Members banned from this thread: jet57


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Fascism

  1. #21
    Points: 548,799, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 94.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    412657
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    169,524
    Points
    548,799
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    21,540
    Thanked 60,232x in 42,435 Posts
    Mentioned
    1850 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I don't see how this country has ever subscribed to corporatism then or now.
    Go to post # 16, follow the link.
    Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
    Louis Brandeis,Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928)

  2. #22
    Points: 43,689, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,561
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2233
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    16,174
    Points
    43,689
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,609
    Thanked 2,223x in 1,875 Posts
    Mentioned
    216 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Go to post # 16, follow the link.
    I read that article. It fails to make a concrete association as you describe it. If Iím wrong please point out where the article shows that.

  3. #23
    Points: 548,799, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 94.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    412657
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    169,524
    Points
    548,799
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    21,540
    Thanked 60,232x in 42,435 Posts
    Mentioned
    1850 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I read that article. It fails to make a concrete association as you describe it. If I’m wrong please point out where the article shows that.
    Quoting from the article, the influences:

    Few Americans are aware of or can recall how so many Americans and Europeans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future during the 1930s. The American Ambassador to Italy, Richard Washburn Child, was so impressed with “corporatism” that he wrote in the preface to Mussolini’s 1928 autobiography that “it may be shrewdly forecast that no man will exhibit dimensions of permanent greatness equal to Mussolini. . . . The Duce is now the greatest figure of this sphere and time.”

    U.S. Congressman Sol Bloom, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said in 1926 that Mussolini “will be a great thing not only for Italy but for all of us if he succeeds. It is his inspiration, his determination, his constant toil that has literally rejuvenated Italy . .”

    One of the most outspoken American fascists was economist Lawrence Dennis. In his 1936 book, The Coming American Fascism, Dennis declared that defenders of “18th-century Americanism” were sure to become “the laughing stock of their own countrymen” and that the adoption of economic fascism would intensify “national spirit” and put it behind “the enterprises of public welfare and social control.” The big stumbling block to the development of economic fascism, Dennis bemoaned, was “liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights.”

    ...Thus, it is important to recognize that, as an economic system, fascism was widely accepted in the 1920s and ‘30s. The evil deeds of individual fascists were later condemned, but the practice of economic fascism never was....
    ANd these effects:

    The U.S. Constitution was written by individuals who believed in the classical liberal philosophy of individual rights and sought to protect those rights from governmental encroachment. But since the fascist/collectivist philosophy has been so influential, policy reforms over the past half century have all but abolished many of these rights by simply ignoring many of the provisions in the Constitution that were designed to protect them. As legal scholar Richard Epstein has observed: “[T]he eminent domain . . . and parallel clauses in the Constitution render . . . suspect many of the heralded reforms and institutions of the twentieth century: zoning, rent control, workers’ compensation laws, transfer payments, progressive taxation.”[8] It is important to note that most of these reforms were initially adopted during the ‘30s, when the fascist/collectivist philosophy was in its heyday.

    ...These exact sentiments were expressed by Robert Reich (currently the U.S. Secretary of Labor) and Ira Magaziner (currently the federal government’s health care reform “Czar”) in their book Minding America’s Business.[12] In order to counteract the “untidy marketplace,” an interventionist industrial policy “must strive to integrate the full range of targeted government policies—procurement, research and development, trade, antitrust, tax credits, and subsidies—into a coherent strategy . . . .”

    Current industrial policy interventions, Reich and Magaziner bemoaned, are “the product of fragmented and uncoordinated decisions made by [many different] executive agencies, the Congress, and independent regulatory agencies . . . . There is no integrated strategy to use these programs to improve the . . . U.S. economy.”

    In his 1989 book, The Silent War, Magaziner reiterated this theme by advocating a coordinating group like the national Security Council to take a strategic national industrial view.”[15] The White House has in fact established a “National Economic Security Council.” Every other advocate of an interventionist “industrial policy” has made a similar “unity of aim” argument, as first described by Pitigliani more than half a century ago.

