PDA

View Full Version : Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR



FRED
09-24-06, 06:10 PM
Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR (http://mises.org/story/2312)
September 24, 2006 (mises.org)

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

By Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Metropolitan Books, 2006. 242 pgs.

Critics of Roosevelt's New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt's numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal's supporters as well as its opponents.

When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression.
The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933. (p. 18).
The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'" (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

AntiSpin: As iTulip.com has been warning for years, the period of painful economic adjustment that follows extended periods of credit market excess resulting from central banking "management" of the economy creates good conditions for bad guys with big plans. They take advantage of the population's desperate need for order and they get their way with promises of a return to prosperity.

If a period of high unemployment, declining real incomes and widespread economic dislocation were to come to pass, can you name the bad guys who might step up with a solution? Can you name the good guys? Do you find yourself having an easier time naming the bad guys than naming the good guys?

tree
09-25-06, 09:12 AM
Years before Hitler knew what his "solutions" were, he was cultivating--and learning to control--German youth. In America today, kids are being taught to love the newest technological gadgets and services. (Rupert Murdoch, in his purchase of MySpace, is no fool.)

The new technology, along with lack of meaningful laws protecting privacy, is encouraging kids to think there is no such thing as privacy, that in fact it's undesirable and unsexy. This, along with homeland security issues and social chaos that may result from increasinging poverty and homelessness juxtaposed with the pornography of luxury, may be a set up for a service economy that thrives on social control via technology.

(When the insurance companies wanted a federal electronic data bank for medical information, some of the biggest supporters were IT geeks who knew that Ross Perot had made his first big bundle putting Medicare records on computers.)

The IT applications, with accompanying taxes, are endless.

On the low-tech side, one-third of all U.S. prisoners are behind bars for marijuana related charges. Legalize marijuana, which makes people hungry and sleepy (unlike booze, which makes them active and violent), and tax it, and you've got a huge new source of federal tax income.
Pot doesn't cause lung cancer, but it does cause irreversible bronchial damage.

The folks who can sell New Deals are those with personal charisma, like Hitler and Roosevelt. Movie stars like Arnold S. have it. John McCain has it. New ones will arise through YouTube, etc.

jk
09-25-06, 12:57 PM
The new technology, along with lack of meaningful laws protecting privacy, is encouraging kids to think there is no such thing as privacy, that in fact it's undesirable and unsexy. This, along with homeland security issues and social chaos that may result from increasinging poverty and homelessness juxtaposed with the pornography of luxury, may be a set up for a service economy that thrives on social control via technology.

The IT applications, with accompanying taxes, are endless.


there was a piece on npr this morning about gps chips in cell phones. it seems a lot of phones have such chips, but all the carriers except nextel have locked them, and plan to offer services based on them. this guy being interviewed had written a piece of software that displays a little map on his phone, showing where he is. it also shows the location of all his friends. someone left his phone in a taxi and followed the taxi's location on his computer until the driver noticed the phone and called him. lots of possibilities here, including possibilities for misuse.

Corporate Plebe
09-26-06, 03:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."

Anti=-spin wrote:

As iTulip.com has been warning for years, the period of painful economic adjustment that follows extended periods of credit market excess resulting from central banking "management" of the economy creates good conditions for bad guys with big plans. They take advantage of the population's desperate need for order and they get their way with promises of a return to prosperity.

If a period of high unemployment, declining real incomes and widespread economic dislocation were to come to pass, can you name the bad guys who might step up with a solution? Can you name the good guys? Do you find yourself having an easier time naming the bad guys than naming the good guys?

The good guys = the Constitution of the United States.

"They take advantage of the population's desperate need for order and they get their way with promises of a return to prosperity."

How does this not directly correlate with 9/11 "war on terror" and military policies enforcing US strategic control of global fossil fuel resources?

fascism . . . combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism. Just like your economic cycles do not exactly repeat, the political cycles are never exactly the same either. Today's anti spin is a little upsetting to me because your warning's about fascism deflect attention to what is already going on.

fogger
09-28-06, 01:42 AM
good guys...
bad guys...

you're still living in a fairy tale... "it's just a big football game". do you not see your own adolescent psychology influencing your thoughts today?


you're making the same mistakes:
- you think you're smarter than those in charge
- you think the ones that are smart as you have the same morality as you

Jim Nickerson
09-28-06, 11:21 AM
you're making the same mistakes:
- you think you're smarter than those in charge
- you think the ones that are smart as you have the same morality as you

fogger,

Who are in charge?

Just how smart are those in charge? Are they truly brilliant, or just smarter than the average person?

Because it is impossible to know the actual morality of anyone on this board, how do you specifically see the morality of whoever you see as being in charge?