Did the party switch actually happen?
Were we Wrong About the Ideologies of US Political Parties in the Past?
From 1854 to 1896…
>Were the Republicans actually to the Left of the Democrats of the same period outside of racial issues?
>Was the Republican's protectionist stance more reactionary than the Democrat's Free Trade position?
>The Republicans contracted private companies to build railroads. Was this more Right-Wing than the position of the Democrats at the time, which was Laissez-Faire Capitalism? Keep in mind neither party supported regulations on businesses.
>Marx supported Republicans over Democrats in this time period. Would that have changed if he lived to the end of the guilded age?
>Was the Liberal Republican party to the Left of the Republican party, despite its Right-Wing position on Reconstruction?
>Who was the lesser evil in the Presidential elections from 1856 to 1892?
From 1896 to 1932…
>Was William Jennings Bryan ACTUALLY to the Left of William McKinley?
>Was the policy of Free Silver actually more Left-Wing than the Gold Standard? Note that Marx supported fiat currency and Engels mocked the Free Silver movement in the US.
>Did the GOP still represent a historically progressive industrial force by this point? Did the Democrats still represent a regressive, agricultural-focused and anti-Industrial force?
>Was Woodrow Wilson actually to the Left of Teddy Roosevelt?
>If tariffs were previously historically progressive in the US, was that still the case in the 1900's?
From 1932 to 1964…
>Does it matter that some of FDR's opponents in the Presidential Elections were more vocally pro-Civil Rights than he was?
>Was the Democrats' internationalism more damaging than the Republicans' isolationism?
>If so, does that make the Republicans the more Left-Wing party in this time period because of the importance of foreign policy?
>Would Adlai Stevenson had ended the Korean War like Eisenhower did, or would he have kept fighting?
From 1964 to 2000…
>Were the Democrats actually more Zionist than the Republicans at the time? Does it matter?
>Were the GOP's Pro-Free Trade positions actually better than the Democrats Protectionist policies?
>Was George McGovern the most Left-Wing major party Presidential candidate in US history?
And before 1858…
>Were the Federalists to the Right of the Democratic-Republicans?
>Were the Democrats to the Right of the National Republicans?
>Were the Democrats to the Right of the Whigs?
Before you ask…
>Some of these questions are based on false pretenses
Arguably, yes. The point is that you discuss that if it is how you feel.
>Do you actually not know the answer?
Some of them, yes, others, no. This thread isn't about my position, it's about the questions.
Dialectical synthesis: The parties both switched and didn't switch, depending on your standpoint. They did switch from a bourgeois standpoint, the liberal party became conservative, and the conservative party became liberal. They did not switch from a proletarian standpoint. Both parties remain bourgeois, wedded to capitalism and imperialism, regardless of their stances on the particulars of bourgeois society.
>Were the Republicans actually to the Left of the Democrats of the same period outside of racial issues?
yes, they supported greater federalization, and had a base precisely with the industrial workers
>Was the Republican's protectionist stance more reactionary than the Democrat's Free Trade position?
yes, but the outcome wasn't really going to be different since the USA already had a strong economic advantage
>The Republicans contracted private companies to build railroads. Was this more Right-Wing than the position of the Democrats at the time, which was Laissez-Faire Capitalism? Keep in mind neither party supported regulations on businesses.
no, this integrated private capital more into the state
>Was William Jennings Bryan ACTUALLY to the Left of William McKinley?
yes, greatly
>Did the GOP still represent a historically progressive industrial force by this point? Did the Democrats still represent a regressive, agricultural-focused and anti-Industrial force?
given woodrow wilson was elected not that long after, yeah i'd say so
>Was the policy of Free Silver actually more Left-Wing than the Gold Standard? Note that Marx supported fiat currency and Engels mocked the Free Silver movement in the US.
it was closer to fiat currency than the alternative, was a progressive reform overall
>Was Woodrow Wilson actually to the Left of Teddy Roosevelt?
was adolf hitler to the left of alfred hugenberg?
>If tariffs were previously historically progressive in the US, was that still the case in the 1900's?
the USA could have abolished tarrifs by this point and committed entirely to free trade, in every sense it would have been progressive
>Does it matter that some of FDR's opponents in the Presidential Elections were more vocally pro-Civil Rights than he was?
it wouldn't have mattered anyway
>Was the Democrats' internationalism more damaging than the Republicans' isolationism?
no, had the republicans isolationism kicked in, you'd largely have less overall economic development, and less strong contradictions in worldwide capitalism
>If so, does that make the Republicans the more Left-Wing party in this time period because of the importance of foreign policy?
no
>Would Adlai Stevenson had ended the Korean War like Eisenhower did, or would he have kept fighting?
by that point it was gonna be effectively the same, no one wanted to fight that war by 1953, even if you were a diehard anti-communist
>Were the Democrats actually more Zionist than the Republicans at the time? Does it matter?
it depended on the time, but again it'd pretty much lead to the same circumstance as today
>Were the GOP's Pro-Free Trade positions actually better than the Democrats Protectionist policies?
yes
>Was George McGovern the most Left-Wing major party Presidential candidate in US history?
close to it yeah
This belongs in the USA general
>>2820954I think that it's too substantial of a question to be in the general
>>2820952I actually remember for a time that Wikipedia's page on the Stalwart faction of the GOP claimed that they were more Right-Wing than the Democrats because they wanted to "Impose Capitalism on the South". That always makes me laugh.
>>2820954Generalfags deserve the rope
Protectonism is not a reactionary position. Protectonism historically has developed nations. Even modern china uses protectonism
Engles and marx were wrong about this
>>2820920Yes the Party switch happened, I don’t like the Democratic Party but it did change from Conservatism to Social-Democracy then to Centrism. Thats why the Republicans use the Color red and Democrats Blue
>>2821119>it did change from Conservatism to Social-Democracy then to CentrismWhen was the Democratic party ever to the Left of where it is now? Face it: It's always sucked.
>Thats why the Republicans use the Color red and Democrats BlueI'm sorry, but this is false. This color scheme only became an entrenched concept in like, 2000.
>>2821114Marx acknowledged that protectionism developed nations at the expense of the outside world, he just didn't care.
>>2821151>When was the Democratic party ever to the Left of where it is now? Face it: It's always sucked.the 60s to mid 80s but beyond that not really
>>2821114protectionism is reactionary only if the economy is already developed so it halts the spread of capital
>>2821029>I actually remember for a time that Wikipedia's page on the Stalwart faction of the GOP claimed that they were more Right-Wing than the Democrats because they wanted to "Impose Capitalism on the South". That always makes me laugh.i find that somewhat ridiculous, but bless the republicans anyway for doign it