Was FDR a fascist?

Last edited:
Care4all said:
I disagree Ron....I think that socialism leads to communism not fascism....

and that both fascism and socialism ala communism are Totalitarian, though fascism came out to counter the communists....
Click to expand...

Both were totalitarian in that they placed the importance of the state and the society above the importance of the individual.

Fascism was dubiously more free economically, but both fascism and communism (and therefore consequently socialism) can safely be called totalitarian.
 
Southern Man said:
Yes Yes it does. And if you knew your real history of The South (not what's taught in schools) then you would repeat this, but without the sarcasm.
Click to expand...

The South opposed Popular Sovereignty (middle ground) in the territories, not to mention the containment policy sought by the GOP from 1854-61. It also sought to bring back the slave trade after 1850. Saying that its support of state's rights and disunion is support of "freedumn" is rediculous. It used them to try to maintain regional control over the economy and the federal government. Within the South, the populists used to government to suppress competitive markets and industrialization and to prop up the cotton industry and the Jeffersonian vision of an agrarian society.
 
Care4all said:
I disagree Ron....I think that socialism leads to communism not fascism....

and that both fascism and socialism ala communism are Totalitarian, though fascism came out to counter the communists....

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Click to expand...

Wiki (and the actual source here is EB for those who hate wiki and don't understand how to criticize a source) nails it with the first paragraph.

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
Click to expand...

Fascism clearly falls within that.
 
Battleborne said:
You weren't even born yet...never mind your professors told you so...right?

FDR was just a 'War President' at the end of the 'Great Depression'...what would you have done?...Criticisim is easy after the fact...'Arm Chair Quarterbacking' and all! FDR was in the era of the last of the conservative democrats...not socialist...it was not even fad then!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Communisim was rampant back in those days. http://www.marxisthistory.org/subject/usa/eam/cpadownloads30-46.html
 
Battleborne said:
You weren't even born yet...never mind your professors told you so...right?

FDR was just a 'War President' at the end of the 'Great Depression'...what would you have done?...Criticisim is easy after the fact...'Arm Chair Quarterbacking' and all! FDR was in the era of the last of the conservative democrats...not socialist...it was not even fad then!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How old were you when FDR was elected? According to you, you'd have to be nearing a 100 for your opinion to be any merit.
 
RStringfield said:
How old were you when FDR was elected? According to you, you'd have to be nearing a 100 for your opinion to be any merit.
Click to expand...

I almost asked him that, but decided not to because I figured with his decline in intellect it's not entirely impossible he's pushing 100.

I imagine him propped up in a wheelchair drooling on his keyboard as he tries to convince girls to post their pictures.
 
String - Surely you are well aware of Mussolini's hostility towards Socialism. The fact that Socialism and Fascism may share a common feature hardly means that the two are the same thing.
 
Dungheap said:
String - Surely you are well aware of Mussolini's hostility towards Socialism. The fact that Socialism and Fascism may share a common feature hardly means that the two are the same thing.
Click to expand...

Nor does it mean they are not.

They employ the same means for different ends.

Each ideology seeks to provide a utopia for their citizens, the only difference is what it looks like at the end.
 
Threedee said:
The South opposed Popular Sovereignty (middle ground) in the territories, not to mention the containment policy sought by the GOP from 1854-61. It also sought to bring back the slave trade after 1850. Saying that its support of state's rights and disunion is support of "freedumn" is rediculous. It used them to try to maintain regional control over the economy and the federal government. Within the South, the populists used to government to suppress competitive markets and industrialization and to prop up the cotton industry and the Jeffersonian vision of an agrarian society.
Click to expand...
In those days The South was run by a few thousand wealthy land owners. They were overwhelmingly of English ancestry and controlled the rich bottom lands, located in the east in Virginia and the Carolinas, and the southern sections of Georgia, Alabama, and most of Mississippi. When German immigrants moved in to claim land they were forced into the less fertile Piedmont. When the Scots-Irish moved in they populated the Piedmont and the Mountain regions. It was either that or work as sharecroppers working under the racist English descendents and trying to compete in controlled markets and against slave labor. It wasn’t just the black race that were hated and kept from economic advancement.

Thus the Piedmont and Mountain folk lived in a completely different world than the English descendents. Most were subsistence farmers and few, if any, owned slaves. They were mostly isolated from the political issues of the day. When the war came it was seen for what it was: a cause that wasn’t theirs. Few enlisted and many worked as spies or actively fought for the Union.

The differences between the Upland South and lowlands of the South's Atlantic Seaboard and cotton belt often resulted in regional tension and conflict within states. For example, during the late 18th century, the upland "backcountry" of North Carolina and South Carolina grew in population until the Upland Southerners of these areas outnumbered the older, well-established, wealthier coastal populations. In some cases the conflict between the two resulted in warfare, such as War of the Regulation in North Carolina. Later, similar processes resulted in divergent populations in states to the west. Northern Alabama, for example, was settled from Tennessee by Upland Southerners, while southern Alabama was one of the core regions of the Deep South cotton boom. During the American Civil War some areas of the Upland South were noted for their resistance to the Confederacy. The uplands of western Virginia became the state of West Virginia as a result, though half the counties of the new state were Secessionist, and partisan warfare continued throughout the war. Kentucky and Missouri remained in the Union but were torn by internal strife. The southern Appalachian region of East Tennessee and some parts of northern Alabama and northern Georgia were widely noted for their pro-Union sentiments.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upland_South

So when I say that The South is the Cradle of Freedom I’m referring to the regions that I call home. We didn’t just fight against the British but for the free market system and against bigotry itself.
 
Dungheap said:
String - Surely you are well aware of Mussolini's hostility towards Socialism. The fact that Socialism and Fascism may share a common feature hardly means that the two are the same thing.
Click to expand...

Never really studied him much. Again, I don't give a damn about the personalities. But, it appears he showed some hostility towards Socialists parties, not the ideas. He was raised socialist, wrote for socialist papers and does not appear to have ever actually abandoned the principle ideals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
 
And they do not simply share a common feature. The bedrock principle of socialism is found in fascism.

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
 
As I have pointed out before, the Bloods hate the Cryps. Does not mean they are not both criminal gangs and essentially the same.
 
RStringfield said:
And they do not simply share a common feature. The bedrock principle of socialism is found in fascism.

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
Click to expand...



Apparently you want to play semantic games and rely on useless definitions like the one above to cast aspersions against all sorts of doctrines you disagree with rather than inform yourself on the specifics of the ideologies you are discussing.

If you want to know about fascism, a good place to start is Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism" for obvious reasons.
 
Dungheap said:
Apparently you want to play semantic games and rely on useless definitions like the one above to cast aspersions against all sorts of doctrines you disagree with rather than inform yourself on the specifics of the ideologies you are discussing.

If you want to know about fascism, a good place to start is Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism" for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Pretensions are not debate. Of what specific am I unaware?

I aint about to read some evil dumbasses book. I know he supported SEVERE subordination of individual interests for the interests of the collective and central planning. That's enough for me to reject his ideas for both moral and pragmatic reasons.

Further, it fits in the broader definition of socialism as I understand it. I have presented that definition from a widely accepted source. Tell me where I am wrong on the essentials? The fact that Mussolini dressed his guys in black and hated the leader of the other socialists who threatened his power grabs is NOT an essential difference. It's personality and partisan BS.
 
RStringfield said:
Pretensions are not debate. Of what specific am I unaware?

I aint about to read some evil dumbasses book. I know he supported SEVERE subordination of individual interests for the interests of the collective and central planning. That's enough for me to reject his ideas for both moral and pragmatic reasons.

Further, it fits in the broader definition of socialism as I understand it. I have presented that definition from a widely accepted source. Tell me where I am wrong on the essentials? The fact that Mussolini dressed his guys in black and hated the leader of the other socialists who threatened his power grabs is NOT an essential difference. It's personality and partisan BS.
Click to expand...


Partisan BS? I am neither a socialist nor a fascist.

Basically, your position is that any two ideologies that share a common feature are the same. It's nonsense for obvious reasons. More detailed reasons can be found in the rather short text to which I have referred you (and really, coming from the guy that links to extensive works of Austrian school philosophical pieces it's rich that you refuse to look into it).

I mean, if I wanted to intelligently discuss a certain ideology or theory I would first become familiar with that ideology or theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top