France, 1930's: A Fatal Flaw in Liberalism

[PoliticalChic]

More PC cut and paste?



Skip it

Now, now...we both know the truth.....

Sorry, but if you want to make a point.....make it

I don't debate cut and pastes

I'll post the way I do, you read what you're not afraid to read...OK?

We both know that you are afraid of the material in my posts.

Be well.

 

[regent]

Liberalism doesn't change, the means to achieve the liberalism can and does change but the core beliefs of liberalism are the same today as they were in the Age of reason. But as with most beliefs there are takeoffs and new types. But for all the comments on these boards, for and against liberalism, few seem to be able to define liberalism.
The most common mistake with defining liberalism is using the means to achieve liberalism as part and parcel of liberal beliefs, i.e. small government or limited government is a part of of the liberal philosophy, it is not. Governments are a means to an end, not an end. But the question might be asked, what is the purpose of governments, how do governments fit into the liberal means to an end. In short, what is the purpose of government? Jefferson believed he knew, John Adams also knew and other founders and readers of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment might also have known. Do we?

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism ...

b. Thus, those views identify the 'conservative' of today! ...

Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent...

Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers were like three peas in a pod until the Holocaust was revealed

All of these statements are false. American intellectuals are disproportionately liberal. Classical liberals shared almost all of the views of modern liberals, and almost no views of modern conservatives. There has never been any such thing in this country, in power, running the government, as socialism, "war" or otherwise. And Roosevelt did not incarcerate and execute all of the Republicans, which would be a prerequisite for him being identical with Hitler or Mussolini. That's just for starters; then he'd have to murder all of the Democratic progressives, the way Hitler slaughtered all of the Nazi socialists in the Night of the Long Knives. And attempting to conquer Canada and Mexico would also increase the similarity.

1. There is neither the time nor space to correct all of your misunderstandings and outright fibs....

You should begin with Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals”...FDR's economic programs were the same as Mussolini and Hitler....
...methinks you are pretending that we are speaking of concentration camps.

2. "American intellectuals are disproportionately liberal."
Again...a dishonest obfuscation. Intellectuals of the 19th century were students of Hegel.
I know you have no clue about Hegel...but his view was state over individual: the modern liberal view...

3. "There has never been any such thing in this country, in power, running the government, as socialism, "war" or otherwise."

During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.
1. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry
2. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.
3. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream
4. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government
5. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war
6. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues
7. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters
8. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9


So, you post reeks of ignorance....
...I am no longer surprised at your lack of knowledge.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberalism doesn't change, the means to achieve the liberalism can and does change but the core beliefs of liberalism are the same today as they were in the Age of reason. But as with most beliefs there are takeoffs and new types. But for all the comments on these boards, for and against liberalism, few seem to be able to define liberalism.
The most common mistake with defining liberalism is using the means to achieve liberalism as part and parcel of liberal beliefs, i.e. small government or limited government is a part of of the liberal philosophy, it is not. Governments are a means to an end, not an end. But the question might be asked, what is the purpose of governments, how do governments fit into the liberal means to an end. In short, what is the purpose of government? Jefferson believed he knew, John Adams also knew and other founders and readers of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment might also have known. Do we?

"Liberalism doesn't change, the means to achieve the liberalism can and does change but the core beliefs of liberalism are the same today as they were in the Age of reason."

Absolutely untrue.
Read the thread.

 

[Dragon]

1. There is neither the time nor space to correct all of your misunderstandings and outright fibs....

Then you shouldn't try. You're doping a damned shitty job, so you might as well not waste the efforgt

You should begin with

No, I should not. I already know sufficient about the FACTS concerning the New Deal, Nazism, and Fascism. I have no interest in anyone else's OPINION, amounting to the spouting of propaganda, concerning same, nor would the existence of such opinions prove anything beyond the fact that those people held them.

It is a fact that classical liberals believed in economic equality, despised and distrusted corporations and the rich, and were anti-militaristic in the sense of opposing large standing armies. It is a fact that modern liberals share all of these beliefs with classical liberals while modern conservative share none of them. It is a fact that the "small government" views of classical liberals were not among their core values but rather were a means to an end, and a further fact that modern conservatives only half share that view in any case, as do modern liberals (but regarding different halves).

