The real truth is that 99.99999% of the people in the world need a history lesson, not just the Democrats. Most Republicans in the US are no exception.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

These kinds of debates recur. I've been in my share. Here is one definition of fascism:

Fascism: a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Personally, I this definition can be reduced to the following:

Fascism: a system of government marked by stringent socioeconomic controls.

Thats makes it simpler and avoids details that may or may not characterize actual fascist regimes. However, I would add a detail of my own to make my definition more descriptive:

Fascism: A system of government marked by stringent socioeconomic controls that are intended to maintain the existence of a usurious financial system at the expense of the population.

If I am allowed to use that definition, I would describe every fascist regime I can think of, including our own.

__________________
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits." FDR-First Inaugural Address

If that's what you think, you voted for FDR, right?

But I don't see where you came up with the "at the expense of the population" part. All modern governments are motivational in the sense that they appeal to the people. Mussolini, the inventor of fascism, was a socialist who ruled for the common good, just like Hitler, and both had the overwhelming support of their people.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

No. That would be ridiculous.

They were both placed into power by forces interested in maintaining the existence of a usurious financial system. This well known in the case of Hitler, who was thought to be the kind of leader who would insure Germany would continue to pay reparations imposed at Versailles follwing WWI. That was obviously a monumental mistake, but the German population payed dearly.

__________________
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits." FDR-First Inaugural Address

Name one of your points (that is valid, as I am about to show) that FDR does not meet.

You are deluded. Both came into power on the wave of a huge wave of popular resentment against the old forms of government. They economic system was radically changed from a laissez-faire one into a corporatist one. One of the planks in the Nazi platform was death to all usurers, they definitely did not support them, and one only has to listen to one speech by Hitler to know that he wished an ill fate on all the usurish Jews. The Germans overwhelmingly supported the destruction of the treaty of Versailles and they supported Hitler in part because of that. Fascism is in no way a conservative movement intent on preserving traditional means of society. It is in no way an elite movement intent on the protection of a small portion of society. The Fascists promoted redistribution of wealth and other policies to attack the useless capitalist class.

Now I'm thinking that you voted for Bush.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

I wouldn't be interested in disputing your list of FDR's accomplishments. I just wouldn't imply those accomplishments are fascist.

Hitler went to jail following a pathetic "Beer Hall Putsch" in 1922, and had little popular support. Later, he enjoyed support from the likes of Montagu Norman at the Bank of England, and Averill Harriman's Union Banking Corporation in the US. The Harriman connection was finally shut down by the FDR administration in 1942 under the authority of the "Trading With the Enemy Act." There is a famous book called I Financed Hitler that describes how some of this worked. Hitler rode a wave of popular support that was made possible with the same kind of financial support that presidential candidates rely on in the US.

I didn't vote for Bush.

__________________
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits." FDR-First Inaugural Address

In the poll, I meant.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

J edgar Hoover?

__________________
None. Mod edit to remove profanity. Fools to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am stuck up the middle of you!
Religion is a load of bollocks,

Im a Tart, What! you want some of this


Im glad I am a bottom feeder, not an arse licker!

We are Doooooooooomed

Forgive me for taking from several sources;

Actually there has never been a general consensus on exactly what "Fascism" is because when you try to generalize it, it simply becomes either Socialism or totalitarianism. However Fascism is in a very perculiar middle ground that incorporates both.

I don't think anyone denies that Fascism originates from the left-spectrum of state control, however most political scientist recognize that classifying governing institutions isn't a linear graph but rather a circular model that incorporates anarchy, liberalism, totalitarianism, etc.

That is so profoundly wrong and inane that I really don't know where to begin.

So let my try to start by saying that socialism isn't mutually exclusive from democracy, so in theory you could have a socialist government that practices democracy, just like many nations in Europe practice somewhat today (although they aren't full socialists), So in one way Fascism is different from socialism because it is a one-party state managed through a dictatorship.

Secondly, socialism, by definition is the complete governmental control over the economy and all of its affairs and distribution. Now wether socialism works isn't really a matter of question (just look at Cuba), but any simple look at Nazi Germany would reveal that it was a hybrid economy just like the modern european economies. Many private businesses were controlled in Nazi Germany and many foreign companies, Coca Cola being a good example, did business in Nazi Germany. It did help if you were a loyal Nazi party member to get lucrative buisness deals, but corruption is nothing new to the ties between business and government. This is not to imply that government had no control over anything, Mussolini's trains reveal that fact, but to imply it was strictly socialist in nature is false.

Thirdly, militarism is a key factor in a Fascist state. Just like any military junta, fascist Germany and Italy maintained power through military coercion and oppression. By eliminating all dissent, they effectively managed a military-based economy that spurred production. There is no tenet in socialism that requires military power, however its important to note that socialist methods were used to develop that military power.

