Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Revenant wrote: I would argue that he was. Roosevelt's government matched closely with the tenets of a fascist government.

That is to say: "a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Neo-Fascism

Nationalism only occurred after the attacks on Pearl Harbor; before that people were too busy trying to find food, let alone be proud in their country.

Economics wasn't corporatized so much as it was socialized in the face of economic depression.

Roosevelt certainly tried to be a dictator with Court Packing, but Congress stepped up to the plate on that one.

Also, I don't think Roosevelt portrayed the government as being superior to the people, especially with his Fireside Chats.

[Revenant]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Revenant wrote: I would argue that he was. Roosevelt's government matched closely with the tenets of a fascist government.

That is to say: "a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Neo-Fascism

Nationalism only occurred after the attacks on Pearl Harbor; before that people were too busy trying to find food, let alone be proud in their country.

Economics wasn't corporatized so much as it was socialized in the face of economic depression.

Roosevelt certainly tried to be a dictator with Court Packing, but Congress stepped up to the plate on that one.

Also, I don't think Roosevelt portrayed the government as being superior to the people, especially with his Fireside Chats.

Nationalism only occurred after the attacks on Pearl Harbor; before that people were too busy trying to find food, let alone be proud in their country.

Conspiracy theories about Roosevelt allowing Pearl Harbor to happen nonwithstanding, is it your opinion that how extreme nationalism sparks matters? Whether a cataclysmic event such as Pearl Harbor, or economic depression that occurred in Germany, extreme nationalism still flourished.

Economics wasn't corporatized so much as it was socialized in the face of economic depression.

Both Franklin Roosevelt’s admirers and his detractors often think of his New Deal legacy as generally socialistic. Like the Progressive Era, the New Deal is widely misunderstood: it did indeed attack the free market, but often did so at the behest of corporate interests.

Such interests were largely behind the emergence of the National Recovery Administration, which exemplified FDR’s economic central planning. Far from being a purely egalitarian agency, the NRA was largely modeled after the policies of Mussolini, who had yet to be considered an enemy by most Americans, but rather was still seen as an inspiration by many. As John Flynn explained in his book, The Roosevelt Myth,

[Mussolini] organized each trade or industrial group or professional group into a state-supervised trade association. He called it a corporative. These corporatives operated under state supervision and could plan production, quality, prices, distribution, labor standards, etc. The NRA provided that in America each industry should be organized into a federally supervised trade association. It was not called a corporative. It was called a Code Authority. But it was essentially the same thing. These code authorities could regulate production, quantities, qualities, prices, distribution methods, etc., under the supervision of the NRA. This was fascism. The anti-trust laws forbade such organizations. Roosevelt had denounced Hoover for not enforcing these laws sufficiently. Now he suspended them and compelled men to combine.

Though the NRA intended to guarantee profits through mergers and price controls – forbidding smaller business from competing by offering better prices – big business, big labor, and most other initial supporters turned against the NRA when it became universally recognized as a complete failure. In 1935 the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. Aside from the NRA, other New Deal measures epitomized naked corporatism. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration cartelized the farming industry, and Roosevelt’s farm subsidies and price supports have to this day helped to solidify a corporate stronghold in American agriculture.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory64.html

The article didn't even take into account how American corporations and the economy flourished during World War II and helped America achieve superpower status.

And the National Recovery Act.

http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/recovery_act.html

SEC. 4. (a) The President is authorized to enter into agreements with, and to approve voluntary agreements between and among, persons engaged in a trade or industry, labor organizations, and trade or industrial organizations, associations, or groups, relating to any trade or industry, if in his judgment such agreements will aid in effectuating the policy of this title with respect to transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, and will be consistent with the requirements of clause (2) of subsection (a) of section 3 for a code of fair competition.

(b) Whenever the President shall find that destructive wage or price cutting or other activities contrary to the policy of this title are being practiced in any trade or industry or any subdivision thereof, and, after such public notice and hearing as he shall specify, shall find it essential to license business enterprises in order to make effective a code of fair competition or an agreement under this title or otherwise to effectuate the policy of this title, and shall publicly so announce, no person shall, after a date fixed in such announcement, engage in or carry on any business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, specified in such announcement, unless he shall have first obtained a license issued pursuant to such regulations as the President shall prescribe. The President may suspend or revoke any such license, after due notice and opportunity for hear ing, for violations of the terms or conditions thereof. Any order of the President suspend. ing or revoking any such license shall be final if in accordance with law.


Roosevelt certainly tried to be a dictator with Court Packing, but Congress stepped up to the plate on that one.

Court packing aside, he succeeded in being a dictator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Executive_Order_9066

United States Executive Order 9066 was a presidential executive order issued during World War II by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, using his authority as Commander-in-Chief to exercise war powers to send ethnic groups to internment camps.

Also, I don't think Roosevelt portrayed the government as being superior to the people, especially with his Fireside Chats

I think he portrayed the government as a savior.

[TheKrava]

Revenant wrote: TheKrava wrote: I voted no.

Fascism is a dangerous ideology and it should not be encauraged.

If fascists want their own safe place to debate they can find some other boards to do so.

Many ideologies are "dangerous". Hell, some could define anarchism as "dangerous".

Capitalism or socialism could be considered "dangerous" economic systems. So could Communism.

It does not matter. A poll is about opinions. I believe that fascism is a dangerous ideology, so I voted no. I do not think that any HQ's in this forum have dangerous ideologies.

