New Deal and Communism - Cold War DOCUMENTARY 

For sure it is a topic we will look at, given what an enormous impact and influence it had on the Thatcher years.

And Venezuela during the Cold War

As a fellow RU-vidr, Ive done several videos on Northern Ireland, and my most recent on Operation Armaggedon covers much of the history of the Troubles and its effect on Britain

When you say "it ended after the cold war" what do you mean

@@genege6301 1960s-1998

This was a really interesting set of videos for us; glad you really enjoyed them!

Huey Long was one of those who criticised the New Deal from the left. At the same time, when Long was accused of being a socialist, he said that his policies were what would protect America from socialism - and presumably Roosevelt will have made the same argument at some point. Another reform designed in part to reduce the appeal of communism was Eisenhower's Civil Rights Act. There were some major changes under FDR. Most prominently, he selected nine Supreme Court justices during his four terms, which was enough to see the court overturn past decisions which had led to the Lockner Era. This meant that, for instance, a minimum wage law was now possible, whereas previously it had been considered an unconstitutional violation of employers' and employees' right to freely contract, based loosely on the 14th Amendment via substantive due process.

Most of Roosevelt's friends and advisers were Communists

Seems similar to pushback against Joe Biden.....

social democratic policies

You do know Roosevelt's efforts actually caused another recession right Roosevelt all he did a good job leading Us in wartime did not get us out of the hell hole that was the Great depression

@@spartanx9293 you don't seem to understand how revolutions work. People don't care if we're technically in a recession or not. They care if they can get food, housing, and other necessities, and they care (to a lesser extent) if the government can be seen to be helping. The economic system was failing people, and they didn't have our long history of prosperity to make them trust that the system would eventually get it right. If the government didn't A) get bread into people's hands and B) make it clear to people that they understood the severity of the situation, then good economics be damned, the people would have turned on the system, violently.

@@spartanx9293 This is untrue. The economy grew and recovered very significantly from 1933-37. If you are referring to the dip that was the recession of 1937 most economists argue it was caused by the Treasury insisting that the federal government lower spending and increase taxes, which obviously had the effect of causing an economic contraction. That's very obviously not the New Deal or a Keynesian response, that's very much a balance the budget at all costs Classical School take. You can definitely argue the degree to which the New Deal improved the economy overall but the idea that it caused a recession is economically illiterate.

@@jesseberg3271 yes they do because you will find that there are still going to be telltale signs of being in a recession And if the government isn't actually helping they're exacerbating the problem not solving it

@@DmitriPolkovnik I sincerely doubt that was the only effect in causing that recession considering how much GDP dipped and how high unemployment Rose

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge did a great job of isolating themselves from the rest of the communist world. You know you messed up when Mao says you went too far.

Well it's not like the interests of business don't coincide with those of the people. An environment that is good for business brings jobs while a productive and satisfied people make for good consumers.

@@redcoat4348, they do coincide to regular people and society as a whole but not with the morbidly wealthy capitalsits of this country. Since the 1980s, the right wing and centrist democrats have made sure to roll back as much as they can of the new deal polices and what came under LBJ. The interests of business have decided that they deserve the majority of profit and that we must continue to work for little pay while the owners and upper management take a unfair amount. Compare the time frame of 1930s to 1980 then 1980 to now to see the effect of right wing economic policies. Kansas in 2012 is all I need to point to if you want to see the end goal, look at what that did to the state and you will see why the citizens turned that around as soon as they could. Capitalism will never take us into a world without money, class, bigotry, poverty and war. It will continue those due to the upper class requiring a lower/poor class to be exploited to continue the system. We have to evolve or replace capitalism into a system where we all benefit instead of a tiny minority that takes individualism to the extreme. People in the future will look back on our time with horror and disgust as we do with medieval feudalism and other aspects of that time because we allowed a tiny section of society control the rest by having the majority of society have to work to live or not work and lose everything or live an impoverished life with choices of food or medicine, while the upper class thrived and more. It's honestly unfathomable and will never be known how much this system and previous systems of control have held humankind back from advancing further than we are now, we could have already been traveling the stars if not for systems like capitaslim and feudalism.

@@weightlifting_socialist Capitalism has worked out pretty well for me lmao

@@redcoat4348 good for you. It has destroyed the lives of millions. Which do you think is more important?

@@SuperBraddarb I'd probably say me because the lives ruined by capitalism probably wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the advances done by capitalist nations.

The sad think is that the average American thinks Stalinist ideas is "socialist" and communism is the only type of socialism 😂 It's as insane as saying American democracy is the same as French democracy or UK democracy I'd rather pay a decent amount of tax in Sweden then pay almost nothing in the USA

Oh god, this is nonsense, where to even begin with this one: when the wall street crash happened the United States hadn't at any point entered unemployment in the double digits (to do with percentage). This changed when Hoover enacted a tariff policy to protect American workers (something that many economists had advised against) in which unemployment finally shot up to double digits. All Roosevelt did was continue the policy of government intervention which spectacularly failed in every way. Unemployment would stay in the double digits, the only thing literally saving the American economy being the Second World War, which mass mobilised American society and kick-started the US economy into being the pre-eminent economic and political power of the world. The New Deal assisted with lumbering an already bad depression (or series of recessions, depending on who you ask) into a worse one, no matter how much the government tried creating jobs from government projects (likely inspired by the government projects of Nazi Germany and Stalinist industrialisation). Had the US not been at war, the New Deal would have likely been a failure (as it actually had been). The crazy thing is the US government would have actually helped the situation by doing nothing. Do you know why? Because the same level depression hit the United States post-ww1 in the early 1920's, and the United States government did the shrewed thing of doing......nothing. That's right, absolutely nothing was done and do you know what happened? The economy recovered within a 2 year period (there had been some assistance but this was minimal). There's this myth that somehow the government can fine-tune/tweak it's economy to be optimal (something which was disproven in the late 20th century), which is absolute nonsense. The New Deal was a spectacular failure.

