Thread by @PghGreenLeft

Saw in a documentary that in early 1900s there was a grassroots movement for the Townsend Plan which would have guaranteed everyone the equivalent of $4000 per month today in retirement (after age 60). FDR seems to have co-opted that idea as social security which gave much less.

Interestingly, the plan came from a person Dr Robert Townsend just publishing brief notes on his idea as a letter to the editor in a local newspaper, but so many people were looking for a way to deal with poverty that it quickly caught on. ssa.gov/history/towns5…

He apparently proposed a 2% sales tax that would be sufficient to ensure everyone got a guaranteed middle class retirement. Townsend groups appeared across the country, holding town meetings, educating locals, and advocating the plan. It became so popular FDR had to react.

I am not necessarily advocating this plan as I don't know the details and haven't studied it. I just thought it was interesting to share as I've never heard of this plan before and like that it was focused on guaranteeing essentially a livable wage in retirement.

Website: "Roosevelt, like most establishment figures of the era, saw the Townsend Plan as irresponsible and unworkable. Indeed, there is some evidence that Roosevelt was prodded to introduce his Social Security proposal to counter the growing influence of the Townsend Plan."

"Townsend and his followers were bitterly disappointed with Social Security because it did not promise immediate payments in 1935, because the benefits Social Security promised were small compared to the $200 per month that Townsend wanted, and ...

... because people had to work under the Social Security program to earn a payment."

I guess Democrats will Democrat. Showing their right-wing roots that only those that "work" deserve retirement, instead of basic needs being a human right to all.

Also this helps expose the lies the establishment have given us. The narrative is that FDR and the Democratic Party were the friends of workers and labor and created all these programs, but the truth is always they created weaker programs to undercut grassroots movements.

The New Deal was essentially a watered down version of the Socialist Party platform. Social Security is a watered down version of Townsend Plan you must pay into. Medicare is a watered down version of national health service only for some elderly, if you qualify.

Now the Green New Deal is being turned away from original Green Party proposal by Democrats, cutting out the parts about banning fracking and urgently transitioning as well as the guarantees for housing as a human right, for example, in the original Green Party plan.

The Democrats are not your friends. They co-opt movements and make them "safe" for capitalism while the Republicans push things harder right. They work together for capitalism, not for the people. This is why we need an independent mass movement for democracy and ecology.

Another takeaway for me is how the Townsend Plan seems to have spread organically by folks holding local town halls to discuss the plan with their neighbors. I don't see much about town halls and assemblies in activist organizing these days, and think it needs to come back.

Whenever I see activists hold events called "town halls" it's usually small events that mostly only invite other activists. I'm talking about community assemblies where all the neighbors in a town or city block are invited, not just random activists from around the region.

Democracy isn't just a nice-to-have, but must be integrated into our struggles. We shouldn't create new oligarchies and "elites", but tear down all the hierarchies. We must be directly democratic today in our movements if we intend to create it society-wide later.

I also like how this grassroots movement started as a letter to the editor. Newspapers today are generally not near as powerful as they were, but a letter to editor might still make waves. However: this means, don't be surprised if the next big movement starts as a Tik Tok rant.

Clarification: earlier I said many activists hold events for other activists. I want to clarify that while I believe this is true I don't think it's typically on purpose. More of an effect of social circles and poor advertising; only folks already "plugged in" hear about it.

My point is more to make a very conscious attempt to reach out to folks that you wouldn't normally, not merely invite everyone already on your mailing list. That list is a self-selection bias, the folks that sign up are mostly likely already politically active.

And active within your class/social circles in particular! We've got to reach out to other grassroots movements, and reach out to folks who have never been engaged. The system alienates and isolates us, organizing is about rebuilding solidarity and community.