Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Mikhail Liebenstein

Will The Uk Launch An Fdr Blue Eagle Style Campaign

Recommended Posts

I have just read the very interesting book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.

The principle behind the book is that Fascism is really a left wing ideology, though it often talks of the "Third Way" between socialism and capitalism - and that although the Black Shirt type fascism has never come to America, a smiley kindof Liberal version has.

A chapter of the book is also dedicated to Franklin D Roosevelt and talks about the Blue Eagle Campaign and the Creation of the NRA (National Recovery Administration), which set up to counter act the Great Depression. Essentially the NRA forced business to set floor prices and closed down firms that tried to undercut this level or the competition. The aim was to force inflation and the strong arm approach adopted was considered fascist.

BlueEagle and NRA

Of course, most of the big firms loved this, as they today love any legislation that imposes regulation burnden that they can handle but which small firms can't.

But the question here is, if the Government finds that queasing no longer works, is it likely that it could resort to fascist syle supply side polices.

PS - I believe the current Labour Government genuinely does now count as Fascist.

Edited by mikelivingstone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aside, fascist governments are marked by a preponderance of egotistical, incompetent, self-aggrandising fools, who are totally (comically, if it weren't for the tragic outcomes) unsuitable for leadership. (Think Goering, Mussolini, Himmler, old Adolf himself. Then think Harman, Balls, Cooper, Brown. Snap!)

Here we go, listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zSEi3IS340

This is scarely similar to what a popularist politician might want to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was started recently in off-topic:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...t=0&start=0

Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) tasked to intimidate critics of Jacqui Smith?

The UKColumn was shocked to learn that a member of the public, who wrote letters and emails calling the Home Secretary a communist and criticising her for creating a police state, has been summoned for an interview with his GP. The individual, who wishes to remain anonymous, informed the Column that he was recently surprised to receive a call from his GP asking him to attend the surgery.

Once in front of his doctor, Mr X was stunned to be told that the GP had received a letter from the highly secretive Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) following instructions from the Home Secretary herself. Although embarrassed, the GP understood from the communication that he was required to interview Mr X to establish his ‘state of mind’.

The implications of this incident are extremely serious, as they suggest that anyone who dares to criticise the Home Secretary, or perhaps even the government itself, will be regarded as mentally ill. Clearly for Mr X, Smith’s actions were intended to be a warning and the first step in attempting to brand him mentally ill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aside, fascist governments are marked by a preponderance of egotistical, incompetent, self-aggrandising fools with fringe personalities, who are totally (comically, if it weren't for the tragic outcomes) unsuitable for leadership. (Think Goering, Mussolini, Himmler, old Adolf himself. Then think Harman, Balls, Cooper, Brown. Snap!)

I would add Margaret Thatcher, espcially after the third election victory caused her to succumb to insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS - I believe the current Labour Government genuinely does now count as Fascist.

How can they be fascist? We're spending millions on foreign aid, still have largely open immigration, racial and religious hate crime legislation, devolution...

This is whatever else you want to say one of the least fascist governments in memory and probably in all British history. Their complete opposition to anything even vaguely fascist is why they are often accused by people on this forum of being traitors and in the pocket of the EU (etc.)

I just don't see the Labour party as a populist movement for national strength, a bit of mumbling about Saint George's day and British jobs for British workers (but I'm only kidding) is the nearest they've ever come to. I never really get the feeling that Gordon Brown's number one interest is the strength and enduring unity of the British state, he wouldn't have split it into 4 piece if it were.

Did you mean authoritarian?

Perhaps I've missed something. Price floors would be fascist if the idea was to strengthen the country at the expense of people in other countries, I don't really see how that could be the case for us though.

6578fascespng_600.png <---- bundle of twigs strong enough to make an axe.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can they be fascist? We're spending millions on foreign aid, still have largely open immigration, racial and religious hate crime legislation, devolution...

This is whatever else you want to say one of the least fascist governments in memory and probably in all British history. Their complete opposition to anything even vaguely fascist is why they are often accused by people on this forum of being traitors and in the pocket of the EU (etc.)

I just don't see the Labour party as a populist movement for national strength, a bit of mumbling about Saint George's day and British jobs for British workers (but I'm only kidding) is the nearest they've ever come to. I never really get the feeling that Gordon Brown's number one interest is the strength and enduring unity of the British state, he wouldn't have split it into 4 piece if it were.

Did you mean authoritarian?

Perhaps I've missed something. Price floors would be fascist if the idea was to strengthen the country at the expense of people in other countries, I don't really see how that could be the case for us though.

6578fascespng_600.png <---- bundle of twigs strong enough to make an axe.

They are globalist facists.

You are mistaking what other peopel did with a methodology for the methodology itself, a little like saying the gun is different if it shoots Dave instead of John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are globalist facists.

You are mistaking what other peopel did with a methodology for the methodology itself, a little like saying the gun is different if it shoots Dave instead of John.

How can you be a global fascist? Its a contradiction in terms.

OK, so you can say that because you like the sound of it but it effectively renders the word fascist meaningless.