Finally, as you said fascism is based on the idea of a nation-state and it preeches forms of nationalism and patriotism that racially divide states along the lines of ethnic ties.

So as I said earlier, Fascism isn't a simplistic answer.


First I would like to say I haven't read all of Jonah Goldberg's book but I have read several excerpts and he does selectively pick details to prove his own point. His book while INCREDIBLY opinionated from what I have read, actually shows nothing new in the world of academia and he is simply recycling old premises with new slander to attack liberals/democrats in the United States.

Now I will address the "fascist" nature of FDR:

Prior to WWII, the United States was not in a "war fever" in fact it was anything but. Military spending was WAY down as most of it was being funneled to social programs (you know alphabet soup), the majority of the country had retreated to an isolationist position, and FDR's "Good Neighbor Policy" in Latin America prevented the typical military interventions of previous administrations in imperialistic policy. Furthermore, the military spending budget did not grow in any real dramatic fashion until 1937 when appeasement was at its highest, but even then the Neutrality Act prevented FDR from increasing military expenditures.

The second quote by the philosopher William James is actually a positive comment on the FDR administration and has nothing to do with a war against unions or political dissidents but instead its a cry of war against the actual depression. James was sighting how wonderful that the nation was rallying to the cry of FDR as if it was the War (WWI). It wasn't anything different than the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs" (although that one can be debated). It was a metaphorical representation of the battle against the very serious economic depression that NO ONE wanted to be in.

The strike-breaking and union busting honestly wasn't anything new. This doesn't justify the actions taken by the FDR, but in the contextual setting he was much more open to labor movements than previous administrations, and it was because of these strikes, union gatherings and other grassroots organizations that labor laws were passed.

In reference to FDR as a heror, is hero worshipping all that new to American politics? I mean how many republicans proudly display pictures of Reagan? Also it doesn't mention the fact that many households had pictures of FDR above their radios so that they could actually visualize him while they listened to the "fire-side chats." He had grown in popularity because of the adoption of this new mass medium and the fact that people were for the first time directly connected to the white house on a regular basis. His resolution to the banking crisis in the first 100 days proved that he was a "trustworthy man" and people respected that kind of trust. However, no one was forced to have pictures of FDR, much like they were forced to become Nazis or loyal supporters of Hitler. The comparisons are extremely shoddy and insignificant at best.

FDR did implement socialist programs but the comparison to being fascist is overated. If anything the most fascist thing he did was try to increase the number of Supreme court justices to 13 when they wouldn't rule in favor of his laws. But there was hardly a militaristic regime, and it wasn't a one party state ruled by a dictator that imposed a nationalist version of thought and suppressed dissidents. Although FDR was a very powerful man, he took actions that tried to stem the tide of the economic depression. However, for all the programs he put into place, the war and his increase in military spending were really the solutions that brought the economy up and never really went back down to pre-WWII levels.

__________________
Signature:

He makes it very clear that he is not attacking liberals/democrats in the US. He is merely pointing out that Fascism truly is a left wing movement. However, in the end of the book, he does concede that a little fascism might not be the worst thing in the world. I recommend you finish the book.

It was a war on the depression. Civilian society saw military methods carried out to perform tasks to combat the depression. It was not a military movement in the truest sense of the word.

There was a neutrality act? I wonder whatever happened to that...

Positive or not, it is incredibly fascist.

If NO ONE wanted to lose a war, would the methods used by Mussolini and Hitler not be fascist? As far as I'm concerned, the War on Poverty is very much a fascist movement, while the War on Drugs seems to be just an attempt to enforce the law.

I'm pretty sure the Reagan picture toting neocons are pretty fascist. Even liberals can agree with me on that.

It is simply a comparison of the cults of personality they both enjoyed as the leaders of their countries. I'll give you that it doesn't mean much, but it does connect them in the sense that they were both enormously popular figures in their time, and they both appealed to popular sentiment to gather their support.

I think many of FDR's actions were much more fascist than his attempt to control the supreme court. Take the Japanese internment camps for example. They were suppressing what they perceived as dissent, something that wasn't even a threat, and they were doing it on ethnic grounds alone, and it was militarily imposed.

You can argue that his policies were good for the country all you want, but that does not relieve them of their fascist nature. In many ways, fascism was the best thing to come to Italy since the Roman empire, and many Italians look fondly back on the prosperity and prestige their nation enjoyed under Mussolini. The fact remains that, even if I take everything you have said to be true, FDR is still the most Fascist president of all time, much more so than Bush or anyone else.

-

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.