• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abraham Lincoln was a Democratic socialist

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Slavery aside, according to Henry Ford,
So this was Ford’s theory: Companies had an interest in ensuring that their employees could afford the products they produced. Put another way, employers had a role to play in boosting consumption. While paying higher wages than you absolutely needed to might lower profits temporarily, it would lead to a more sustainable business and economy over time. If the motorcar was going to be a mass-produced product for typical Americans, not a plaything for the rich, Ford would strive to pay his workers enough so they could afford the products they worked on all day.
Henry Ford Understood That Raising Wages Would Bring Him More Profit
It doesn't make sense that Ford was giving employees more money so that
they could buy his cars. Certainly, if they did then Ford would recoup some
of the wages, but those wages exceeded the profit per car. So it must've
made sense for other reasons.
From the link....
Of course, Ford was motivated more by self-interest than by altruism. Turnover was huge in the growing auto industry, as workers hopped from factory to factory in search of better wages. The nation was in the midst of a rising wave of labor activism that frequently turned to violence. International networks of communists, socialists, and various other types of radical syndicalists were organized and active in America’s largest cities—and occasionally tossed bombs at business owners. Raising wages proactively was clearly a way to buy some short-term labor peace.

But Ford was playing a deeper, longer game. The Ford Motor Company was in the business of building an expensive durable good. The first cars he had built in number, the 1903 Model N, cost about $3,000, and so were accessible only to that era’s one percent. Henry Ford recognized that the automobile would be more successful as a volume business than as a niche product. “I would build a motorcar for the great multitudes,” he proclaimed. Through relentless innovation, vertical integration, and the obsessive development of an assembly line, Ford had already managed to bring the cost of the Model T, the first democratic car, down to about $500. And the company was moving about 250,000 cars a year.
The auto environment back then was extremely competitive, with dozens of
car companies in Detroit alone. Workers were hard to retain, & some even
took Ford technology to start their own companies. This is why his Model T
development laboratory was a high security secret in the Piquette Ave facility.
(It was recreated a year ago, & is now open to the public. I supplied
the machine tools for it. And yes....I'm pleased as punch about that.)
Other factors....
- The assembly line work environment was also increasingly brutal
because of the repetitive tasks. I speculate that he used higher
pay as motivation to stay & endure that.
- Employee overhead (eg, payroll taxes, benefits) was less then.
Doubling the pay was less costly than would be doubling pay today.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's absolutely amazing how that humongous lie got quite a fair number of gullible people who actually believe in that fallacious claptrap.
Democrats perhaps feel shame that they were the pro-slavery party back
in the day. So saying that Republicans are now pro-slavery looks like
attempted deflection. But no one outside the tribe buys that poppycock.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
What I would like to see is an open and honest acknowledgment from the Democrats
that THEY were the ones who supported
1 - slavery
2 - segregation
3 - KKK

NOT "America"
NOT "white supremacists"
NOT "society"
NOT "Judaeo Christianity"

but D.E.M.O.C.R.A.T.S.
Nice conspiracy theory. Democrats weren't progressives back then. Conservatives were democrats.

The confederacy and the south were conservative democrats. Republicans were progressives.
You fell for the propaganda. No surprise.

You're gonna tell me the south in the 1800's were progressives? lmao
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
A joke thread caused me to remember something I had read a while ago. The Republican Party has socialist roots reaching back to Abraham Lincoln. Of course I know that a number of people will immediately jump in to claim that "no no, it cannot be so". But the quotes I found could have been made by AOC today. So I'll enjoy what I found.

main-qimg-7e35931c76dd34b49b768d1a7b4b554d



Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.”

Lincoln believed in protecting the American worker from capitalistic exploitation and ensuring that wealth was distributed evenly throughout the country. Lincoln was one of the first Democratic Socialists in American history. https://www.quora.com/Was-Abraham-Lincoln-a-socialist

These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people, and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1.

Lincoln was referring to Big Government who steals money,as taxes, without the Government earning any of this money. One is guilted and bullied by the Big Government to pay an extortion fee that they will waste.

In the free market, you get paid for your efforts with a wage. While business gets paid for their ideas and overhead. Both work together to earn money for all.

If you look at Congress, they are not helping the country but they are helping their own party using money and resources that they did not earn. The Democrats did not use their own money for the Mueller investigation even though this was partisan from the get go. These are the rip offs.

