Not to any meaningful effect, clearly, but credit for at least reading the Wikipedia page, albeit not honeslty.
Thought I'd try using what appears to be your main source of info. Turns out it has a lot of stuff that contradicts your weird sense of history.
The difference is that communist spies in America dictated hearings and wrote policy, e.g. Harry Dexter White being assistant to Morgenthau, or the Agriculture Adjustment Act (one of the quintessential New Deal programs) being largely run by the Ware group. Communists were extremely and visibly influential on American policy in the 1930s and 40s.
Which made them easier to weed out, ironically.
Twentieth-century U.S. policy wasn't drastically impacted by the presence of Soviet spies. It was influenced in large part by a conservative "moral majority" (anachronistic use of the term, but still fits) that wanted to resist what it saw as the contaminating force of modern industry, urbanization, and politics.
This isn't something you're going to disprove by collecting random factoids on the internet and drawing constellations between them like stars, all the while ignoring the rest of the sky. Yes, it's true that communism was a political force in early-20thc U.S. politics; and yes, it's true that Soviet spies infiltrated at various levels; and yes, it's true that the New Deal was an unprecedented reach of government intervention in a time of equally unprecedented economic crisis.
None of this qualifies or justifies your absurd characterization of U.S. left-liberalism as "further left than Marxism." This would be satire if its author didn't actually believe it.
Who said anything about diplomatic relations? Nothing here responds directly to what I wrote about the impact of FDR's term nor the significance that imported communism had on it. Reads like an AI-generated response tbh.
I'm responding to your suggestion that FDR seemed to want to import communism to the U.S.--which I took to be your meaning regarding his sympathies to Stalin.
I think you're making very big assumptions in everything you say, and I'm objecting to them. Simple as that.
lmfao, in what world is politically-imposed moral progressivism not political progressivism? One's the body the other's the arm. The rest is pure invention and dishonesty again which you admit by omission in failing to actually quote my post, where I do not mention contemporary progressivism a single time. The point isn't about "progressivism" which is as arbitrary as any political term and a pedantic discussion not worth having. The point I am clearly making is that the early progressive movement has ALWAYS been considered left-wing movement, and that it rests substantially on government/collective intervention in private affairs.
To the extent that eugenics is now a dirty word you are correct, the vocabulary has changed somewhat, otherwise, absolutely wrong. Henry Ford awarding/punishing workers for their private alcohol use is literally no different from today's corporations awarding/punishing workers for their private tobacco use. The Evangelical movement is not intrinsically right-wing either; founding-father of American progressivism William Jennings Bryan was pretty much Evangelical Christianity's political bannerman, which you would know if you knew the slightest bit of what you were talking about. Evangelicals voted Democratic all the way until Ronald Reagan (which I already acknowledged), over reasons of abortion. Globally-speaking, more religious sectors tend to be associated with the economic-left, not the economic-right.
This is such horseshit.
How is the owner of a private company telling his employees what they can or can't do "leftist"? Furthermore, how is that in any way "collectivist"? Your application of leftism is sheer fantasy.
Where did I mention protectionism? You ignore the several well-established examples I gave, including public healthcare and anti-gun legislation, and then throw out protectionism as if I've ever denied the reliance of left-liberalism on neoliberal economic policies.
I'm saying your examples don't amount to what you think they do. You have a misguided idea of what constitutes an argument.
Small business ownership has been in constant decline since FDR, and civil liability has never been higher. The civil rights act of 1964 and subsequent EEOC basically criminalizes business ownership for those with the wrong opinions. Government bailouts overwhelmingly go to banks and "too big to fail" corporations (another Reagan-era accomplishment) while small debtors are told to pound sand. American households are renting more and owning less, particularly among younger generations. The tax burden of the middle class reached a plateau under the left-wing Reagan era. Private ownership has hardly ever been less-rewarded, unless you think Putin-style oligarchy is economic liberalism.
It seems to be that you're associating the decline in American entrepreneurship with a hostile left-wing politics, which I still say is largely unfounded. This
article from the Atlantic gets at the point. The decline in small business start-ups/ownership has less to do with economically hostile policies than it does with the general trajectory of U.S. economy toward large-scale establishments (e.g. chains). These tend to out-perform smaller businesses, but not because of politics; in fact, it has to do with that most lauded of capitalist tenets, competition.
As job growth tends toward larger businesses with more staying power, the economy calms down; and this means less room for new businesses to grow, because they have to compete with more situated and familiar entities.
You seem to have some outsized dystopian vision of U.S. politics working against small business. This is very much not the case in a widespread, general sense.
As I said, Marxism is to the right of left-liberalism.
As I said, horseshit.
Weird because you have hardly cited anything beyond the meme end of history guy.
Dude, you're leaving it to me to fact-check you. Look up stuff I mention if you care to.
If you were familiar with the Tulsa race riot longer than one hour ago you would know that it has become highly overblown in recent years. Just use the Wikipedia history function, go back several years, and you'll see that that no one even called it a 'race massacre' until fairly recently.
Why do you think that is? You act like this is evidence that it's been "highly overblown." Why isn't it the case that, when it occurred, it was significantly ignored, dismissed, and erased from history? Do you remember learning about it in secondary school? I sure don't.
The Tulsa massacre was under-reported and dismissed after it happened. The increasing attention over the past decade isn't the result of it being overblown, but of historians' work on the subject finally being given the time of day. Academics have studied the history surrounding the event for a while now; the U.S. just didn't care or want to hear about it.
