Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
skews13

FDR's 1944 Economic Bill Of Rights Still A Relevant Platform Today

Recommended Posts

 

 

• The right of every family to a decent home;

 

 

I asked this awhile back. Does this involve a conventional home with private property rights or cramming people into apartment buildings with no property rights?

 

The way I see it, government inevitably taxes people out of their home and property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BeAChooser - But before we get to the specifics of that lie, let me point out as I already noted that Marx said socialism is just a step on the road to communism. Lenin said that the goal of socialism is communism.

 

Really? What kind of Socialism were they talking about? Clearly not Fabian Socialism or Democratic Socialism.

What specifically makes that so clear to you, Heretic? And don't you think that adding the word "democratic" in front of "socialism" is bit disingenuous? There is very little that is "democratic" about socialists in action. In fact, one of the ones I mentioned earlier, Walter Lippmann, advised FDR to become a dictator. He told his readers that "The situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers" and "A mild species of dictatorship will help us over the roughest spots in the road ahead." Did you know that? That's how socialists REALLY think when they aren't hiding behind the guise of Fabianism. Now I wonder if Lippmann considered himself a "Social Democrat." ;)

 

BeAChooser - Stuart Chase, as noted earlier in this thread, toured the USSR, interviewed Stalin and Trotsky, and had great things to say about the communist way of doing things. He called for SHOOTING CAPITALISTS.

 

Do you have a quote?

Of course I do. If you'd paid the slightest bit of attention the last DOZEN time this was discussed here at LF, you'd already know that. But here … just for you …from his 1931-32 book titled "A New Deal": (see https://www.questia.com/library/72510640/a-new-deal to read it):

 

Best of all, the new regime (BAC - a Fabian Socialist regime) would have the clearest idea of what an economic system was for. The sixteen methods of becoming wealthy would be proscribed (punished)--by firing squad if necessary--ceasing to plague the orderly process of production and distribution. The whole vicious pecuniary complex would collapse as it has in Russia. Money-making as a career would no more occur to a respectable young man than burglary, forgery, or embezzlement.

He was talking about lining up and shooting capitalists who use free enterprise and capitalism to become wealthy.

 

Just surprised that you called him a Fabian Socialists named Harold Wilson. It sounded as though you had never heard of him.

I wasn't suprised to hear about him at all. I simply hadn't mentioned him because he was British and we talking about the Fabian Society making in roads into AMERICAN politics. As a result, I just assumed you'd know that I meant WOODROW Wilson when I mention a Wilson.

 

And I called Harold Wilson a Fabian Socialist because he was one, Heretic. You appear to be the one who knows very little about him. He wrote, for example this, http://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:cob525vix , published by the Fabian Society. He helped write another book titled "The Road To Recover / Fabian Society Lectures Given In the Autumn of 1947" (http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2124369 ). He became a member of the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of the Fabian Society (https://archive.org/stream/fabiantract1956a57fabiuoft/fabiantract1956a57fabiuoft_djvu.txt ). I doubt he did that without being a Fabian. Indeed there are literally thousands of sources indicating that Harold Wilson was a Fabian. And when he became PM, what did he do but appoint Fabian Socialists, like Michael Stewart, to his cabinet. I'm surprised you didn't know all that, Heretic. It sounds as though you had REALLY hadn't heard of him until you dredged him up as a distraction from the discussion we were having. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the guy who took gold out of circulation, correct? This is the guy who removed a form of exchange that had a 6 or 7 thousand year positive - never ever wavering track record, correct? Must have been some early type of Hope & Change thing.

 

You realize that even under gold standards inflation, to include hyperinflation occurred, and in many instances gold proved to be an incredibly unreliable medium of exchange that destroyed economic viability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In terms of inequality of wealth and income, we are worse off than we were in '44. Higher education, decent housing, adequate health care and, of course, a "useful and remunerative" job are beyond the reach of far too many Americans. Should we not look upon these facts with shame and horror and a determination to transform them?

With a little tweaking—mention of a sustainable environment and gender equity, for instance—the excerpt from Roosevelt's speech would make a fine addition to any State of the Union address today. Of course, those clarion words need to be accompanied by practical proposals for achieving the enumerated rights, the kind of proposals a few progressives have been urging since, well, since FDR first presented the economic bill of rights.

Such proposals today have more enemies in and out of Congress than Roosevelt ever faced. But that does not mean a Democratic Party worthy of the name should abandon the attempt. The question, however, is whether it be made worthy of the name.

 

First and foremost these goals have very few enemies outside of the Democratic Party, because as a member of a labor union, I can testify that there's nothing middle class wage earners want than to deport every single illegal immigrant in this country, because they are entirely responsible for domestic wage suppression and the destruction of millions of middle class jobs. The only people opposed to mass deportation are Democrats, and usually liberals.

 

There's also this little known fact that community college is completely free to begin with. While I can't speak for all States, California waives fees for low income students, and combined with local, state, and Federal grants for students, I came out $4,000 a year in cash while attending community college. Perhaps instead of making community college "free" we should focus on funding and/or expanding programs that are relevant to local communities. Aerospace and manufacturing are huge in my area, and every newspaper and job search website always had dozens of new job listings for entry level machinists and other advanced manufacturing positions. My community college offered several programs, but instead of the 2 years it claimed the program took, I took classes for 4 YEARS before giving up on completing it. Half the required classes were never offered during that period, and the main courses filled up in minutes of registration opening up.

 

I know for a fact that hundreds of college courses in California take multiple semesters to get into, and a "free" education just means that it'll be that much more difficult to complete a degree, and millions of young Americans will fail due to massive class sizes and poor preparation. I know for a fact that I will never ever write a 10 page research paper on some bullshit book about hitchhiking, homosexuality, and doing drugs, which is why I'll never have a college degree, but I can tell you for a fact that in 4 years I'll be making $100,000 a year and retiring at 50 with 3 pensions for the rest of my life(and no I'm not a public employee and taxpayers aren't footing the bill). How many college graduates can say that with certainty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What specifically makes that so clear to you, Heretic? And don't you think that adding the word "democratic" in front of "socialism" is bit disingenuous?

 

Good God!

 

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system. This may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasise democratic principles as inalienable from their political project.

 

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

 

Talk about disingenuous!

 

 

 

 

 

Of course I do. If you'd paid the slightest bit of attention the last DOZEN time this was discussed here at LF, you'd already know that. But here … just for you …from his 1931-32 book titled "A New Deal": (see https://www.questia.com/library/72510640/a-new-deal to read it):

 

This is just a TOC with lots of chapters. Can you just give us the actual quote?