If you buy a gallon of gasoline, the oil company has to explore to find the gas. They have to pump the oil from the ground, ship it to a refinery, distill it, ship it to wholesale ports, who then ship it gas stations, who store it and sell it. In all these steps labor is needed and earns a good wage. The Government adds a tax but does not add any value to this stream. All the does is rip off the consumer. Lincoln was anti-socialist since he did not believe you should place the rip offs in charge.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Everybody knows the problem with the Old South obviously, 100% unemployment. KFC , ya look, I've been wanting this.. "job"... I just can't seem to find it. I got people looking for "job".
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Lincoln was referring to Big Government who steals money,as taxes, without the Government earning any of this money. One is guilted and bullied by the Big Government to pay an extortion fee that they will waste.
Can you back that claim up?
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A joke thread caused me to remember something I had read a while ago. The Republican Party has socialist roots reaching back to Abraham Lincoln. Of course I know that a number of people will immediately jump in to claim that "no no, it cannot be so". But the quotes I found could have been made by AOC today. So I'll enjoy what I found.

main-qimg-7e35931c76dd34b49b768d1a7b4b554d



Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.”

Lincoln believed in protecting the American worker from capitalistic exploitation and ensuring that wealth was distributed evenly throughout the country. Lincoln was one of the first Democratic Socialists in American history. https://www.quora.com/Was-Abraham-Lincoln-a-socialist

These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people, and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1.

Abraham Lincoln was not a socialist. He was simply stating the conventional wisdom of his time which in economics was the "labour theory of value". The value of a commodity was ascribed to labour until the late 19th century when economists changed it so value was derived from consumer desire and demand because it made for better mathamatical formulas in economics and downplayed the view of labour leaders that workers had a moral right to own what they produced. Since then, economics has simply carried on with the demand/consumer centred view. Marxists continue to use the labour theory of value but Marx got it from Adam Smith and David Ricardo as the founders of "classical" capitalist political economy.

Relativistically speaking, The definition of socialism (as used primarily in the U.S.) has changed to the extent that anyone who believes in the necessity of the existence of a state even to protect public order is now a "socialist". Private police and prisons where once considered psychotic but now are almost accepted in American political discourse based on the view that "the market is always right/efficient" and "the state is always wrong/inefficient".

Richard Nixon used price and wage controls and said "we're all Keynesians now!": Milton Friedman supported deficit spending during a recession: Ronald Reagan spent a huge amount on defence: and George W. Bush bailed out the banks. They were not socialists, but the "American" definition of socialism serves the interests of the American ruling class to define them as such so they can make more money privatising government assets.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
What I would like to see is an open and honest acknowledgment from the Democrats
that THEY were the ones who supported
1 - slavery
2 - segregation
3 - KKK

NOT "America"
NOT "white supremacists"
NOT "society"
NOT "Judaeo Christianity"

but D.E.M.O.C.R.A.T.S.

LOL! But. They were White Supremacists back then. And they were Genuine Christians™ too-- that's how the justified all their ugly ways.

Just as the GOP is and does today.

The common theme between the old Dems then, and the GOP/Teaparty today?

White supremacists
Christianity
America First
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Slavery aside, according to Henry Ford,
So this was Ford’s theory: Companies had an interest in ensuring that their employees could afford the products they produced. Put another way, employers had a role to play in boosting consumption. While paying higher wages than you absolutely needed to might lower profits temporarily, it would lead to a more sustainable business and economy over time. If the motorcar was going to be a mass-produced product for typical Americans, not a plaything for the rich, Ford would strive to pay his workers enough so they could afford the products they worked on all day.
Henry Ford Understood That Raising Wages Would Bring Him More Profit

Except that Ford was being a wee bit disingenuous---- he still paid as little wage as he could get away with, and would have gleefully paid less, if he could.

The Capitalist Dream: Pay workers zero wages, but also not have the housing and food responsibility of actual slaves.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Democrats perhaps feel shame that they were the pro-slavery party back
in the day. So saying that Republicans are now pro-slavery looks like
attempted deflection. But no one outside the tribe buys that poppycock.

It's a logical extension of the GOP mantra: Repeal the minimum wage, so that wages can be as low as they can get away with-- zero dollars being the Ultimate Goal.

But that's actually worse, in some ways, to slavery: Paying a wage slave near-zero money, but not having any responsibility for housing and food? The Wet Dream of the GOP's real power: the top 1%
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's a logical extension of the GOP mantra: Repeal the minimum wage, so that wages can be as low as they can get away with-- zero dollars being the Ultimate Goal.
Having no minimum wage law only means that wages float according to supply & demand.
Zero dollars being impossible (other than for internships), that wouldn't be a goal.

Could I claim that Democrats want the minimum wage to be infinite?
That would make just as much sense.
But that's actually worse, in some ways, to slavery: Paying a wage slave near-zero money, but not having any responsibility for housing and food? The Wet Dream of the GOP's real power: the top 1%
Working for a wage under capitalism is worse than slavery, eh.
Oh, dear.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Why is Christianity racism? It always was a lie though. Why is segregation and marriage controls tossed out in the exact timeframe as southern voter rights and suffrage? Europe happened to be a privileged group and had Christianity. Its tough to say if Spain's Empire was more Nationalist or Christian, the Pope did commission the Crusade for the Americas. The British Empire is almost totally secular and totally chose no conversion policy anywhere it went. The Dutch Empire probably. The Germans, not a big topic , or the Italians. The French Empire pushed Catholicism into Vietnam for some reason. After the Civil War we went about proving to ourselves Africa could be Christian and that's true for some parts of Africa now.

Segregation and Marriage laws are going to be as old as the Orthodoxy's Autocephaly. The military arm of religion as old as Germanic Protestant Leagues, or the Catholic Crusades.

Abraham Lincoln on the thread, is probably against Rockefeller, if we look at these quotes, right? Then he's against this Religious man who grew up in a harsh life and in Religion, and tithed, his whole business persona was tithing, and gave everyone on the street dimes like he gave the Churches his 10% religiously. The Standard Oil donative spirit is alive today and around the world.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Except that Ford was being a wee bit disingenuous---- he still paid as little wage as he could get away with, and would have gleefully paid less, if he could.

I don't know, according to others of the time he payed more than others. I'm not suggesting he intended to be generous to the workers, but that it was good for business. True someone working for Boeing certainly can't buy a plane, but at least ought to be able to buy a ticket to fly on one. It is very possible for a company to pay just wages and remain profitable. I worked for one company so threatened by the possibility of employees organizing and forming a union that their benefit package exceeded anything the union would offer. It can be done, just takes the will to do it and less greed.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
It's absolutely amazing how that humongous lie got quite a fair number of gullible people who actually believe in that fallacious claptrap.

Granted, I explained it in a simplistic way, but connecting the parties of the civil war to the parties of today simply by name doesn't quite work. The Southern Democrats were all about small: small business and small government (and slavery), while the Republicans were all for big business and government. What appears to switch is the relationship between business and government.

When you consider human rights, the slavery issue takes full stage: the Democrats wanted government to stay out of that arena. Not so today.

So why even align the parties historically in this sense? Times change. Labels change.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Granted, I explained it in a simplistic way, but connecting the parties of the civil war to the parties of today simply by name doesn't quite work. The Southern Democrats were all about small: small business and small government (and slavery), while the Republicans were all for big business and government. What appears to switch is the relationship between business and government.

When you consider human rights, the slavery issue takes full stage: the Democrats wanted government to stay out of that arena. Not so today.

So why even align the parties historically in this sense? Times change. Labels change.
Man we can't switch two versions of not having a Kingdom. They're two related philosophies. We're the first Country on Earth I'm aware of with what we know today as the Political Party. Ancient Rome had patricians from each district who 'stood on your shoulders' to form the senate and the Roman Republic. Athenian Democracy held every citizen to account to vote in lots, and fill offices, like to go to war and similar votes. As well as other sources on Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were always big government. Its virtually the only common idea. And Democracy obviously, the Confederacy was at heart a Democratic movement of everyone's opinion. The 34 million population of America with what, 5 million southerners plus 4 million slaves, with a theoretical 17 million bipartisan caucus per political party, see that Vital issue of the Confederates didn't have a chance in the Half of the Democratic party being a third of that half.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Not really the point here. The point is that hard working people should be able to afford an education, good healthcare, a solid infrastructure, and a healthy environment. Today's GOP disagrees.

Nah the GoP wants these things too. They are just not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water to achieve them.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Having no minimum wage law only means that wages float according to supply & demand..

Except: 100% of the time, that never actually happens-- wages are forced low because the ones controlling the situation, need even more money than the billions they already have, and they steal it from the only people they can: Wage workers.

Zero dollars being impossible (other than for internships), that wouldn't be a goal..

No-- the goal is for the top of the heap to get 100% of the income, and everyone else get 0%.

The Wet Dream of Capitalism.
Could I claim that Democrats want the minimum wage to be infinite?
That would make just as much sense..

You could. But it would be false.
Working for a wage under capitalism is worse than slavery, eh.
Oh, dear.

Way to project what I did not say. But under non-limited capitalism? Yeah-- in some ways, it's worse: At least a slave was fed from time to time... usually.

"But they could just walk away".... right. That takes money they don't have...
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Nah the GoP wants these things too. They are just not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water to achieve them.

I'm not impressed with the GOP's definition of what's baby and what's bathwater ;)
 
Top