Yesterday, I ran across someone who knew I would discuss almost anything and everything. He caught me by surprise, telling me that Mandani was wrong about everything and that socialism never works. It caught me by surprise, but I bit on the topic and said, If socialism never works, why is Europe doing fine? There are a few socialist programs that work.
I reminded them that the country of their birth, Saudi Arabia, is very socialist. They claimed it wasn’t. I don’t know enough about Saudi Arabia to understand its government, but I did recall that they gave out money to their people. They claimed that they didn’t, well, they do, except they call it following Islam, which is to help the poor.
Saudi Arabia derives most of its wealth from the oil sector. Vision 2030 is a plan to reduce the country’s reliance on oil by diversifying industries, expanding the private sector and scaling down the public sector. A cornerstone of this initiative is the partial privatization of Aramco, the state-owned oil giant. However, the plan also includes privatizing public services, such as hospitals and schools. A significant challenge for Saudi citizens under Vision 2030 is the proposed reduction in state employment.
Currently, two-thirds of Saudis work in government jobs, but the plan aims to lower this to 20% of the population. Welfare spending, which includes free education and health care, has also seen cuts. The government funds much of its welfare spending through Zakat, an Islamic principle requiring individuals to donate 2.5% of their wealth to charity. The government collects and distributes these funds. Under Vision 2030, the government is reducing subsidies for essential services like fuel, electricity and water. These cuts disproportionately affect poorer citizens, creating further challenges for those already struggling financially.
The empire that lasted the longest, the Roman Empire, was smart enough to know that you must feed and entertain the mob.
Rome
Bread and circuses
The Emperor Augustus was well aware of this risk and was keen to keep the poorest plebeians happy enough and reasonably well fed so that they would not riot. He began the system of state bribery that the writer Juvenal described as ‘bread and circuses’.
Free grain and controlled food prices meant that plebeians could not starve, while free entertainment – such as chariot races and gladiators in amphitheaters and the Circus Maximus – meant that they would not get bored and restless. Bribery it may have been, but it often worked.
Call it socialism, welfare, bribes, religious edicts, whatever you want, but if a country or empire is to survive, it can’t allow the majority of its residents to starve, or they will find that starving people have nothing to lose by rebelling against the government.
I recalled reading that if it had not been for Franklin Roosevelt’s socialist program, our country might have become communist.
AI Overview
It is a widely held view among some historians and political commentators that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies helped preserve the capitalist system in the United States by addressing the severe conditions that might have otherwise led to a radical socialist or communist revolution.
The Argument for “Saving Capitalism”
The core idea is that the economic distress of the Great Depression created widespread anger and resentment, which are conditions that often breed revolutionary movements. With many people losing faith in the existing free-market system, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and other socialist and progressive movements gained momentum.
FDR’s New Deal was a series of programs and reforms that introduced significant government intervention into the economy, inspired by Keynesian economics. Key measures included:
- Relief programs for the unemployed and poor, directly funding millions of jobs.
- Financial system reforms to prevent a repeat of the depression.
- The establishment of Social Security, a fundamental social safety net.
By implementing these social democratic policies, Roosevelt’s administration demonstrated that the government could effectively address the nation’s problems and set things right within the existing democratic and capitalist institutions, thereby reducing the appeal of radical alternatives. As FDR himself stated, the way to meet the danger of radicalism was to offer a workable program of reconstruction.
FDR’s Stance and Criticism
- FDR was a capitalist: Roosevelt was fundamentally a capitalist who came from a wealthy background. He explicitly implemented his measures to “save the capitalist system in America”. He was not a communist sympathizer; in fact, the measures he took were intended to stabilize US capitalism.
- Accusations of socialism/communism: Despite his intent, Roosevelt was heavily criticized by some wealthy businessmen and Republican politicians who called his policies “socialist” or “communist” at the time. Some even plotted a coup against him, which was exposed by General Smedley Butler.
- Socialist perspective: Conversely, socialist leaders like Norman Thomas argued that the New Deal was a “poor imitation” of the Socialist Party’s platform and that Roosevelt was a “state capitalist” whose policies merely sought to regulate Wall Street rather than abolish the capitalist system itself.
In summary, the argument is not that FDR sought to establish communism, but rather that his reforms acted as a bulwark against it by offering an alternative that eased public suffering and restored faith in the ability of a democratic, capitalist government to function