It just means "people we disagree with". The irreducible core of fascism is nationalism, whether it expresses itself in communism, capitalism, monarchism, republicanism or whatever, its nationalistic rather than international in character. Hence the disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin. Neo-cons are properly called Neo-Trotskyites who have had their word processor search and replace "socialism" for "capitalism". I can see that. But fascists? Nope.

Unless maybe there are more little green men about than I thought.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you be a global fascist? Its a contradiction in terms.

Unless maybe there are more little green men about than I thought.

What would hitler have been called if he had taken over the whole world before crashing a burning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would hitler have been called if he had taken over the whole world before crashing a burning?

I don't know but if he'd presented it as a victory for the German people he'd certainly have been a fascist.

If he'd gone around saying Germans were no better than black people, asians, hispanics or jews and that everyone was equal and German people would have no special rights over anyone else, probably not.

I don't know what his plans were but I can guess.

I was really wondering how the authors of the book manage to argue nationalism isn't part of fascism.

Sounds like the American right hyperventilating from the reviews I've seen of it. It is very hard to see how American liberals could be fascists. Facists tend to believe, for example, women who don't have children/work and homosexuals are also the enemy because they weaken the nation by not doing their bit to pump out the requisite number of little stormtroopers. People who don't work productively for a living are also the enemy.

There is no mystery to the ideology, it is based on a certain reading of the Roman Republic. Who as you might know, were quite 'international' but quite good at turning other people in slaves or butchering them and argued the citizen of Rome had significant rights not allowed to anyone else. To harm a citizen of the Republic was to have your whole tribe or village put to the sword.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aside, fascist governments are marked by a preponderance of egotistical, incompetent, self-aggrandising fools with fringe personalities, who are totally (comically, if it weren't for the tragic outcomes) unsuitable for leadership. (Think Goering, Mussolini, Himmler, old Adolf himself. Then think Harman, Balls, Cooper, Brown. Snap!)

an idea for some new cards

does Brown trump Law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know but if he'd presented it as a victory for the German people he'd certainly have been a fascist.

If he'd gone around saying Germans were no better than black people, asians, hispanics or jews and that everyone was equal and German people would have no special rights over anyone else, probably not.

I don't know what his plans were but I can guess.

I was really wondering how the authors of the book manage to argue nationalism isn't part of fascism.

Sounds like the American right hyperventilating from the reviews I've seen of it.

Nationalism is part of it, but if we acknowledge that natiosn don;'t exist, what we have is the use of force based on geogrpahical constraints on people.

Globalism fits in with that just fine. it's a geographical based nonsense fiction that ios used to excuse the use of violence against the helpess.

The excuses are the only real differences between governments, as well as how much irrational fear and violence they descend to,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nationalism is part of it, but if we acknowledge that natiosn don;'t exist, what we have is the use of force based on geogrpahical constraints on people.

But you and a certain sort of Trotskyite are the only people I know who think nations don't exist.

Oh and John Lennon, I think he just liked how it scanned though.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascism is characterised by an virulent opposition to social-liberal Guardianista ideas, a corporate state and a strongly nationalist ideology.

If you want an example of this, take a look at the BNP manifesto - seriously. New Labour falls on all three counts. Whatever it is' it's definitely not fascist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nationalism is part of it, but if we acknowledge that natiosn don;'t exist, what we have is the use of force based on geogrpahical constraints on people.

That's a whole other argument. Nationalism and an objection to unfetterered global trade and movement of people are key tenets of fascism. If it doesn't have them, it's not fascism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just read the very interesting book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.

The principle behind the book is that Fascism is really a left wing ideology, though it often talks of the "Third Way" between socialism and capitalism - and that although the Black Shirt type fascism has never come to America, a smiley kindof Liberal version has.

A chapter of the book is also dedicated to Franklin D Roosevelt and talks about the Blue Eagle Campaign and the Creation of the NRA (National Recovery Administration), which set up to counter act the Great Depression. Essentially the NRA forced business to set floor prices and closed down firms that tried to undercut this level or the competition. The aim was to force inflation and the strong arm approach adopted was considered fascist.

BlueEagle and NRA

Of course, most of the big firms loved this, as they today love any legislation that imposes regulation burnden that they can handle but which small firms can't.

But the question here is, if the Government finds that queasing no longer works, is it likely that it could resort to fascist syle supply side polices.

PS - I believe the current Labour Government genuinely does now count as Fascist.

The term Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron.

I assume this book was written by an American who has not got a clue about the origins of Liberalism.

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

Making a link between strands of Socialist thinking and Fascism is hardly world shattering concept as the same idea occurred to the founders of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party) better known to history as the Nazis. Nor is pointing out the similarities between elements of FDRs New Deal and many aspect of Nazi economic policy startlingly original as I seem to remember the same aarguments being outlined by the authors of one of my A level history text back in the 1970's. That alone was not enough to make Roosevelt a fascist.

The attached list is good starting point for considering what consitutes a fascist state

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

Sadly the current UK government has made a pretty good attempt of ticking over half the list.