 

 

I wasn't suprised to hear about him at all. I simply hadn't mentioned him because he was British and we talking about the Fabian Society making in roads into AMERICAN politics. As a result, I just assumed you'd know that I meant WOODROW Wilson when I mention a Wilson.

 

 

You don't get it. When you refer to anyone as a person "called" such-and-such, it implies that you have never heard of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system.

LOL!

 

North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

 

Communist Vietnam is called the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

 

Fidel Castro insisted that Cuba was a democracy..

 

The Soviet Union used what was termed Soviet Democracy or council democracy to elect members of their soviets.

 

When it comes to socialists, using the word democracy is a bit disingenuous.

 

This is just a TOC with lots of chapters. Can you just give us the actual quote?

I did. From page 163 of the book:

 

The sixteen methods of becoming wealthy would be proscribed (punished)--by firing squad if necessary--ceasing to plague the orderly process of production and distribution.

In that section, Chase was attacking free enterprise and capitalism.

 

His 16 methods were

 

(1) Create and artificial monopoly and boost prices -- as has been done with oil and aluminum;

 

(2) Tie up a patent or secret process, and charge all the traffic will bear - as the shoe machinery company did;

 

(3) Borrow money at 6 per cent, and lend it at fantastic rates, disguised as "bonuses" or what not, to the little people;

 

(4) Make a useless product and sell it, like toothpaste, by high pressure radio advertising;

 

(5) Ballyhoo a perfectly good cheap product, like some patent medicines, worth a few cents, into big sales at absurd prices;

 

(6) Create new fashions, as in the automobile "annual model racket";

 

(7) Create and maintain artificial values for more or less dubious stocks and bonds - as per the famous histories of Messrs. Kreuger and Insull;

 

(8, 9 and 10) Speculate in securities; in land; in commodities;

 

(11) Promote a parasitic industry - move your factory to a region where labor is cheap and unorganized, and convert your farmer-neighbors into mill hands;

 

(12 and 13) Graft in politics, or in business, by "legal" methods;

 

(14) "Racketeer";

 

(15) Dump your surplus production abroad;

 

(16) Rush blindly in to compete where the going has been good, regardless of the need for more production.

Now if we were to do what he said today, you'd be shooting capitalists and free marketeers by the tens of thousands. Many of them quite respected.

 

You don't get it. When you refer to anyone as a person "called" such-and-such, it implies that you have never heard of him.

Not necessarily. But in any case, I never refered to Harold Wilson as a person "called" such-and-such. Go back and check. When you replied to my saying about Woodrow Wilson that "Wilson had to know it" with "Harold Wilson, not Woodrow", I replied "Yes, there was a Fabian Socialist named Harold Wilson" but told you I was talking about Woodrow Wilson.

 

Then you assumed I wasn't old enough to be aware of Harold Wilson and claimed he wasn't a communist. So I proved I did know who he was and that there were good reasons to suspect he might be a communist. You seem to be the one who didn't know much about him, Heretic.

 

Later I wrote "And I called Harold Wilson, a Fabian Socialist because he was one, Heretic", but that is not the same thing as saying "a person called" such-and-such. Surely you know that. So you just seem to be confused about what has transpired in this conversation. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To which "rights" are you referring?

The Right to Housing, Papers and Effects, Privacy, Equal Protection, protection from Excessive Search and Seizure, Life, Liberty and the Pursuits of Happiness, the Right to Face your Accusers ((see secret FISA courts and State's Rights)), the Right to be properly served (habeas corpus). ALL of it has been ATTACKED/IGNORED/REVERSED by the Neo-Con Banking/Insurance/Government Fascists and their Global Socialist Counterparts. The United States Public Trust has been undermined, pilfered and plundered by the 21st Century Spawn of the 20th Century Global National Socialist War Criminals, who demand MORE protections and funding for themselves, while putting those debts, struggles and NO BENEFIT, upon the targeted human sacrifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!

 

North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

 

Communist Vietnam is called the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

 

Fidel Castro insisted that Cuba was a democracy..

 

The Soviet Union used what was termed Soviet Democracy or council democracy to elect members of their soviets.

 

When it comes to socialists, using the word democracy is a bit disingenuous.

 

Not the Democratic Socialists of America

http://www.dsausa.org/

 

 

I did. From page 163 of the book:

 

Yes, that sounds like a Communist, so you've got 2 out of the group you named.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. But in any case, I never refered to Harold Wilson as a person "called" such-and-such. Go back and check. When you replied to my saying about Woodrow Wilson that "Wilson had to know it" with "Harold Wilson, not Woodrow", I replied "Yes, there was a Fabian Socialist named Harold Wilson" but told you I was talking about Woodrow Wilson.

 

Then you assumed I wasn't old enough to be aware of Harold Wilson and claimed he wasn't a communist. So I proved I did know who he was and that there were good reasons to suspect he might be a communist. You seem to be the one who didn't know much about him, Heretic.

 

Later I wrote "And I called Harold Wilson, a Fabian Socialist because he was one, Heretic", but that is not the same thing as saying "a person called" such-and-such. Surely you know that. So you just seem to be confused about what has transpired in this conversation. :D

 

 

 

If you've never heard of him, or he was before your time, it's no disgrace and, in any case, of no consequence to me. You've merely proven that you had the wherewithal to research him. Moreover, you are merely inferring that he was a Communist with little or no evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that sounds like a Communist, so you've got 2 out of the group you named.

In response to this:

 

In 1895, the Fabian Society founded the London School of Economics (LSE). A few years later, in 1906, The Rand School of Social Science was formed in New York City as the equivalent of the LSE. In 1908, not long after FDR graduated, a chapter of the ISS (Intercollegiate Socialist Society) was established at Harvard with the support of the Fabian Society. It soon had over 60 members , among them Walter Lippmann, Felix Frankfurter, Roger Baldwin, Harry Ward and Stuart Chase. ALL of these people would later become important members of FDR's administration or of his infamous "brain trust". FDR would even appoint Frankfurter to the Supreme Court.

you wrote

 

None of these people, except Ward, were Communists.

You admitted Ward was a communist. That's 1 out of 5.

 

You just admit Stuart Chase was a communist. That's 2 out of 5.

 

Roger Baldwin said "I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." He said "I wanted what the Communists wanted." That being the case, how can you claim he was not a communist? I think that's 3 out of 5.

