I believe the New Deal was the beginning of American Marxism because it empowered government to take unjust possession of the private property of Middle Class Americans - earmarked for redistribution to the proletariat class, and thus purchasing their votes. The New Deal also empowered government to obtain unjust controls over the means of production - control of big business through labor and banking laws.
“There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom. So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them….. In the welfare state the government undertakes to see to it that the individual shall be housed and clothed and fed according to a statistical social standard, and that he shall be properly employed and entertained, and in consideration for this security the individual accepts in place of entire freedom a status and a number and submits his life to be minded and directed by an all-responsible government.” Garet Garrett
For a significant illustration of what has happened to words — of the double meaning that inhabits them — put in contrast what the New Deal means when it speaks of preserving the American system of free private enterprise and what American business means when it speaks of defending it. To the New Deal these words — the American system of free private enterprise — stand for a conquered province. To the businessman the same words stand for a world that is in danger and may have to be defended….You do not defend a world that is already lost. When was it lost? That you cannot say precisely. It is a point for the revolutionary historian to ponder. We know only that it was surrendered peacefully, without a struggle, almost unawares. There was no day, no hour, no celebration of the event — and yet definitely, the ultimate power of initiative did pass from the hands of private enterprise to government. There it is and there it will remain until, if ever, it shall be reconquered. Certainly government will never surrender without a struggle.” Garet Garett
Great. From Lew Rockwell's site we're hearing now.
Meanwhile I'd ask that we ponder the results of unbridled, unregulated, irresponsible "free enterprise" especially when we see those great bastions of "free enterprise" in the form of Wall Street and the auto industry begging the taxpayers for loans.
Apart from the sheer hypocrisy of certain parties of these issues there is a human cost.
Perhaps we should all re-read Dickens and also examine the horrors and cost benefits of slavery.
Well it could be argued that slavery is good for the bottom line and Tiny Tim had no safety net (no health insurance either).
But here we have people arguing that, at a time when Americans were flat out busted and the dust storms had reduced our farm land to desert, people were living on freight trains and losing their homes en masse, the New Deal was bad because it was "Marxism".
Give me a break.
I'd also like people to ask themselves what is so terrible about projects that support the arts, that give opportunities to struggling families, that provide safety nets for illness, disability and old age.
And what is so great about a society polarized between rich and poor?
I don't think that's what the founding fathers envisioned. It might be what the wealthy business community envisions but it isn't very good for democracy OR a creative, productive society capable of sustaining itself long term. Indeed it argues against broad-based health and creativity, without which this country will perish.
Finally I'd ask people to look at the results of corporate greed on our neighbors to the South. Unless you've studied Mexican and South American history or spoken to people from there you probably have no idea why we're so hated.
And mark my words - America is hated. Most of us have absolutely nothing to do with that either - but the wounds are deeper and wider than you can imagine - in fact conversations with recent acquaintances have shocked me because I had had no idea that the wounds are so raw or that we're widely regarded as heartless corporate brigands.
So without getting hysterical about Marxism we need to look at the way we've fought populist and labor movements because it's directly impacting people on both sides of La Linea - there can be no peace even within our own hemisphere if we don't confront these basic economic issues and the wars and oppression that have resulted.
And there can be no broad-based economic and social health here in the US unless we can agree that we really are created equal and aren't just tools of oligarchy.
The fact is our prosperity here in the US has often come at a terrific price, both to the poor and working class here, to women, to artists, to people "thinking outside the box" who can't get their ideas off the ground - often because they threaten the corporate status quo - and to the world beyond our borders.
Well it isn't too late to learn and ask what we can do to build better relations within our own hemisphere as well as between classes of people within the US itself.
First we better acknowledge that we HAVE classes, economic classes - just like the Europe against which we rebelled - and realize that has consequences.
On the health care issue alone - one's economic circumstances are a prime determinate of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and therefore it could be argued that lack of universal health care and access to quality education for EVERYBODY are unconstitutional.
Finally I'd ask people to look at the results of corporate greed on our neighbors to the South. Unless you've studied Mexican and South American history or spoken to people from there you probably have no idea why we're so hated.
I can only speak from a Brazilian experience and a lot of the hatred is politically generated by those projecting their sins.
Many of the results of "corporate greed" of European origin was mainly ignored while the terrible Yanke was buying up 50% of their GNP.
All the European Common Market efforts to stymie Brazilian exports was seemingly ignored over the years by the media and consequently the masses.
Even when shortages introduced after Chernobyl to supply the Europeans with clean Brazilian foodstuffs (food products were diverted to European countries by their "expatriate" multinationals - suddenly Brazil a beef producing society was importing frozen European beef, Dutch and Danish butter and milk products) there was no outcry at the attempt to dump at the expense of Brazilian lives radio-active polluted European produce that the Europeans were so unwilling to consume themselves.
The European pharmaceutical companies and their contaminated medical supplies because they were buying cheap blood stock from sufferers of Malaria, hepatitis, aids etc.
Just plain greed is one thing, immorality another and don't leave the political aspect and its hypocrisy out of the equation.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
I believe the New Deal was the beginning of American Marxism because it empowered government to take unjust possession of the private property of Middle Class Americans - earmarked for redistribution to the proletariat class, and thus purchasing their votes. The New Deal also empowered government to obtain unjust controls over the means of production - control of big business through labor and banking laws.
“There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom. So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them….. In the welfare state the government undertakes to see to it that the individual shall be housed and clothed and fed according to a statistical social standard, and that he shall be properly employed and entertained, and in consideration for this security the individual accepts in place of entire freedom a status and a number and submits his life to be minded and directed by an all-responsible government.” Garet Garrett
For a significant illustration of what has happened to words — of the double meaning that inhabits them — put in contrast what the New Deal means when it speaks of preserving the American system of free private enterprise and what American business means when it speaks of defending it. To the New Deal these words — the American system of free private enterprise — stand for a conquered province. To the businessman the same words stand for a world that is in danger and may have to be defended….You do not defend a world that is already lost. When was it lost? That you cannot say precisely. It is a point for the revolutionary historian to ponder. We know only that it was surrendered peacefully, without a struggle, almost unawares. There was no day, no hour, no celebration of the event — and yet definitely, the ultimate power of initiative did pass from the hands of private enterprise to government. There it is and there it will remain until, if ever, it shall be reconquered. Certainly government will never surrender without a struggle.” Garet Garett
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/garrett1.html
Great. From Lew Rockwell's site we're hearing now.
Meanwhile I'd ask that we ponder the results of unbridled, unregulated, irresponsible "free enterprise" especially when we see those great bastions of "free enterprise" in the form of Wall Street and the auto industry begging the taxpayers for loans.
Apart from the sheer hypocrisy of certain parties of these issues there is a human cost.
Perhaps we should all re-read Dickens and also examine the horrors and cost benefits of slavery.
Well it could be argued that slavery is good for the bottom line and Tiny Tim had no safety net (no health insurance either).
But here we have people arguing that, at a time when Americans were flat out busted and the dust storms had reduced our farm land to desert, people were living on freight trains and losing their homes en masse, the New Deal was bad because it was "Marxism".
Give me a break.
I'd also like people to ask themselves what is so terrible about projects that support the arts, that give opportunities to struggling families, that provide safety nets for illness, disability and old age.
And what is so great about a society polarized between rich and poor?
I don't think that's what the founding fathers envisioned. It might be what the wealthy business community envisions but it isn't very good for democracy OR a creative, productive society capable of sustaining itself long term. Indeed it argues against broad-based health and creativity, without which this country will perish.
Finally I'd ask people to look at the results of corporate greed on our neighbors to the South. Unless you've studied Mexican and South American history or spoken to people from there you probably have no idea why we're so hated.
And mark my words - America is hated. Most of us have absolutely nothing to do with that either - but the wounds are deeper and wider than you can imagine - in fact conversations with recent acquaintances have shocked me because I had had no idea that the wounds are so raw or that we're widely regarded as heartless corporate brigands.
So without getting hysterical about Marxism we need to look at the way we've fought populist and labor movements because it's directly impacting people on both sides of La Linea - there can be no peace even within our own hemisphere if we don't confront these basic economic issues and the wars and oppression that have resulted.
And there can be no broad-based economic and social health here in the US unless we can agree that we really are created equal and aren't just tools of oligarchy.
The fact is our prosperity here in the US has often come at a terrific price, both to the poor and working class here, to women, to artists, to people "thinking outside the box" who can't get their ideas off the ground - often because they threaten the corporate status quo - and to the world beyond our borders.
Well it isn't too late to learn and ask what we can do to build better relations within our own hemisphere as well as between classes of people within the US itself.
First we better acknowledge that we HAVE classes, economic classes - just like the Europe against which we rebelled - and realize that has consequences.
On the health care issue alone - one's economic circumstances are a prime determinate of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and therefore it could be argued that lack of universal health care and access to quality education for EVERYBODY are unconstitutional.
Apologies if this comment is too tart.
Sophia,
Finally I'd ask people to look at the results of corporate greed on our neighbors to the South. Unless you've studied Mexican and South American history or spoken to people from there you probably have no idea why we're so hated.
I can only speak from a Brazilian experience and a lot of the hatred is politically generated by those projecting their sins.
Many of the results of "corporate greed" of European origin was mainly ignored while the terrible Yanke was buying up 50% of their GNP.
All the European Common Market efforts to stymie Brazilian exports was seemingly ignored over the years by the media and consequently the masses.
Even when shortages introduced after Chernobyl to supply the Europeans with clean Brazilian foodstuffs (food products were diverted to European countries by their "expatriate" multinationals - suddenly Brazil a beef producing society was importing frozen European beef, Dutch and Danish butter and milk products) there was no outcry at the attempt to dump at the expense of Brazilian lives radio-active polluted European produce that the Europeans were so unwilling to consume themselves.
The European pharmaceutical companies and their contaminated medical supplies because they were buying cheap blood stock from sufferers of Malaria, hepatitis, aids etc.
Just plain greed is one thing, immorality another and don't leave the political aspect and its hypocrisy out of the equation.