    ...This idea of government-mandated and -dominated “collaboration” is also at the heart of all interventionist industrial policy schemes. A successful industrial policy, write Reich and Magaziner, would “require careful coordination between public and private sectors.”[19] “Government and the private sector must work in tandem.”[20] “Economic success now depends to a high degree on coordination, collaboration, and careful strategic choice,” guided by government.[21]

    The AFL-CIO has echoed this theme, advocating a “tripartite National Reindustrialization Board—including representatives of labor, business, and government” that would supposedly “plan” the economy.[22] The Washington, D.C.-based Center for National Policy has also published a report authored by businessmen from Lazard Freres, du Pont, Burroughs, Chrysler, Electronic Data Systems, and other corporations promoting an allegedly “new” policy based on “cooperation of government with business and labor.”[23] Another report, by the organization “Rebuild America,” co-authored in 1986 by Robert Reich and economists Robert Solow, Lester Thurow, Laura Tyson, Paul Krugman, Pat Choate, and Lawrence Chimerine urges “more teamwork” through “public-private partnerships among government, business and academia.”[24] This report calls for “national goals and targets” set by government planners who will devise a “comprehensive investment strategy” that will only permit “productive” investment, as defined by government, to take place.

    ...If this sounds familiar, it is because it is exactly the result of agricultural subsidies, the Export-Import bank, guaranteed loans to “preferred” business borrowers, protectionism, the Chrysler bailout, monopoly franchising, and myriad other forms of corporate welfare paid for directly or indirectly by the American taxpayer.

    ...Many American politicians who have advocated more or less total government control over economic activity have been more devious in their approach. They have advocated and adopted many of the same policies, but they have always recognized that direct attacks on private property, free enterprise, self-government, and individual freedom are not politically palatable to the majority of the American electorate. Thus, they have enacted a great many tax, regulatory, and income-transfer policies that achieve the ends of economic fascism, but which are sugar-coated with deceptive rhetoric about their alleged desire only to “save” capitalism.

    American politicians have long taken their cue in this regard from Franklin D. Roosevelt, who sold his National Recovery Administration (which was eventually ruled unconstitutional) on the grounds that “government restrictions henceforth must be accepted not to hamper individualism but to protect it.”[40] In a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak, Roosevelt thus argued that individualism must be destroyed in order to protect it.

    You have to be blind not to see all that.

    Want more?

    A Mutual Admiration Society: FDR and the Left’s Romance with Fascism

    ...It should be said at the outset that FDR personally had no affection for the Fuhrer. But he did for Mussolini. In a letter to journalist John Lawrence, a Mussolini admirer, FDR confessed, “I don’t mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.”

    In June 1933, FDR wrote his Italian ambassador Breckinridge Long—another Mussolini admirer—regarding the fascist despot. “There seems no question he is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose in restoring Italy.”

    From FDR’s point of view, Mussolini had gotten an earlier start in expanding state power in a way that FDR himself intended; Italy under the Duce seemed to have moved further down the progressive road than America. So FDR urged leading members of his brain trust to visit Italy and study Mussolini’s fascist policies to see which of them could be integrated into the New Deal.

    Rexford Tugwell, one of FDR’s closest advisers, returned from Italy with the observation that “Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has.” Even so, “he seems to have made enormous progress.” Tugwell was especially impressed by how the Italian fascists were able to override political and press opposition and get things done.

    Tugwell quoted favorably from the 1927 charter of Italian fascism, the Carta del Lavoro, which seems to have impressed him far more than the American Constitution. Fascism, he concluded, “is the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.”

    This sycophantic devotion to fascism, strange though it appears today, was at the time characteristic of the way that leading leftists felt about Mussolini, both in Europe and the United States. In England, the Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw praised Mussolini for actually implementing socialist ideals. In 1932, the utopian leftist novelist H. G. Wells actually called for a “liberal fascism” in the West, emphasizing the need for “enlightened Nazis.” As for the novelist Gertrude Stein, she insisted as late as 1937 that the most deserving candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize was Adolf Hitler.

    Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt

    On May 7, 1933, just two months after the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New York Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the atmosphere in Washington was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five‐​Year Plan.… America today literally asks for orders.” The Roosevelt administration, she added, “envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy.”

    ...With our knowledge of the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II, we find it almost impossible to consider such claims dispassionately. But in the 1930s, when everyone agreed that capitalism had failed, it wasn’t hard to find common themes and mutual admiration in Washington, Berlin, and Rome, not to mention Moscow.

    ...Schivelbusch finds parallels in the ideas, style, and programs of the disparate regimes — even their architecture. “Neoclassical monumentalism,” he writes, is “the architectural style in which the state visually manifests power and authority.” In Berlin, Moscow, and Rome, “the enemy that was to be eradicated was the laissez‐​faire architectural legacy of nineteenth‐​century liberalism, an unplanned jumble of styles and structures.” Washington erected plenty of neoclassical monuments in the ‘30s, though with less destruction than in the European capitals. Think of the “Man Controlling Trade” sculptures in front of the Federal Trade Commission, with a muscular man restraining an enormous horse. They would have been right at home in Il Duce’s Italy.