It is a fact that the fascist states of mid-20th century Europe maintained enormous military forces, did not allow free elections, slapped their political opponents in prison and/or executed them, and engaged in aggressive wars against their neighbors; these are not trivial characteristics of the fascist states but defining ones and the Roosevelt administration shared absolutely none of them. It is also a face that the characteristics that these regimes did share, namely a willingness to regulate the economy without going all the way to socialism, were not defining of the fascist states nor the things about them that people generally dislike (except narrow-minded ideologues like yourself, that is).

Nobody's opinion expressed about any of these things can override these facts, which show that your claims are sheer nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There is neither the time nor space to correct all of your misunderstandings and outright fibs....

Then you shouldn't try. You're doping a damned shitty job, so you might as well not waste the efforgt

You should begin with

No, I should not. I already know sufficient about the FACTS concerning the New Deal, Nazism, and Fascism. I have no interest in anyone else's OPINION, amounting to the spouting of propaganda, concerning same, nor would the existence of such opinions prove anything beyond the fact that those people held them.

You do resist education, don't you.

Personality defect?

 

[Dragon]

You do resist education, don't you.

What I resist is indoctrination with the views of John Birch Society whack-jobs. One should not confuse that with education.

 

[Peach]

American intellectuals are disproportionately liberal.
*************************************************
I see this as another false division of Americans; France in the 1930's being a lesson for America today I also reject. Charles deGaulle used the term "democratic" in his party at one point. Was HE like "liberals" in America today?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You do resist education, don't you.

What I resist is indoctrination with the views of John Birch Society whack-jobs. One should not confuse that with education.

The Schivelbusch book is a scholarly tome....probably over your head.

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch

Book Description
Publication Date: November 27, 2007 | ISBN-10: 0312427433 | ISBN-13: 978-0312427436 | Edition: 1st
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is regarded today as the democratic ideal, a triumphant American response to a crisis that forced Germany and Italy toward National Socialism and Fascism. Yet in the 1930s, before World War II, the regimes of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler bore fundamental similarities. In this groundbreaking work, Wolfgang Schivelbusch investigates the shared elements of these three "new deals"--focusing on their architecture and public works projects--to offer a new explanation for the popularity of Europe's totalitarian systems. Writing with flair and concision, Schivelbusch casts a different light on the New Deal and puts forth a provocative explanation for the still-mysterious popularity of Europe's most tyrannical regimes.

 

[rightwinger]

Now, now...we both know the truth.....

Sorry, but if you want to make a point.....make it

I don't debate cut and pastes

I'll post the way I do, you read what you're not afraid to read...OK?

We both know that you are afraid of the material in my posts.

Be well.

Afraid?

Far from it. I have just learned from experience that your cut and paste replies are not worth the effort

I would have no problem replying to your opinion but I find your replies of "here is someone elses opinion, reply to that" to be insulting

 

[Sunni Man]

You do resist education, don't you.

What I resist is indoctrination with the views of John Birch Society whack-jobs. One should not confuse that with education.

The Schivelbusch book is a scholarly tome....probably over your head.

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch

Book Description
Publication Date: November 27, 2007 | ISBN-10: 0312427433 | ISBN-13: 978-0312427436 | Edition: 1st
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is regarded today as the democratic ideal, a triumphant American response to a crisis that forced Germany and Italy toward National Socialism and Fascism. Yet in the 1930s, before World War II, the regimes of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler bore fundamental similarities. In this groundbreaking work, Wolfgang Schivelbusch investigates the shared elements of these three "new deals"--focusing on their architecture and public works projects--to offer a new explanation for the popularity of Europe's totalitarian systems. Writing with flair and concision, Schivelbusch casts a different light on the New Deal and puts forth a provocative explanation for the still-mysterious popularity of Europe's most tyrannical regimes.

It's a slow but predictable process.

Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.

Which are just two sides of the same coin.

 

[Dragon]

Look, it's not as if I haven't studied that period of history -- EXTENSIVELY. And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod is a nut job. My time is reasonably valuable to me, and I am not going to waste it wading through patently nonsensical ideas on your recommendation, which quite frankly is no recommendation at all.