I expect its replacement will work their way through the rest of the schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just read the very interesting book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.

The principle behind the book is that Fascism is really a left wing ideology, though it often talks of the "Third Way" between socialism and capitalism - and that although the Black Shirt type fascism has never come to America, a smiley kindof Liberal version has.

A chapter of the book is also dedicated to Franklin D Roosevelt and talks about the Blue Eagle Campaign and the Creation of the NRA (National Recovery Administration), which set up to counter act the Great Depression. Essentially the NRA forced business to set floor prices and closed down firms that tried to undercut this level or the competition. The aim was to force inflation and the strong arm approach adopted was considered fascist.

BlueEagle and NRA

Of course, most of the big firms loved this, as they today love any legislation that imposes regulation burnden that they can handle but which small firms can't.

But the question here is, if the Government finds that queasing no longer works, is it likely that it could resort to fascist syle supply side polices.

PS - I believe the current Labour Government genuinely does now count as Fascist.

In many ways, planning permission could be seen as a supply-side policy... Great news for anyone who already owns a house and some land, not so good for the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fascism is characterised by an virulent opposition to social-liberal Guardianista ideas, a corporate state and a strongly nationalist ideology.

If you want an example of this, take a look at the BNP manifesto - seriously. New Labour falls on all three counts. Whatever it is' it's definitely not fascist.

You have fallen into the classic trap. Modern Liberalism ie the opposite of classic Liberalism has it roots deeply embedded in fascism.

Racial and gender quotas, excessive benefit payments, crack downs by the home secretary are all good examples of why the Labour Government is a fascist Government in the true meaning of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The term Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron.

I assume this book was written by an American who has not got a clue about the origins of Liberalism.

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

Key point, the word "Liberal" has been inverted. The modern Liberals have nothing in common with the old Whigs in either the UK or the US.

Those who espouse racial quotas, excessive intervention and stronger state control are fascists.

In my book Labour ticks all three , the Lib Dems manage 2 of the above and the Conservatives probably 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can they be fascist? We're spending millions on foreign aid, still have largely open immigration, racial and religious hate crime legislation, devolution...

This is whatever else you want to say one of the least fascist governments in memory and probably in all British history. Their complete opposition to anything even vaguely fascist is why they are often accused by people on this forum of being traitors and in the pocket of the EU (etc.)

I just don't see the Labour party as a populist movement for national strength, a bit of mumbling about Saint George's day and British jobs for British workers (but I'm only kidding) is the nearest they've ever come to. I never really get the feeling that Gordon Brown's number one interest is the strength and enduring unity of the British state, he wouldn't have split it into 4 piece if it were.

Did you mean authoritarian?

No, I mean they are fascist. Point being that most people's view of Fascism has been coloured by the Nazis and so the true definition has been lost.

The key motifs of fascism are:

- "Third Ways"

- Men of Action ( ever heard the phrase "I'm getting on with the job")

- The leveraging of resources by the state "everything in the state nothing outside of the state"

- "Your either part of the solution or you are part of the problem"

Labour tick all these boxes and have a mad demigod as their El Duce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<SNIP>

I was really wondering how the authors of the book manage to argue nationalism isn't part of fascism.

Sounds like the American right hyperventilating from the reviews I've seen of it. It is very hard to see how American liberals could be fascists. Facists tend to believe, for example, women who don't have children/work and homosexuals are also the enemy because they weaken the nation by not doing their bit to pump out the requisite number of little stormtroopers. People who don't work productively for a living are also the enemy.

What role do you think the benefits system performs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What role do you think the benefits system performs?

Weakening the country and subsidising the unproductive?

There is also an element of palliating the worst excesses of capitalism and keeping down opposition while at the same time providing a pool of potential labour that keeps wage costs down given that full employment is highly undesirable to the capitalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you and a certain sort of Trotskyite are the only people I know who think nations don't exist.

Oh and John Lennon, I think he just liked how it scanned though.

Countries don't exist - this is a simple fact.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I mean they are fascist. Point being that most people's view of Fascism has been coloured by the Nazis and so the true definition has been lost.

The key motifs of fascism are:

- "Third Ways"

- Men of Action ( ever heard the phrase "I'm getting on with the job")

- The leveraging of resources by the state "everything in the state nothing outside of the state"

- "Your either part of the solution or you are part of the problem"

Labour tick all these boxes and have a mad demigod as their El Duce.

I think you are being a bit credulous. You should see some of the reviews that book has got from right-wing intellectuals, even they think its a joke.

The 'true definition' has not been lost, the model was and remains the Roman Republic. The things you identify as "key motifs" are just that, motifs, and as such are epiphenomenal and could be found anywhere you care to look for them. If medieval England, 18th century France, 21st century China and apparently New Labour are all "fascists" then the word has no meaning as it fails to distinguish between different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a whole other argument. Nationalism and an objection to unfetterered global trade and movement of people are key tenets of fascism. If it doesn't have them, it's not fascism.

Then nulabour still fits the bill.

Hows about looking at what they do rather than listening to the rhetoric?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.