 

You can't prove that Lippmann was not a communist and I showed there is much to suggest he was … that he might even have been working for the Soviets during FDRs administration. You want to ignore that fine. But then Truthers ignore a lot. And you are under the mistaken belief that to be a communist you have to call yourself a communist. You are under the false belief that if you criticize soviet communism, as Lippmann later did, you can't have been or be a communist. You don't seem to realize there were different brands of communism ... that Fabian Socialism was a direct challenger to Marx's revolutionary communism. You don't seem to grasp that a Fabian Socialist, who is trying to keep communism below the radar as it's gradually spread, might see a threat in visible Marxists and act against them. A Fabian Socialist might even write a book making like of Fabian Socialism to help take the public's eyes off it.

 

And then there's Felix Frankfurter. Isn't it curious that one of his students was Alger Hiss, who later clerked for him at the Supreme Court. Alger Hiss was communist. And Frankfurter declared him innocent well past when it was evident he was not. Dean Acheson was another of Frankfurter's close associates. Acheson also refused "to turn his back on Hiss" after Hiss was exposed as a communist. Harold Laski, a close friend of Frankfurter, was yet another communist. As already pointed out, the view by even his fellow Justices was that Frankfurter seemed to know an extraordinary number of communists and communist organizations. Now you can pretend that means nothing, but I do think it means something.

 

If you've never heard of him, or he was before your time, it's no disgrace and, in any case, of no consequence to me.

Sure, respond like a Truther. And feel free to admit you'd never heard of Fabian Socialism before I brought it to this forum. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to this:

 

you wrote

 

You admitted Ward was a communist. That's 1 out of 5.

 

You just admit Stuart Chase was a communist. That's 2 out of 5.

 

Roger Baldwin said "I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." He said "I wanted what the Communists wanted." That being the case, how can you claim he was not a communist? I think that's 3 out of 5.

 

He later called Soviet-style communism "A NEW SLAVERY" so I think we're back to 2 out of 5.

You can't prove that Lippmann was not a communist and I showed there is much to suggest he was … that he might even have been working for the Soviets during FDRs administration. You want to ignore that fine. But then Truthers ignore a lot. And you are under the mistaken belief that to be a communist you have to call yourself a communist. You are under the false belief that if you criticize soviet communism, as Lippmann later did, you can't have been or be a communist. You don't seem to realize there were different brands of communism ... that Fabian Socialism was a direct challenger to Marx's revolutionary communism. You don't seem to grasp that a Fabian Socialist, who is trying to keep communism below the radar as it's gradually spread, might see a threat in visible Marxists and act against them. A Fabian Socialist might even write a book making like of Fabian Socialism to help take the public's eyes off it.

 

And then there's Felix Frankfurter. Isn't it curious that one of his students was Alger Hiss, who later clerked for him at the Supreme Court. Alger Hiss was communist. And Frankfurter declared him innocent well past when it was evident he was not. Dean Acheson was another of Frankfurter's close associates. Acheson also refused "to turn his back on Hiss" after Hiss was exposed as a communist. Harold Laski, a close friend of Frankfurter, was yet another communist. As already pointed out, the view by even his fellow Justices was that Frankfurter seemed to know an extraordinary number of communists and communist organizations. Now you can pretend that means nothing, but I do think it means something.

 

 

This is truther-style inference and surmise. So we stay at 2 out of 5.

 

 

And feel free to admit you'd never heard of Fabian Socialism before I brought it to this forum. :D

 

 

 

I had heard of it, but from you I learned things hitherto unknown - such as how the right meme-orizes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He later called Soviet-style communism "A NEW SLAVERY"

Yes, in 1953, years after FDR was gone. Remember, I brought his name into this discussion to prove that when he was an important member of FDR's "brian trust", he was a communist. Because, after all, the OP topic is about FDR. And he was communist back then. He wrote what I noted above about being for socialism with communism as the goal in 1935. FDR had to know he was a communist even earlier. In 1934, right at the time he was a member of the "brain trust", he wrote (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf ) "I, too, take a class position. It is anti-capitalist and pro-revolutionary. I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. … snip … The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental." Read that article BY HIM. It proves without any doubt that he was communist. Not only that, he went on to write "When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies, at home and abroad." He was a communist who, until the excess of Stalin became widely known and shocked most Americans, was quite was pro-Stalin. He even said "the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world". He was a communist, Heretic, and for you to deny this shows your utter stupidity. It is Trutherism of the first order.

 

Furthermore, in 1953, when he wrote "A New Slavery", he just criticized Soviet-style communism. He didn't attack communism in general. He did that because a Fabian Socialist (communist) would view Stalinist Soviet-style communism ... with it's obviously harsh violations of human rights, and the pounding of shoes and threats to bury American opponents ... as a threat to the spread of Fabian Socialism (communism) by stealth in this country. He had to voice opposition to Stalin's communism or have himself and the ACLU discredited. Stalin's communism was VERY unpopular in the United States in the 50s so he changed his spots (afterall, he'd been very pro-Stalin) but not the animal (he continued to support the programs that Fabian Socialists had long promoted in America). He never backed away from those. He was still a communist …. of Fabian style.

 

This is truther-style inference and surmise.

None of which you discredit. You're the one arguing like a Truther, Heretic.

 

I had heard of it

Really? How? Where? When?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in 1953, years after FDR was gone. Remember, I brought his name into this discussion to prove that when he was an important member of FDR's "brian trust", he was a communist. Because, after all, the OP topic is about FDR. And he was communist back then. He wrote what I noted above about being for socialism with communism as the goal in 1935. FDR had to know he was a communist even earlier. In 1934, right at the time he was a member of the "brain trust", he wrote (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf ) "I, too, take a class position. It is anti-capitalist and pro-revolutionary. I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. … snip … The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental." Read that article BY HIM. It proves without any doubt that he was communist. Not only that, he went on to write "When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies, at home and abroad." He was a communist who, until the excess of Stalin became widely known and shocked most Americans, was quite was pro-Stalin. He even said "the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world". He was a communist, Heretic, and for you to deny this shows your utter stupidity. It is Trutherism of the first order.

 

Don't forget that, up until the end of WW2, most Americans were pro-Stalin. We had fought the Axis together and the Soviet Union had suffered far more casualties than we did. FDR was not a Communist, but he never shied from appointing them - mainly because he felt that uncontrolled capitalism was responsible for the Great Depression. As for Baldwin, he later condemned ruthless dictatorship, which removes the resemblance to Communism.

 

None of which you discredit. You're the one arguing like a Truther, Heretic.

 

 

I have discredited them as speculation. If you can prove you speculation then have at it!

 

Really? How? Where? When?

 

 

I believe it was in a poli-sci class at CCNY back during the Punic Wars. The prof and accompany textbook said that Fabian Socialism was founded as an alternative to Communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that, up until the end of WW2, most Americans were pro-Stalin.

Only in the sense that the USSR was the means to ending Hitler. The lesser of two evils. Americans were NOT pro-communist. Not like Baldwin was at that time. They weren't even pro-socialist. Not like the Fabians, who still felt it necessary to call their brand of socialism something other than what it was in order to spread by stealthy means. That's why the moment the war was over the House was driven to investigate communist activities. Because of American public feared communism. Indeed, the House Un-American Activities Committtee (HUAC) began investigating communist activitiess in 1938, well before the war. So those fears were there before war, especially amongst those who were knowledgeable about what had been going on in the USSR in the 20s and 30s. Indeed, it was even public sentiment that caused FDR to condemn the USSR in 1939 as a "dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world". I seriously doubt he would have otherwise, given all the admiring statements he made about Stalin and Russia.

 

The difference between folks like Chase and Baldwin, who were knowledgeable about Stalin and still supportive of not just Stalin but communism in general, and the mainstream public is that the public had mostly been kept in the dark or outright deceived by the liberal media and folks like Chase, Balwin, the Webbs and FDR regarding Stalin and communism. You're trying to rewrite history again, Heretic, in labeling Americans "pro-Stalin". They weren't, even if they'd been encouraged to see him as "Uncle Joe" by the liberal media and FDRs propagandists. The fact is that Roosevelt knew Stalin's true nature and knew the USSR was infiltrating the US government, and chose to ignore it … even hide it. And not just because he needed Stalin to stop Hitler … but because FDR was a socialist at heart and reluctant to condemn socialism and communism and thus hurt his agenda.

 

The fact is that the liberal media was busy casting Stalin in a good light thoughout the 20s and 30s. In 1926 Time Magazine had a portrait of Stalin with not one disparaging word in it. In the 1930s they and other leftist media actively hid the great Ukrainian famine that was sweeping the USSR because of communist rule. The New York times even gave their first Pulitzer Prize to a journalist named Walter Duranty, who has since been called "Stalin's Apologist". He denied a famine had occurred. He admired communism and wrote wonderful things about Stalin's Five Year plan. And the Pulizer Committee made special mention of his dispatches about the Five Year Plan in consideration of his work. Yet despite the truth now known, Duranty's name is still near the top of the NYTimes list of Pulitzer winners. In the 1930s, the magazine The Nation also propagated the Soviet party line. It's Moscow correspondent, Louis Fischer echoed Duranty's views that the famine had not occurred. When the Hearst newspapers published some stories about the famine, Fischer denied it occurred (he said "There is no starvation in Russia") and attack Hearst for trying to discredit the Soviet Union.

 

I guess some things never will change. The liberal media is still doing the same thing today with regards to the current generation of hardcore socialists and communists. The media ignores or dismisses their darker side and even mislabels them as "progressives" to make them more palable to the public. They make light of the words socialism and communism. Time even had a cover saying we are all socialists now. And they attack anyone who tells the truth like Fox News. But then that's what we should expect from the Fabians who run the liberal media.

 

FDR was not a Communist, but he never shied from appointing them - mainly because he felt that uncontrolled capitalism was responsible for the Great Depression.

LOL! Continue sticking your head in the ground. That's what Truthers do, Heretic. The truth is that FDR was a HARDCORE socialist. A Fabian Socialist. And that means he was at heart a communist. Because socialism is just a step on the road to communism. The biggest communist of all told us that, Heretic.

 

If FDR was not a declared communist, he certainly allowed communists to flourish in this country and in his government during his administration. Over and over he was warned about their infiltration and he ignored it, dismissed it, scoffed at the very concern. Given that, you cannot be certain that it was not a deliberate strategy to let communism get a foothold in this country. You can not know that a communist society was not FDR's eventual goal, very much in line with Fabian Socialism's underlying goal.

 

John Beaty in his 1951 book, "The Iron Curtain Over America", said there were 7 people who share the most responsibility for establishing the communist grip on the world. They were Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Truman and FDR. I think he should have dropped Truman from the list and added the Webbs. But FDR certainly belongs on that list. Because FDR said "I do not regard the Communists as any present or future threat to our country, in fact I look upon Russia as our strongest ally in the years to come." And then his actions agreed.

 

FDR said "the world is safer with Russia under Communism than under the Czars. Stalin is a great leader, and although I deplore some of his methods, it is the only way he can safeguard his government." He can't have been that clueless, Heretic. He knew what Stalin was and yet deliberately ignored it. Your claim that he was not a communist is belied by not only his own words but his actions. Indeed, his policies during the war seem designed to make sure world communism triumphed. The Yalta Conference was the just the last in a long series of decisions that furthered the interests of USSR and communism during the war.

 

When Japan attacked the US, the American public wanted the emphasis to be on the Pacific, not Germany. But Stalin wanted the emphasis to be on Germany, and that's what Roosevelt did. Then he lavished supplies on the Soviets. And went with Stalin's recommended approach to winning the war rather than Britain's. His policies undercut the strong anti-Nazi elements in Germany that might have ended the war early and deprived the USSR of much occupied territory at the end of the war. Indeed, FDR's administration spurned a number of serious peace overtures from the anti-Nazi, anti-Communist elements in the military leadership of Germany. And later he did the same thing to the Japanese, ignoring peace overtures and thus allowing the USSR to enter the war and seize even more territory. He even kept MacArthur and Nimitz out of the loop at Yalta because they wanted the USSR forestalled from entering the war against Japan. Almost every decision FDR made empowered the Soviet Communists and made them the problem the were after the war.

 

Finally, FDR's choice of advisors for all the above is itself illuminating. Rather than depend on Secretary of State Cordell Hull in his meetings with Churchill and Stalin, FDR decided to rely almost exclusively (because Hull wasn't even allowed at the meetings) on a social worker named Harry Hopkins … who evidence suggests was a socialist/communist and perhaps even a Soviet agent. And when I say he was a Soviet agent, there is enough direct evidence of that (http://www.dcdave.com/article5/110211.htm ) to prompt many recent books on the topic. And Hopkins actually lived in the WhiteHouse for three years. FDR and him were that close. He was that influential. So again, FDR did far more than what you're willing to admit.

 

As for Baldwin, he later condemned ruthless dictatorship, which removes the resemblance to Communism.

You debate like a Truther, ignoring all the facts and logic posted to you and just repeating a meme. As I said, he was communist when FDR made him part of his so-called "Brain Trust" and FDR had to have known it. And his condemning the Soviet Union later does not change that fact, nor does it mean he did anything more than change his appearance, because his agenda was still that promoted by Fabian Socialists. As Van Jones said, "I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends." Baldwin could easily have said that too.

 

I have discredited them as speculation.

No, you called them speculation. You discredited nothing.

 

The prof and accompany textbook said that Fabian Socialism was founded as an alternative to Communism.

Then both lied to you. Because Fabian Socialism was an alternative approach to spreading communism. Not an alternative to communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in 1953, years after FDR was gone. Remember, I brought his name into this discussion to prove that when he was an important member of FDR's "brian trust", he was a communist. Because, after all, the OP topic is about FDR.

 

Our discussion was about the difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism. You claimed that they are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in the sense that the USSR was the means to ending Hitler. The lesser of two evils. Americans were NOT pro-communist.

 

I said pro-Stalin. However, once the Great Depression took hold they were more amenable to controlling capitalism.

 

The difference between folks like Chase and Baldwin, who were knowledgeable about Stalin and still supportive of not just Stalin but communism in general,

 

I thought we agreed that Baldwin condemned Stalin once he became knowledgeable.

 

 

The fact is that the liberal media was busy casting Stalin in a good light thoughout the 20s and 30s. In 1926 Time Magazine had a portrait of Stalin with not one disparaging word in it.

 

 

 

Time was owned by Henry Luce, a Republican, who was only liberal in his openness to new ideas. From the article:

 

"Rpeortedly, Stalin has managed to...establish himself on the path to absolute power".

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZnYHG1eK-2AC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22+time+magazine%22+stalin+1926&source=bl&ots=HDb9KDOAuf&sig=bzy5HOldAaaYS8tkzzGvs0kqkFY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xBDRVKq1NsyYgwSG6YHIBA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22%20time%20magazine%22%20stalin%201926&f=false

 

That's what Truthers do, Heretic

 

And this this what those who want to avoid being taken seriously do.

 

Then both lied to you. Because Fabian Socialism was an alternative approach to spreading communism. Not an alternative to communism.

 

 

 

From Lee Kuan Yew, the first PM of Singapore:

 

"They [Fabian Socialists] were going to create a just society for the British workers - the beginning of a welfare state, cheap council housing, free medicine and dental treatment, free spectacles, generous unemployment benefits. Of course, for students from the colonies, like Singapore and Malaya, it was a great attraction as the alternative to communism. We did not see until the 1970s that that was the beginning of big problems contributing to the inevitable decline of the British economy."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society#Second_generation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we agreed that Baldwin condemned Stalin once he became knowledgeable.

LOL! You keep desperately trying to steer the nature of this dispute away from what you originally made it to be, Heretic. I originally noted (in post #32) that Baldwin, who was a member of a group (ISS), established at Harvard by the Fabian Society (a group of communists), became a member of FDR's "brain trust" in the early 30s. I therefore implied that he along with Chase, Lippman, Frankfurter and Ward (who were also ISS and brain trust members) were all communists. You then stated none were communists except Ward. Which I proceeded to show wasn't true. In post #34 I clearly demonstrated that Baldwin was a communist back in those days. He even said "communism is the goal". And I think it's clear by now you've agreed that Baldwin was a communist back then. Indeed, I showed he was a communist AND supportive of Stalin back then. That's the real issue here, since the OP is about FDR. and what he did during his administration. When he must have known Baldwin was a communist and Stalin supporter. The issue is NOT Baldwin's reversal on Stalin in the 50s after FDR was dead. I've pointed this out several times now (see post #61) but you keep coming back to it as nothing I said registered. You are either obtuse or dishonest. Or both, which describes Truthers.

 

Time was owned by Henry Luce, a Republican, who was only liberal in his openness to new ideas. From the article:

 

"Rpeortedly, Stalin has managed to...establish himself on the path to absolute power".

Never the less, the August 30, 1926 Time magazine portrait of Stalin in 1926 failed to note what was really happening in Stalin's USSR or Stalin's true character. The article your source refers to was in the October 25th issue of the magazine and there is a reason it was titled "Humble Pie". Obviously cause someone must have embarrassed Time for not doing a very good job of reporting the story about Stalin the first time around. As for Luce being a Republican, what kind of Republican was he? The same kind as Teddy Roosevelt, who was a Fabian Socialist and a progressive? Do you think he'd be unhappy with what Time has become?

 

From Lee Kuan Yew, the first PM of Singapore

LOL! Yes, Lee Kuan Yew was an admitted Fabian Socialist in his younger days. But what makes you think as one he'd tell the truth later in life about the Fabian Society objectives? After all, from the beginning, the Society has depended on STEALTH to spread it's philosophy. It's coat of arms is STILL a wolf in sheep's clothing. So do you honestly expect a modern day Fabian is going to come out and admit he's a communist? Or expect that a man who was once a Fabian Socialist will admit he was a communist? Time may have declared we are all socialists, but it hasn't done the same with respect to communism. Because communism still has bad connotations. And besides, doesn't the society that Yew described Fabians were going to create sound like a communist worker's paradise … a welfare state with cheap housing, free health care and cradle to grave support? I really don't see the difference between that and what communists promised workers. And in later life, perhaps Lee just woke up … realized the harm that Fabians were doing. Something you (and the Democratic Party in general) still apparently haven't grasped, Heretic. One thing is for sure, Britain has not heeded Lee's warning. The number of Fabians in power in Britain is greater than ever.

 

Here is Tony Blair standing in front of the Fabian Window

 

_41602954_blair.jpg

 

in 2006 during the 150th anniversary celebration of the birth of George Bernard Shaw (a noted Fabian Socialist). After Blair's victory in 1997, more than 200 Fabian members sat in the House of Commons. And I didn't find that out from some right wing website concerned about Fabian infiltration. I found that out by reading the Fabian Society's own website: http://www.fabians.org.uk/about/the-fabian-story/ . In other words, Fabian Socialists are becoming confident enough of victory in Britain to now come out of the shadows.

 

Now a better indication than the words of Yew of what the Fabian Society planned at it's founding is what Friedrich Engels, a very important communist, said back in January of 1893. He saw from the very beginning what it was and what it planned …

 

The Fabians here in London are a band of ambitious folk who have sufficient understanding to comprehend the inevitableness of the social revolution but who cannot trust this gigantic work to the rough proletarian alone, and therefore have the kindness to place themselves at the head of it. Dread of the revolution is their fundamental principle. They are the cultured par excellence. Their socialism is municipal socialism - the commune, not the nation, shall at least be the possessor of the means of production. This Socialism of theirs is then presented as an extreme but inevitable consequence of middle-class Liberalism, and hence their tactics are to fight the Liberals not as decided opponents but to drive them on to socialistic consequences; therefore to trick them, to permeate Liberalism with Socialism and not to oppose Socialist candidates to Liberal ones, but to palm them off to thrust them on under some pretext.

And I don't see anything to suggest their goal has changed from what he described. Because actions speak louder than words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! You keep desperately trying to steer the nature of this dispute away from what you originally made it to be, Heretic. I originally noted (in post #32) that Baldwin, who was a member of a group (ISS), established at Harvard by the Fabian Society (a group of communists), became a member of FDR's "brain trust" in the early 30s. I therefore implied that he along with Chase, Lippman, Frankfurter and Ward (who were also ISS and brain trust members) were all communists. You then stated none were communists except Ward. Which I proceeded to show wasn't true. In post #34 I clearly demonstrated that Baldwin was a communist back in those days. He even said "communism is the goal". And I think it's clear by now you've agreed that Baldwin was a communist back then. Indeed, I showed he was a communist AND supportive of Stalin back then. That's the real issue here, since the OP is about FDR. and what he did during his administration. When he must have known Baldwin was a communist and Stalin supporter. The issue is NOT Baldwin's reversal on Stalin in the 50s after FDR was dead. I've pointed this out several times now (see post #61) but you keep coming back to it as nothing I said registered. You are either obtuse or dishonest. Or both, which describes Truthers.

 

 

You're the one who is trying to derail the issue which we are debating, namely whether or not Fabian Socialism and Communism are equivalent. The best you been able to prove is that some (2 of the 5 you named) Fabian Socialists went on to become Communists. Lippmann and Frankfurter wre Socialists but never Communist except through you usual kneejerk, 6-degrees-of-separation style of debate.

 

 

 

Never the less, the August 30, 1926 Time magazine portrait of Stalin in 1926 failed to note what was really happening in Stalin's USSR or Stalin's true character. The article your source refers to was in the October 25th issue of the magazine and there is a reason it was titled "Humble Pie". Obviously cause someone must have embarrassed Time for not doing a very good job of reporting the story about Stalin the first time around. As for Luce being a Republican, what kind of Republican was he? The same kind as Teddy Roosevelt, who was a Fabian Socialist and a progressive? Do you think he'd be unhappy with what Time has become?

 

 

So were TR and Luce Communists? The magazine reported what was known at the time, that Stalin,in essence was showing signs of power-obsession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LOL! Yes, Lee Kuan Yew was an admitted Fabian Socialist in his younger days. But what makes you think as one he'd tell the truth later in life about the Fabian Society objectives? After all, from the beginning, the Society has depended on STEALTH to spread it's philosophy.

 

It's coat of arms is STILL a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

 

Why would he lie? And the window is highly symbolic. The only sites claiming that it represents their goals are extreme RW ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Vladimir Lenin

 

"Communism, of course, is the goal." - ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin

 

"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson reflecting upon signing the Federal Reserve Act.

 

KJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one who is trying to derail the issue which we are debating, namely whether or not Fabian Socialism and Communism are equivalent.

No, the *issue* in the OP of this thread is FDR's economic philosophy. With regard to that, I've shown that he was greatly influenced by numerous people who were clearly communists at the time they influenced him. You keep trying to make it about whether Baldwin became something other than a communist later on ... after FDR was dead. An deliberate irrelevancy.

 

As to Fabian Socialism, I certainly do believe that Fabian Socialism is a branch of Communism. And I think I've proven this with many sources and quotes by … Fabian Socialists and Communists (and I've provide more later in this post). I've proven this by showing what they desired is indistinguishable from what communists claimed as goals. By showing they were supportive and admiring of even a communist as extreme as Stalin. You want to pretend that Fabian Socialism didn't come out of the Communist movement when I've proven otherwise.

 

The best you been able to prove is that some (2 of the 5 you named) Fabian Socialists went on to become Communists. Lippmann and Frankfurter wre Socialists but never Communist except through you usual kneejerk, 6-degrees-of-separation style of debate.

No, you admitted that Ward was a communist and I clearly showed that both Chase and Baldwin were communists, too. So that's 3 out of 5, right off the start. As to the other two, you want to pretend that a communist has to openly declare himself one to be one. That it's impossible to connect dots and circumstantial evidence. That is utterly naive … especially when dealing with the followers of a branch of communism which made STEALTH an important part of it's approach to spreading communism. Baldwin even advised they not use the word socialist to describe the Fabian movement because that would scare people off. And you expected him to call himself a communist if he was one? :rolleyes:

 

The problem is that you still naively think socialism and communism are distinct. But Marx himself said that socialism is just a step on the road to communism. And the Soviets called themselves a "socialist" country. And they aren't the only widely recognized communist country to do so. And the fact is that at the time they were advisers to FDR, both Lippmann and Frankfurter were admitted socialists but quite friendly with communists … even the Stalinist variety … until that became a public opinion problem because of Stalin's excesses. Let's examine Lippman in even more detail than before.

 

Lippmann suggested to FDR that he become a mild dictator … influenced, presumably, by Stalin's apparent success as one (at least before Stalin's excesses shocked even him). He urged cooperation with Stalin's Soviet Union in it's attempt to build a *socialist* Europe and a world socialist order. In other words, he wanted to see a communist world, Heretic. In his later writings, which were naively labeled anti-communist, he took issue with the Soviet way of implimenting a communist-like world. He lamented that the "revolution" should have taken place in advanced capitalist countries such as the US and England, rather than underdeveloped Russia. Implied is that then it might have succeeded. He didn't give up on communism (at least the fairness goals that communists espoused), he gave up on the Soviet State to impliment it. But he didn't give up on the American State to impliment it. And to prove that, consider this.

 

Graham Wallas was a noted Fabian Socialist (communist) … co-founder of the London School of Economics. He wrote a book in 1914 titled "Great Society: A Psychological Analysis" in which he analyzed "the general social organization of a large modern state" (https://archive.org/stream/greatsocietyaps01wallgoog#page/n8/mode/2up ). If you read between the lines of the book, it's a text on understanding society well enough to manipulate people … something Fabians needed to be successful at if they were to continue to spread their ideology. I'm sure more than a few studied his book in detail.

 

Indeed, the LATimes would write in 1989 that "some chroniclers" claim LBJ's naming his programs the Great Society can be traced to Wallas' book. Certainly, Fabian Socialist (communist) Stuart Chase lent considerable support to LBJ's "Great Society" policies. But even more interesting for this particular post is that the Preface of Wallas' book contains a letter Wallas wrote to Walter Lippmann, introducing the book to him as possibly useful in Lippmann's future writings. And indeed, in 1937, Lippmann wrote a book titled, coincidently enough, "The Good Society". And on top of that, Lippmann was also an advisor to LBJ. Here's an audio of the two chatting on the phone in 1963: http://millercenter.org/presidentialrecordings/lbj-k6312.01-15 . It's quite interesting. And here's an article Lippmann wrote in 1965 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19650112&id=CSERAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MooDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5911,695022 ) titled "The Principle of the Great Society".

 

In it, he calls what's happening "a benign revolution" and suggests the "basic idea" is that America can be "governed by consensus" now. Lippmann suggests the Great Society is

 

a breakthrough - that we are escaping from the immemorial human predicament of the haves and the have-nots. This predicament has been based on the assumption that the size of the pie to be divided is fixed and that, therefore, if some have more, others must take less.

 

The assumption that this predicament exists has been the central idea of socialism and communism. However, it has also been the tacit assumption of recent reformist and welfare programs. We can see this in slogans like "the New Deal" and "the Fair Deal." Both imply that there is always the same pack to be dealt.

So you see, Heretic, here Lippman not only admits that the New Deal and Fair Deal were socialist/communist in nature, but implies that we can now achieve the fairness goal that socialists/communists said they wanted … without labeling it that … because technology and our understanding of economic theory (like using planned deficits) will allow us to afford to improve schools and colleges, reduce poverty and rebuild slums without concern about limited resources. He said "if a modern society like ours need no longer think of itself as irreconciably divided over the distribution of wealth, it has become humanly possible to govern by obtaining wide agreement of the voters." In short, he didn't give up on the GOALS of communism. He was simply applauding a new way to achieve those goals … one that would turn out to be just as pie in the sky as the one he'd previously espoused. Too bad that once that consensus he called for failed and the new economics/policies he glorified didn't work as intended, the fallback position of the Democrats (Fabian Socialists) was once again to call for more SHARING OF THE WEALTH, communist style . And were Lippmann alive, I have to wonder if he'd be chanting that again. Or perhaps he would prove he'd evolved away from the chimera promises of communists. But in either case, it's irrelevant to what he was back when he was advising FDR. A Communist.

 

So were TR and Luce Communists?

I'm not sure about Luce, but TR certainly espoused the progressive Fabian line. As I've pointed out previously on this forum, his own autobiography had an appendix titled "Social and Industrial Justice" in which he complimented a hardcore Sociailist, Vladimir Simkhovitch who distinguished between revolutionary Marxism (which Teddy didn't like) and another socialism … one that would get to that beautiful world socialists envision, not by revolution, but by gradual change. Teddy went on to say that "The capitalist is an unworthy citizen who pays the efficient man no more than than he has been content to pay the average man, and nevertheless reduces the wage of the average man; an effort should be made by the Government to check and punish him. When labor-saving machinery is introduced, special care should be taken -- by the Government if necessary -- to see that the wage-worker gets his share of the benefit, and that it is not all absorbed by the employer or capitalist". Teddy talked like a socialist/communist because at heart he was one.

 

When the Democratic Party of the time finally found Teddy too extreme, he started his own Progressive Party to challenge them. To see what Fabian thinking did to Teddy, you need only look at The Progressive Party's platform in 1912 when he was nominated to be it's Presidential candidate by acclamation. The platform was called "A Contract With The People" and it's main theme was an attack on business and the wealthy that was so extreme that even the NYTimes of 1913 called Teddy a "Super Socialist." Here: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9504E4D6113BE633A25753C3A96F9C946296D6CF , go read it.

 

Teddy agenda certainly sounds like that of modern liberals (hardcore socialists/communists). In his acceptance speech, he called for a "New Nationalism" with a strong central government that would regulate industry. The platform also called for national health and social insurance and all manner of social tinkering. It called for new taxes, including an inheritance tax and a Federal income tax (which didn't exist at the time). In short, TR's goals and his methods were those of Fabian socialists. And all those things he and his party sought are EXACTLY the things that the progressive left under Obama now say. In fact, Obama even gave a speech where he parroted TR's call for a "New Nationalism" at the very locale that TR originally gave his speech ... Osawatomie, Kansas. But Teddy broke with the Democratic party a little too soon and scared some liberals because he wasn't stealthy enough. So Woodrow Wilson, another Fabian Socialist … an even more stealthy one … won the election. And lo and behold, Walther Lippman joined his administration as an adviser. Surprise!

 

Why would he lie?

Can you really be this naive? Did the lesson of Baldwin totally escape you?

 

And the window is highly symbolic.

Sure it's symbolic. But symbolic of what? I notice you didn't say?

 

Why put a wolf in sheep's clothing on it, if not to suggest something important?

 

Why put that image on the society's coat of arms, too?

 

What are the founders doing but hammering the world to their liking?

 

The only sites claiming that it represents their goals are extreme RW ones.

Even here you are wrong. Wikipedia (hardly a RW source) states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Window ) "The window explicitly reflects the goal of the Fabian Society to protray an outward role contrary to its real character, i.e., to use deception in pursuing it's ultimate aim." Here, take a look at the window:

 

fabian_window_2.JPG

 

The words at the top are "REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART'S DESIRE". What do you think that means, Heretic? Remold it to what if not to what the Fabians wanted? Perhaps the answer lies in the books at the bottom, which the masses appear to be worshipping? If you look closely, half are ones on socialism written by Fabian Socialists Sidney and Beatrice Webb ("Industrial Democracy" "History of Trade Unionism" "Minority Report On The Poor Law", "English Local Government" , plus a collection of other Fabian Writings "Fabians Tracts and Essays" ).

 

The rest are various socialism/communism espousing plays written by Fabian Socialist/communist George Bernard Shaw, who created the Window. Shaw was a communist, Heretic. Recall that he visited the USSR in 1931, met with Stalin, and was thereafter a strong supporter of Stalin's utopia. In fact, he went on American radio afterwords and told Americans that any "skilled workman … of suitable age and good character'" would be welcomed and given work in the Soviet Union. Later he even defended the excesses of Stalin saying "a civilization cannot progress without criticism". He even tossed out the rule of law to do it, saying "(T)the most elaborate code of (law) … snip … would still have left unspecified a hundred ways in which wreckers of Communism could have sidetracked it without every having to face the essential questions: are you pulling your weight in the social boat? Are you giving more trouble than you are worth? Have you earned the privilege of living in a civilized community? That is why the Russians were forced to set up an Inquisition or Star Chamber, called at first the Cheka and now the Gay Pay Oo (Ogpu), to go into these questions and 'liquidate' persons who could not answer them satisfactorily." He called statements about the Ukrainian famine slanderous, equating what was happening to our Great Depression instead. Shaw was a communist and in 1948 even admitted it, Heretic. He wrote "I am a communist, but not a member of the Communist Party. Stalin is a first rate Fabian. I am one of the founders of Fabianism and as such very friendly to Russia." In 1949 he repeated the claim, saying "I am a Communist and always call myself so." And this is the guy who created the Fabian Window … who was there at the founding of the Fabian Society. And you want us to believe the Fabian Society has nothing to do with communism? That the window had nothing to do with espousing it? LOL!

 

Finally, the last item being *worshipped* is the book that one of the supplicants is holding and reading titled "New Words For Old". That might refer to the practice of changing what things are called to further the ends (like calling yourselves socialists when you are communists or calling yourselves progressives when you are socialists/communists). But more likely it refers to a book by HG Wells, another Fabian Socialist/Communist, titled "New Words For Old: A Plain Account of Modern Socialism". Wells also visited the USSR in the 30s (1934) and met with Stalin for nearly 3 hours. Here's a transcript of that meeting: http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/cc835_44.htm . Right off the bat he noted the similarity between what Stalin and FDR were doing. He "Today the capitalists have to learn from you, to grasp the spirit of socialism. It seems to me that what is taking place in the United States is a profound reorganization, the creation of planned, that is, socialist, economy." When Stalin tried to say there were different aims, Wells responded, "I would like to stress the point that if a country as a whole adopts the principle of planned economy, if the government, gradually, step by step, begins consistently to apply this principle, the financial oligarchy will at last be abolished and socialism, in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, will be brought about. The effect of the ideas of Roosevelt's "New Deal" is most powerful, and in my opinion they are socialist ideas. It seems to me that instead of stressing the antagonism between the two worlds, we should, in the present circumstances, strive to establish a common tongue for all the constructive forces." From there on it's a literal love fest. H. G. Wells was a communist at heart, got along well with the most extreme communists, helped found the Fabian Society, and his words are being worshipped in the Fabian Window. And you claim it says nothing about goals? I think you have your head stuck in the sand again, Heretic.

 

And by the way, why do you think they display this window at the London School of Economics?Because it's *pretty*? Don't be so naive. AGAIN. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even here you are wrong. Wikipedia (hardly a RW source) states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Window ) "The window explicitly reflects the goal of the Fabian Society to protray an outward role contrary to its real character, i.e., to use deception in pursuing it's ultimate aim."

 

If you'll notice, this allegation is completely unsourced - a rarity on Wiki.

 

Sorry, this is all the debunking I have time for today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, this is all the debunking I have time for today.

Debunking? LOL! You hardly know the meanibg of the word. However, I eagerly await your attempt at "debunking" all I noted about the content of the Fabian Window and the man who created it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, more for you to "debunk". :D

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/05/never_call_socialism_by_its_right_name.html

 

We have the guidance of an expert -- George Bernard Shaw of the Fabian Society who called Lenin, the "greatest Fabian of them all." He formulated and described the Fabian methodology: it used "methods of stealth, intrigue, subversion, and the deception of never calling socialism by its right name."

 

... snip ...

 

Shaw distinguished "the highly respectable Fabian Society" from other radical groups (like today's ACORN, OWS and communists). "The Fabian Society got rid of its Anarchists and Borrovians, and presented Socialism in the form of a series of parliamentary measures, thus making it possible for an ordinary respectable religious citizen to profess socialism and belong to a Socialist Society without any suspicion of lawlessness, exactly as he might profess himself a Conservative...."

 

... snip ...

 

Yet the Fabians' creed remained radical: Its goal was the "reorganization of society" with the extinction of private property and industrial capital from individual and class ownership, redistributing them to the "community for the general benefit." But the Fabians carefully hid their socialist philosophy saying "it was not desirable to make any change in the name by adding the word 'Socialist' to 'Fabian.'" Beneath their respectable sheepskin, however, the Fabians were host to Lenin and his Bolshevik followers holding a revolutionary conference in London before the revolution in Russia, and Bolsheviks were considered "comrades." Shaw, a highly respectable Fabian, called himself a "communist."

 

Let's shear off some of the wool and take a closer look at some of the radical Fabian policies. Shaw said that Socialism meant the "equality of income or nothing." You would be fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed -- "whether you liked it or not." If the state discovered that you were not worth this trouble, "you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner." To understand the depth of Shaw's commitment to socialism, watch a clip of him in the movie The Soviet Story, a film by Edvins Snore. Visiting Russia in 1931, Shaw said that he was able to step into his grave comforted "with the knowledge that the civilization of the world will be saved and ...the new communist system is capable of leading mankind out of its present crisis...." Were the Fabians radical? Stuart Chase, an American Fabian, said that socialism could be enforced by firing squads if necessary. Chase wrote A New Deal, which Roosevelt used as a slogan. Though the Fabians believed in the same radical goals as the Socialists and Communists, there was a difference in methods. Make no mistake they wanted world revolution also, but, unlike their comrades who believed in attaining power quickly by violence, they worked through patient changes in law, government, morality, economics, culture and education. They worked to spread Socialism through newspapers, Parliament, school boards and by backing candidates of either party in elections -- penetration and infiltration. For example with newspapers, Shaw said their "policy has been to try to induce some of these regular papers to give a column or two to Socialism, calling it by whatever name they please." Their chief tool, however, was through the indoctrination of young scholars -- intellectuals referred to as "parlor Bolsheviki."

 

Go ahead, Heretic, try to debunk that. Try to defend what Shaw said? Show us any REAL difference between the Fabian Socialists and communists of the day ... other than the means by which they would "remould" civilization ... revolution versus evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, more for you to "debunk". :D

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/05/never_call_socialism_by_its_right_name.html

 

 

Go ahead, Heretic, try to debunk that. Try to defend what Shaw said? Show us any REAL difference between the Fabian Socialists and communists of the day ... other than the means by which they would "remould" civilization ... revolution versus evolution.

 

Why should I debunk what GBS said? As a political advocate, he was a great playwright! He was just as extreme in his advocacy of vegetarianism, eugenics and was not a great fan of Democaracy. He even defended some dictators of his day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...