    ...throughout the ‘30s, intellectuals and journalists noted “areas of convergence among the New Deal, Fascism, and National Socialism.” All three were seen as transcending “classic Anglo‐​French liberalism” — individualism, free markets, decentralized power.

    ...The dream of a planned society infected both right and left. Ernst JŁnger, an influential right‐​wing militarist in Germany, reported his reaction to the Soviet Union: “I told myself: granted, they have no constitution, but they do have a plan. This may be an excellent thing.” As early as 1912, FDR himself praised the Prussian‐​German model: “They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people,” he said in an address to the People’s Forum of Troy, New York.

    American Progressives studied at German universities, Schivelbusch writes, and “came to appreciate the Hegelian theory of a strong state and Prussian militarism as the most efficient way of organizing modern societies that could no longer be ruled by anarchic liberal principles.” The pragmatist philosopher William James’ influential 1910 essay “The Moral Equivalent of War” stressed the importance of order, discipline, and planning.

    ...In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel‐​creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”

    Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self‐​interest.”

    ...To that end, all the new regimes of the ‘30s undertook unprecedented propaganda efforts. “Propaganda,” Schivelbusch writes “is the means by which charismatic leadership, circumventing intermediary social and political institutions like parliaments, parties, and interest groups, gains direct hold upon the masses.” The NRA’s Blue Eagle campaign, in which businesses that complied with the agency’s code were allowed to display a “Blue Eagle” symbol, was a way to rally the masses and call on everyone to display a visible symbol of support. NRA head Hugh Johnson made its purpose clear: “Those who are not with us are against us.”

    ...In 1935 former President Herbert Hoover was using phrases like “Fascist regimentation” in discussing the New Deal. A decade later, he wrote in his memoirs that “the New Deal introduced to Americans the spectacle of Fascist dictation to business, labor and agriculture,” and that measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, “in their consequences of control of products and markets, set up an uncanny Americanized parallel with the agricultural regime of Mussolini and Hitler.” In 1944, in The Road to Serfdom, the economist F.A. Hayek warned that economic planning could lead to totalitarianism. He cautioned Americans and Britons not to think that there was something uniquely evil about the German soul. National Socialism, he said, drew on collectivist ideas that had permeated the Western world for a generation or more.

    ...in 1976, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan incurred the ire of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D‐​Mass.), pro‐​Roosevelt historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and The New York Times when he told reporters that “fascism was really the basis of the New Deal.”

    But enough. You won't see it anyway.
    Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
    Louis Brandeis,Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928)

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (09-17-2021)

  5. #24
    Points: 43,689, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,561
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2233
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    16,174
    Points
    43,689
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,609
    Thanked 2,223x in 1,875 Posts
    Mentioned
    216 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Quoting from the article, the influences:



    ANd these effects:




    You have to be blind not to see all that.

    Want more?

    A Mutual Admiration Society: FDR and the Left’s Romance with Fascism




    Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt




    But enough. You won't see it anyway.
    No, because it's just not there chris. You've post a host of articles that try and explain "corporatism", but we come right back 'round to my first post:

    But since the fascist/collectivist philosophy
    The two are diametrically opposed and I've posted plenty of material to show that. Fascist "corporatism" is more based on "corporate territory" being mixed under state rule, rather than people in such a situation ever being referred to as a "collective". They were never represented, they instead represented and answered to the state. A sort of Roman imperialism.
    Make everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark. Itís easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.
    Thomas Jefferson (to Richard Price) January 8. 1789 "...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government..."

  6. #25

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 200,405, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 80.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    181047
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    32,789
    Points
    200,405
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    10,681
    Thanked 26,309x in 14,476 Posts
    Mentioned
    719 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    No, because it's just not there chris. You've post a host of articles that try and explain "corporatism", but we come right back 'round to my first post:

    The two are diametrically opposed and I've posted plenty of material to show that. Fascist "corporatism" is more based on "corporate territory" being mixed under state rule, rather than people in such a situation ever being referred to as a "collective". They were never represented, they instead represented and answered to the state. A sort of Roman imperialism.


    tPF Thread Ban - Note: The Mods do not substitute their judgment for that of the OP as to whether a rule has been violated and will defer to the OP. See Rule 10 for further details.

    NOTICE - @jet57 TB’d at request of OP per ‘tpf-designated post’ rules. Off-topic



    Last edited by DGUtley; 09-19-2021 at 08:35 AM.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​
    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison
    The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt. https://www.cjr.org/innovations/meas...s-partisan.php

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    jet57 (09-19-2021)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts