressivism, continued revolution would have been no problem.

Are you even aware of US foreign policy in the 20's and 30's?

As imperialistic as it has ever been but that is irrelevant seeing as I was not referring to foreign policy.

President Harding - Imperialistic

Okayyyyyyyyyy. The 14 points movement and succeeding presidents were the least imperialist decades of the 20th Century USA. All Presidents after Wilson up until Roosevelt were isolationists.

America has never been Isolationist.

1920 – China. March 14. A landing force was sent ashore during a disturbance at Kiukiang.
1920 – Guatemala. April 9 to 27. US forces protected the American Legation and other American interests, such as the cable station, during a period of fighting between Unionists and the Government of Guatemala.
1921 – Panama and Costa Rica. American naval squadrons demonstrated in April on both sides of the Isthmus to prevent war between the two countries over a boundary dispute.
1922 – Turkey. September and October. A landing force was sent ashore when the Turkish nationalists entered İzmir.
1922-23 – China. April 1922 to November 1923. Marines were landed five times during periods of unrest.
1924 – Honduras. February 28 to March 31, September 10 to 15. U.S. forces protected American interests during election hostilities.
1924 – China. - September. Marines were landed in Shanghai during Chinese factional hostilities.
1925 – China. January 15 to August 29. Fighting of Chinese factions accompanied by riots and demonstrations in Shanghai brought the landing of American forces to protect property in the International Settlement.
1925 – Honduras. April 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected foreigners at La Ceiba during a political upheaval.
1925 – Panama. October 12 to 23. Strikes and rent riots led to the landing of about 600 American troops to keep order and protect American interests.
1926-33 – Nicaragua. May 7 to June 5, 1926, and August 27, 1926, to January 3, 1933. The coup d'état of General Chamorro aroused revolutionary activities leading to the landing of American marines to protect the interests of the United States.
1926 – China. August and September. The Nationalist attack on Hankow brought the landing of American naval forces. A small guard was maintained at the consulate general even after September 16, when the rest of the forces were withdrawn. Likewise, when Nationalist forces captured Kiukiang, naval forces were landed for the protection of foreigners November 4 to 6.
1927 – China. February. Fighting at Shanghai caused American naval forces and marines to be increased. In March a naval guard was stationed at American consulate at Nanking after Nationalist forces captured the city. American and British destroyers later used shell fire. Subsequently additional forces of marines and naval forces were stationed in the vicinity of Shanghai and Tientsin.
1932 – China. American forces were landed to protect American interests during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai.
1933 – Cuba. During a revolution against President Gerardo Machado naval forces demonstrated, though did not yet land.
1934 – China. Marines landed at Foochow to protect the American Consulate.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 10:01:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 9:37:04 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:34:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:26:48 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Socialism - Progressivism

What?

What is your question?
Unrelated ideologies.

Define progessive.

Progressivism is "reformed" Capitalism. It aims at creating a middle-class to cushion the tension between rich and poor--to appease the masses and "stabilize the system".

Few realize just how close America came to revolution in the 30s and prior. The election of FDR changed everything. The masses who were organizing themselves, often shutting down whole cities like San Fransisco and Seattle, no longer felt the need to do so, the government could take care of everything for them. If by take care you mean make it just bearable enough.
Once Truman became president and started what would become a huge wave of anti-communist propaganda, the movement was done for.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 10:04:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 9:52:58 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:34:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:18:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 5:41:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
If it wasn't for the United State's progressivism, continued revolution would have been no problem.

Are you even aware of US foreign policy in the 20's and 30's?

As imperialistic as it has ever been but that is irrelevant seeing as I was not referring to foreign policy.

President Harding - Imperialistic

Okayyyyyyyyyy. The 14 points movement and succeeding presidents were the least imperialist decades of the 20th Century USA. All Presidents after Wilson up until Roosevelt were isolationists.

America has never been Isolationist.

1920 – China. March 14. A landing force was sent ashore during a disturbance at Kiukiang.
1920 – Guatemala. April 9 to 27. US forces protected the American Legation and other American interests, such as the cable station, during a period of fighting between Unionists and the Government of Guatemala.
1921 – Panama and Costa Rica. American naval squadrons demonstrated in April on both sides of the Isthmus to prevent war between the two countries over a boundary dispute.
1922 – Turkey. September and October. A landing force was sent ashore when the Turkish nationalists entered İzmir.
1922-23 – China. April 1922 to November 1923. Marines were landed five times during periods of unrest.
1924 – Honduras. February 28 to March 31, September 10 to 15. U.S. forces protected American interests during election hostilities.
1924 – China. - September. Marines were landed in Shanghai during Chinese factional hostilities.
1925 – China. January 15 to August 29. Fighting of Chinese factions accompanied by riots and demonstrations in Shanghai brought the landing of American forces to protect property in the International Settlement.
1925 – Honduras. April 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected foreigners at La Ceiba during a political upheaval.
1925 – Panama. October 12 to 23. Strikes and rent riots led to the landing of about 600 American troops to keep order and protect American interests.
1926-33 – Nicaragua. May 7 to June 5, 1926, and August 27, 1926, to January 3, 1933. The coup d'état of General Chamorro aroused revolutionary activities leading to the landing of American marines to protect the interests of the United States.
1926 – China. August and September. The Nationalist attack on Hankow brought the landing of American naval forces. A small guard was maintained at the consulate general even after September 16, when the rest of the forces were withdrawn. Likewise, when Nationalist forces captured Kiukiang, naval forces were landed for the protection of foreigners November 4 to 6.
1927 – China. February. Fighting at Shanghai caused American naval forces and marines to be increased. In March a naval guard was stationed at American consulate at Nanking after Nationalist forces captured the city. American and British destroyers later used shell fire. Subsequently additional forces of marines and naval forces were stationed in the vicinity of Shanghai and Tientsin.
1932 – China. American forces were landed to protect American interests during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai.
1933 – Cuba. During a revolution against President Gerardo Machado naval forces demonstrated, though did not yet land.
1934 – China. Marines landed at Foochow to protect the American Consulate.

i) Isolationist does not mean not not intefering elsewhere, it means not fighting other peoples wars and protecting only US interests.
ii) NONE of the above are actions of war the involve the USA openly fighting. I don't quite understand 1927 China, however. The USA was not engaged in ANY of these conflicts.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 10:07:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The actions and how the individual policies were handled were only contributions in the downfall of the soviet union. The underlying ideology that people will work harder for no added incentive is clearly flawed. The corruption and the need for competition with the US only added more pressure to an already failing system.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 10:21:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 10:01:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:37:04 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:34:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:26:48 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Socialism - Progressivism

What?

What is your question?
Unrelated ideologies.

Define progessive.

Progressivism is "reformed" Capitalism. It aims at creating a middle-class to cushion the tension between rich and poor--to appease the masses and "stabilize the system".

Few realize just how close America came to revolution in the 30s and prior. The election of FDR changed everything. The masses who were organizing themselves, often shutting down whole cities like San Fransisco and Seattle, no longer felt the need to do so, the government could take care of everything for them. If by take care you mean make it just bearable enough.
Once Truman became president and started what would become a huge wave of anti-communist propaganda, the movement was done for.

That is understandible. FDR was close enough to a middle ground (not saying he was a centrist or moderate) between the current system and the extremes of communism, that much of the support for a communist revolution quieted down, accepting him.

I think it would be difficult to argue that any 1 thing is the most important though. But I would strongly believe that had a more conservative individual been pushing us through the great depression, we may have had some revolutions prior to WW2, which I'm sure Germany would have been happy to see.

I'd picture that many of the larger revolutions would be occurring on the west coast. Whether they were successful or not is hard to say. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 10:23:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/26/2010 10:01:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:37:04 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:34:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/26/2010 9:26:48 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Socialism - Progressivism

What?

What is your question?
Unrelated ideologies.

Define progessive.

Progressivism is "reformed" Capitalism. It aims at creating a middle-class to cushion the tension between rich and poor--to appease the masses and "stabilize the system".
WOW. Okay, for your sake I'll use only US definitions. Progressive outside the social sciences simply means: with the new. It's worth adding that for the past 100 the USA writ large has slowly become more and more socialist. In the context of fiscal politics progressivism is more or less liberalism – a centre left economy. Why? The Progressive party of the USA and Progressive democrats worked to create work rights and regulations that inhibit the free monopolies of pre-1920 USA. The progressive parties from 1924 and 1948 had always been worker(aka weak socialist) fronts. It's worth looking at the history of progressive tax, social security and welfare before you open your mouth about progressivism because they were all early 20th Century Progressive ideas. My accurate history of US fiscal policy is hazy at best but I tell you that from Freetown to Stockholm "Progressive" is synonymous with socialist and "conservative" to libertarian.

Few realize just how close America came to revolution in the 30s and prior. The election of FDR changed everything. The masses who were organizing themselves, often shutting down whole cities like San Fransisco and Seattle, no longer felt the need to do so, the government could take care of everything for them. If by take care you mean make it just bearable enough.
Roosevelt is the most Socialist president of the 20th Century. He created welfare and social security for god's sake.
Once Truman became president and started what would become a huge wave of anti-communist propaganda, the movement was done for.
Communism =/= socialism
Communism is a statist marxist system. It's worth adding that the communism that you're refering to is nothing but Stalinism and Leninism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2010 10:26:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You understand that Capitalism, id est, a free market system caused the Great depression ergo revolutionism in the 1933.

Welfare, and bang! People are content, what did you think won him the second term?
'sup DDO -- july 2013