[Revenant]

TheKrava wrote: Revenant wrote: TheKrava wrote: I voted no.

Fascism is a dangerous ideology and it should not be encauraged.

If fascists want their own safe place to debate they can find some other boards to do so.

Many ideologies are "dangerous". Hell, some could define anarchism as "dangerous".

Capitalism or socialism could be considered "dangerous" economic systems. So could Communism.

It does not matter. A poll is about opinions. I believe that fascism is a dangerous ideology, so I voted no. I do not think that any HQ's in this forum have dangerous ideologies.

The abolition of a state and throwing everything to the wind does not qualify as dangerous? Well blow me down.....

[LostSoul3412]

Revenant, in the interest of keeping this on topic, we'll save this discussion for later. :wink:

Back to business...

Fascism s*cks! 8:)

[Revenant]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Revenant, in the interest of keeping this on topic, we'll save this discussion for later. :wink:

Back to business...

Fascism s*cks! 8:)

boo :lol:

[LostSoul3412]

Revenant wrote: boo :lol:

:lol:

[Norbert]

YEs yes yes!!! everyone vote yes! it is time 2 get a forum where we can say what we think! I am a PROUD MEMBER of the AFM, and I'm tired of being portrayed as a Nazi and silenced... everyone vote yes who believes free speech!

[Norbert]

On the other hand, what HQ should I join 2 mingle with my fellow Authoritarian citizens? Since u can only pick one, I assumed "radical" or INdependant, but I don't want 2 choose wrong... :?

[Fuelisfortanks]

I enjoy freedom of speach and excercising it thoroughly and therefore vote YES! And Fascism and Nazism are sadly catagorized as the same by so many. It would take alot of media time to change that automatic assumption. Plus the WWII generation that fought the 'dirty fascists' is reaching the end of its time and hopefully will lead to a drop of anti-fascist opininons.

[Norbert]

comon people, if one can have a liberatarian HQ, one can have a fascist one... And I believe a social democrat brought up fascists who can debate resonably? Well I fit in both categories... Anyway, were leading in the poll right now, and if LostSoul would support the creation of the HQ itself, why not give it a try? I recently encouraged my friends in the AFM 2 join this forum, they will all certainly vote yes, and they can all debate in a reasoned and non-hateful manner...

[Varyag]

I would join this HQ, but I think "Fascist" is a little too narrow, since its just one specific (and rather extrme) branch of a larger pattern of political thought that is not represented by a HQ in this forum, perhaps "nationalist" or "statist." It's something that should cater for the centrist statist, new dealer (since the dems no longer represent them in any way), authoritarians of varying degrees, nationalists and finally fascists alike, the same way the Republican HQ is allowed to cater for both the Giuliani's and out there fundie christians.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

[Mr X]

An Authoritarian HQ might be better then a Fascist HQ, just because it would cover more political ground. If the demand is there, there should defiantly be an HQ of some kind.

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Norbert wrote: comon people, if one can have a liberatarian HQ, one can have a fascist one...

What exactly, do you mean by this?

[Norbert]

TheGirlNextDoor wrote: Norbert wrote: comon people, if one can have a liberatarian HQ, one can have a fascist one...

What exactly, do you mean by this?

I just mean that there are probably at least as many fascists who don't vote for one of the two parties as there are liberatarians who don't do the same... And after all, how many members does the Anarchist HQ have? And you guys even made an independant HQ for people who can't choose one out of all that you already have up! I just think that a fascist HQ would easily have as many members (non-nazi members) as the anarchist one... (not trying to pick a fight with liberatarians...)

[LostSoul3412]

Mr X wrote: An Authoritarian HQ might be better then a Fascist HQ, just because it would cover more political ground. If the demand is there, there should defiantly be an HQ of some kind.

:tu:

[Comrade Dave]

I think an Authoritarian HQ is definitely in order. After all, fascists don't really fit in anywhere currently. The radicals are mainly socialists and anarchists, the exact ideological opposite of fascists.

[Varyag]

There are many forms of statism that are not authoritarian, authoritarian is a bad name ..

[LostSoul3412]

Varyag wrote: There are many forms of statism that are not authoritarian, authoritarian is a bad name ..

"Baby killer" is a bad name too, but it doesn't stop me from being pro-choice. :wink:

Also, the only thing that "authoritatian" means is that it is a government without formal restrictions upon it.

For example, the United Kingdom.

[Varyag]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Varyag wrote: There are many forms of statism that are not authoritarian, authoritarian is a bad name ..

"Baby killer" is a bad name too, but it doesn't stop me from being pro-choice. :wink:

No you're not a baby killer, that title is reserved for women who actually have abortions, your formal title is the feminists' lapdog, enjoy. Thats the difference between left and right, the right serves its own intrests, the left serves the intrests of weaklings who rub it into their face afterwards :lol:

In truth, in the West, if you are white and male, you have no business being on the left unless you approve of weakening your own social and economic prospects.

Quote: Also, the only thing that "authoritatian" means is that it is a government without formal restrictions upon it.

For example, the United Kingdom.

In political science terms, correct, even a libertarian government can in essense, be authoritarian, thats why I noted why it was a bad name. Still the more commonly associated definitions are these

–adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
–noun
4. a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

With this too, a statist government in its various forms does not have to adhere to those principles, except ofcourse fascism.