Look at New Discourses He doesn't connect it to the Cold War, per se, but he does track the various big thinkers, such as Herbert Marcuse, from the 1950's onwards. More focused on academia and how Communism evolved from focusing on an economic-based proletariat to one on identity.

@@cmleibenguth Thanks for the suggestion

Neoliberalism coopting Identity from civil rights empowerment movements and neutering them of any real economic threat to the elites. The PMC’s starting the the 70’s adoption of racial and ethnic identity to blunt economic identity and a focused attack on Trade Unions and adoption of austerity polices. This socially Liberal but economically Conservative policies of neoliberalism have divorced economic leftism with racial or cultural identity to replace and stop any real change of the Material conditions while claiming to be good and just and woke as it were.

Perhaps a "What if" future video might be: Would the Soviet Union (and the World) been different if Trotsky (not Stalin) succeeded Lenin.

yet, he still managed to serve more terms than any president of the US

Thank you, very glad to hear you are enjoying the content

We are getting there! We promise :)

Ditto!

Thank you so much!

I still find myself watching old Modern Marvel's episodes to this day

He has a strong liberal/left-wing bias

No it wasn't. Not even remotely.

Ahhh America has always been pretty fash buddy.......a very small group of family bloodlines dictating how the country grew

And? What's your point?

@@anegaute this is you 🤓

Curious, half the UK Governments in this era were Conservative, how was the UK a Socialist State during this time?? Cheers.

@@lucianmorn7273 Because of how the goverment owned over 70% of large business before Thatcher re-privatitzed them. It started with Clement Attlee and other Labor Party PM's that followed his lead.

@@rhedosaurus2251 Ah got ya, see where your coming from, yep a series on this would be interesting, cheers.

Britain was always anti-communist. Attlee was one of the founders of NATO. It also wasn't 'Socialist' as Private property existed and there were privatizations by the Tories of Steel industries.

​@@rhedosaurus2251 Most of them were utility companies,coal and steel companies which had to be taken public due to World War II. Besides most countries have public ownership of utilities.

American establishment paranoia is just lazy people who don't read thinking that blindly disobeying the government is somehow better than blindly trusting the government. Both are rooted in American intellectual dysfunctional laziness- but disobedience makes you appear smarter and edgier since the opposition always has the "smarter" impression of being critical- Even if the opposition is illiterate and full of crap with internet manufactured twitter talking points and reddit philosophy. Or in the 1930's people who read a 200 word column in a newspaper or tabloid.

he and his team don't pretend to be subtle about their own opinions and political affiliation.

" The use of primary sources and clear talk makes my usual lies and mythologies harder to sell." Fixed that for you.

The Fed had very little to do with it. Government was mainly to blame for turning a recession into a depression when Congress enacted the Smoot-Hawley Act which restricted and imposed higher tariffs on imports. Trading partners in turn did the same on US exports. In the aftermath of WW2 to ensure this wouldn't happen again The General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs was enacted(pre-cursor to the World Trade Organization), to ensure nations wouldn't implement unfair barriers to trade. The flow of goods and trade between nations is the hallmark of global capitalism. Without it you have backward feudal societies.

@@currypablo you forget the post World War II heavily tariffed industries such as the automotive industry. This created higher wages for workers in the US. But when Japan and Germany began their post WWII boom this left the US at a disadvantage with larger vehicles with higher gas prices in the 1970s.

@@currypablo Oh God, this is absolutely wrong. The fed failed to produce more money at a time when it was needed the most, leading to deflation (as it was believed deflation would keep wages high, the only problem was there wasn't enough money to pay people). It's ironic that the fed, the institution created to deal with economic downturns, led to one of the worse global depressions ever.

Bad for the farmers

explain.

You're*

Please explain.

Capitalism is the private individuals owning the means of production. With a few exceptions like the Post Office, the American government doesn't own many corporations.

@@badluck5647 Socialist state dosnt own corporations, it controls them with legislation and benefits from their income. Free market state dosnt do that. A 100% capitalist state has an income tax of 0%. As for your definition sounds like it was created by a socialist for mass propaganda. That means working at home makes you a capitalist? Or every military man is socialist cause he dosnt own anything he uses? Means of production is what socialists want to control. Dont you find it funny how my definition is 100% accurate? Capitalism is free market. State capitalism is an oxymoron. Corporation is the body (corpo in Italian) of the state. Fascists lobbied corporations and just marginalized the rest. Many socialists will tell you it was capitalist. But just cause the state wasnt interested what good citizens were doing at the moment dosnt mean those citizens couldnt loose their possessions if the state wanted it. Communism sees the people as the means of production and controls them too. With terror if necessary. 100% socialist.

@@Paciat While high regulation, high taxes, and a large safety net are associated with liberal ideology, it is isn't socialist according to the economic definition. Calling everything liberal as "socialist" is simply poltical strategy used by politicians and poltical commentators to serve their agenda.

@@badluck5647 Liberal Conservative and Socialist Capitalist are 2 different spectrum's. They are mixed together because of how USA parlament works. For example Hitler or Mussolini were a conservative socialists.

@@Paciat You are the one who thinks the free market and capitalism are the same thing. 🙄 Also, the US doesn't have a parliament

Alger Hiss was a minor member of the administration and it's not clear if he was a communist spy. You also have to consider why unions were organizing in the first place which had nothing to do with communists and it would happen regardless of them which was stagnant wages and poor working conditions.