Now, you want to make that case, don't refer me to someone's book, give me facts. I can show you many Social Democrats and Communists thrown into concentration camps and murdered by Adolf Hitler. Can you show me any Republicans, Socialists, or other non-Democratic politicians who were similarly imprisoned and executed by FDR? I can show you how Hitler built up an enormous military machine prior to going to war. Can you deny that the U.S. military was, in 1941, among the weakest in the world? I can show you how Hitler assumed dictatorial powers -- not some right-wing goofball's ridiculous metaphorical use of that word, either, but the real thing. Can you show how Roosevelt suspended elections, made himself the sole legislative authority, and made it a crime to criticize him? I can show you how Hitler started wars with Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Norway, Belgium, and the Soviet Union. Can you show Roosevelt starting wars with anyone?

All of these represent Nazi behavior having nothing to do with the Holocaust, and so your implication above that the only difference between Hitler's Nazis and Roosevelt's Democrats involved the Holocaust is sheer drivel. Absolute bollocks. And anyone who claims to the contrary is a nut job. I don't care if you regard him as "scholarly." He's still a nut job, and definitely not worth my time.

Same is true, if less blatantly, regarding classical liberals and modern conservatives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry, but if you want to make a point.....make it

I don't debate cut and pastes

I'll post the way I do, you read what you're not afraid to read...OK?

We both know that you are afraid of the material in my posts.

Be well.

Afraid?

Far from it. I have just learned from experience that your cut and paste replies are not worth the effort

I would have no problem replying to your opinion but I find your replies of "here is someone elses opinion, reply to that" to be insulting

Silly, since they are obviously my opinions, unless you'd like to contend that they are posted at random.

I couldn't care less whether you read 'em or not....
...it's your loss.

Your excuses are transparent, and vapid.

It is totally understandable why you'd rather not be exposed to material that explodes your worldview...

...no explanations necessary.
OK?

 

[Dragon]

Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.

More bollocks. The only way that liberalism has ever "morphed" into fascism is by way of the fascists overthrowing liberalism in a coup or revolution. The liberals didn't become fascists, the fascists threw the liberals into concentration camps after taking over. And liberal regimes have never "morphed" into Communist ones in any way at all, including that one; Communist revolutionaries have overthrown monarchs, military dictators, and corrupt autocrats, but liberals, never.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Look, it's not as if I haven't studied that period of history -- EXTENSIVELY. And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod is a nut job. My time is reasonably valuable to me, and I am not going to waste it wading through patently nonsensical ideas on your recommendation, which quite frankly is no recommendation at all.

Now, you want to make that case, don't refer me to someone's book, give me facts. I can show you many Social Democrats and Communists thrown into concentration camps and murdered by Adolf Hitler. Can you show me any Republicans, Socialists, or other non-Democratic politicians who were similarly imprisoned and executed by FDR? I can show you how Hitler built up an enormous military machine prior to going to war. Can you deny that the U.S. military was, in 1941, among the weakest in the world? I can show you how Hitler assumed dictatorial powers -- not some right-wing goofball's ridiculous metaphorical use of that word, either, but the real thing. Can you show how Roosevelt suspended elections, made himself the sole legislative authority, and made it a crime to criticize him? I can show you how Hitler started wars with Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Norway, Belgium, and the Soviet Union. Can you show Roosevelt starting wars with anyone?

All of these represent Nazi behavior having nothing to do with the Holocaust, and so your implication above that the only difference between Hitler's Nazis and Roosevelt's Democrats involved the Holocaust is sheer drivel. Absolute bollocks. And anyone who claims to the contrary is a nut job. I don't care if you regard him as "scholarly." He's still a nut job, and definitely not worth my time.

Same is true, if less blatantly, regarding classical liberals and modern conservatives.

Now, try to be honest....
"And anyone who calls Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler peas in a pod..."
That's not what I said, is it.


Here is the original statement....and it is true.
"Should I point out that Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's National Socialists, and FDR's New Dealers were like three peas in a pod until the Holocaust was revealed....then, under cover of the media, they did a 'Dewey' and branded the Right as the fascists...."

The above is true, as opposed to the following:
" it's not as if I haven't studied that period of history -- EXTENSIVELY."
Baloney.
You simply mouth the Leftist "FDR was a saint" nonsense.



1. In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.

a. At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549)


2. The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:

a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”

b. And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’

c. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”

d. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”


3. English and French commentators routinely depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini. A more specific reason why, in 1933, the New Deal was often compared with Fascism was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one. And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolini’s corporatism as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property.

a. Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelt’s “Looking Forward,” in which he said “…[as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Popolo d’Italia, July 7, 1933.

b. In 1934, Mussolini wrote a review of “New Frontiers,” by FDR’s Sec’y of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace: “Wallace’s answer to what America wants is as follows: anything but a return tyo the free-market, i.e., anarchistic economy. Where is America headed? This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century.” Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.


4. Comparisons of the New Deal with totalitarian ideologies were provided from all sides. A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone “too far in the Russian direction,” and a Democrat accused FDR of trying “to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this country.” Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals,” p. 27.


5. “The similarities of the economics of the New Deal to the economics of Mussolini’s corporative state or Hitler’s totalitarian state are both close and obvious.” Norman Thomas, head of the American Socialist Party.

 

[Sunni Man]

Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.

More bollocks. The only way that liberalism has ever "morphed" into fascism is by way of the fascists overthrowing liberalism in a coup or revolution. The liberals didn't become fascists, the fascists threw the liberals into concentration camps after taking over. And liberal regimes have never "morphed" into Communist ones in any way at all, including that one; Communist revolutionaries have overthrown monarchs, military dictators, and corrupt autocrats, but liberals, never.

National Socialism in Germany and Communism in the USSR.

Were two competing Liberal/Socialist ideologies with the exact same agenda.

Basically, both were touted as a workers utopia; where all allegiance and loyalty was directed to the state.

The New Deal was modeled after this European social experiment.

 

[Peach]

Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.

More bollocks. The only way that liberalism has ever "morphed" into fascism is by way of the fascists overthrowing liberalism in a coup or revolution. The liberals didn't become fascists, the fascists threw the liberals into concentration camps after taking over. And liberal regimes have never "morphed" into Communist ones in any way at all, including that one; Communist revolutionaries have overthrown monarchs, military dictators, and corrupt autocrats, but liberals, never.

******************************************************
Lenin overthrew the Russian Republic. Was Lenin a fascist? I would say yes. The mass killings of the Kulaks should be taken into account, from 700,000 (USSR) to 6 million (Solzhenitsyn). Authoritarian regimes are authoritarian regimes; no comparison to Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, nor Mussolini in the US.

 

[regent]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why would anyone believe Nazi and fascist newspapers as being more accurate than American historians? But why take any posters words for what to believe, your local Library will generally loan history books free and they usually have a number of them. Do your homework and find out what historians believe about America's past, or are you one of those that believe historians are liberal communists that distort the truth?

Only recently has the Left's strangle-hold on dissemination of information been loosened.
Scholars are beginning to reveal the material in my post.

Do your homework, start here:

a. In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda. Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

b. Garraty reminds that to compare is not the same as to equate. Yet, many still find Garraty’s analysis too hot to handle.


Then come back and apologize.

 

[Sunni Man]

Historically, unchecked Liberalism eventually morphs into either Fascism or Communism.

More bollocks. The only way that liberalism has ever "morphed" into fascism is by way of the fascists overthrowing liberalism in a coup or revolution. The liberals didn't become fascists, the fascists threw the liberals into concentration camps after taking over. And liberal regimes have never "morphed" into Communist ones in any way at all, including that one; Communist revolutionaries have overthrown monarchs, military dictators, and corrupt autocrats, but liberals, never.

******************************************************
Lenin overthrew the Russian Republic. Was Lenin a fascist? I would say yes. The mass killings of the Kulaks should be taken into account, from 700,000 (USSR) to 6 million (Solzhenitsyn). Authoritarian regimes are authoritarian regimes; no comparison to Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, nor Mussolini in the US.

Most Native Americans would vehemently disagree with you.