Shut Up!

The bloggers of the left have dubbed today "Talk Like Bill O'Reilly Day," and Atrios is observing it with a vengance.

Comments

[Kevin Carson]

Shut up, Julian, just shut up! I just hope your mother isn't watching this! When we're at war, good Americans don't question the Commander-in-Chief's propaganda mouthpiece. Unlike these effet media elitists here on the coasts, people in the heartland understand you have to rally around the Commander-in-Chief's media whore in wartime. It's the patriotic thing to do. But I'll give you the last word, Julian.

[Bill sucks]

I'm a conservative and I hate the hell out of Bill O'Reilly.

[scott h.]

It's comments like that last one that show why we should ban the Internet. Shut up!

[Dave]

SHUT UP! I'm in the heartland and I don't appreciate your stereotype (for real) but Bill O'Reilly is a closed-minded liar and I look forward to his media demise.

[Rick Barton]

Amy Phillips wrote:
"I often wonder why all these lefties who have such malice towards him don't do the same thing."

Trust me, it's not just lefties.

[Julian Sanchez]

While Eschaton is worth reading, I wouldn't bother trying to start any arguments in the comment section there... it's not a particularly good place to have a calm, reasonable disagreement.

[Rick Barton]

"Actually, the MBF label is usually reserved for right wingers, and the Duck Pit for media whores."

Yep; sounds like a real thoughtful crowd at Eschaton. Aren't libertarians and conservatives already subject to enough name-calling from the neo-cons?

[Rick Barton]

"it's not a particularly good place to have a calm, reasonable disagreement."

But Julian, it sounds like a challenge and who knows, a dose of reasoned argument might shock some of them into critical thinking or something.
The thing is, it might be good for us to try since they do vote.

[joe]

I'll tell you this, the conflation of libertarians with the theocrat/nationalist right of the Republican Party is never challenged on that board.

And there are quite a few calm, reasoned, insightful arguments there - though they do tend to be intramural Democratic arguments.

[Rick Barton]

The problem is that Bush is not really a conservative, as opposed to many Republicans in congress who are and score high on the NTU scale:
http://www.ntu.org/ and on the Republican Liberty
Caucus scale: http://www.rlc.org/ So, many of the media types that are gung ho the Pres are not going to be particularly principled, (O'Reilly said it was the governments job to ensure plentiful energy supplies) interesting, or insightful. And, with Bill O'Reilly you get a grandstanding bafoon to boot. His lapses of logic are large and embarrassing as when he regularly calls criticism of the Israeli government, "anti-semitisim". Could be that he is just bending to the will of Fox management in this regard. But, how about the way he fit right into Fox's, Soviet style propoganda, Iraq war coverage?

Reason posters should vist "Eschaton", the site that Julian cited for this thread. Looks like it is in need of some libertarian input. SEVERE need.

[Duck Pit Victim]

And there are quite a few calm, reasoned, insightful arguments there - though they do tend to be intramural Democratic arguments.

When the Democrats nominate a presidential candidate in favor of the war on drugs or unnecessary wars abroad, go on Eschaton and discuss third-party leftist alternatives.

Eschaton is essentially Little Green Footballs for Democrats. The sad thing is it's not at all the fault of Atrios, whose commentary I enjoy.

[whitewaterbadboy]

Come on over to Eschaton. They are a lot more reasonable than the freepers! Honest! Trust me! I wouldn't lie to you! Really1 Come on now!

[NTodd]

As an independent voter who oft argues against the Duck Pit mentality at Eschaton, I will vouch that the discussions are much more reasonable than those here are giving credit. Platitudes and trollish comments are met with ultimate bile, but I've held some unpopular opinions there and been met with rational responses.

[Rick Barton]

OK; To be fair to the guy, perhaps he makes some good points when he goes after the Dems. I don;t know as I hardly ever watch him anymore. Does he go after the Dems?

[Thumb]

Eschaton is essentially Little Green Footballs for Democrats.

Sure, and Michael Moore is just the Left's equivalency to Ann Coulter, as Franken is to O'Realy or Joe Conason is to Rush Limbaugh.

Each board will have its own regular community of posters and each site will have a certain flavor to it, even if many (most?) posters have a propensity to cross-comment to a multiple of boards. Because Atrios simply will not delete or ban anyone he essentially operates a site more akin to the Wild West than most sites and gets more than his fair share of drunken freeperish trolls looking to start food fights because of it. Don't be so surprised then that many of the regulars prowl the comments with their fingers on the trigger and the safety off, even if it leads to the unfortunate occasional friendly fire [guilty] or knee-jerk defensive response.

Besides, most of us Eschaton regulars will go next door to Kos or CalPundit when we really want to get our intellectual debating fix, hang at Atrios to get our daily fill of humor and outrage and work off some political tension by bitch-slapping the frequent masochistic trolls [guilty]. So Duck Pit Victim got his toes stepped on by the mean ol' big boys (and girls). It ain't your momma's blog. Suck it up and fight back. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

[bcdm]

Thumb, tell me you're kidding. You're basically saying that it's all right to bash those who disagree with your opinions -- not even challenge their viewpoint, just mock them for being different -- because people, yourself included, aren't willing to actually turn their brain on, instead just mouthing off the first thing that they think of?

I won't say that I've never done that. But I've worked my butt off to make that happen as little as possible in my life. And I'm shocked and disappointed when I see anyone on any side of any debate -- leftist, rightist, whatever -- do just what you've said is to be expected. "Bitch-slapping", as you call it, is a really pathetic thing to see online. It's time to grow past that.

[Monica]

Look, I'm a bit of an Eschaton regular, and I can honestly say that I'm up for any debate anyone wants to have in a civilized manner with me. But, since I do consider it a place where I can be open and perhaps more vehement about my point of view than most places, I won't shy away from expressing it.

However, I can also tell you that the trolls we get are bad, very bad, when we get them. They get personal, they get vulgar, and they make no sense most of the time. Bearing in mind that you are going to a site that is unabashedly liberal, I think that if you're intelligent and coherent, you can have your discussion. Don't get upset if everyone on the board disagrees with you though, since you are visiting a liberal website.

As for the third-party argument - it's come up more than a few times, and every time it does, there are posters who will defend their third-party stances and voting habits, and while some of the people there give an icy reception to their comments, I wouldn't say they get disregarded out of hand and kicked off of the site -- like some well-known uber reactionary websites we all know about, if you know what I mean...

[michael (in DC)]

bdcm: grow up.

Auuugh! someone on a message board said something mean! How shall I go on? Obviously this invalidates that site and all who link to it!

This is the web. people flame. people troll and try to bait those who disagree with them with irrelevancies. Atrios' policy in this regard is to not "moderate", but to leave it all up there--including the plethora of Freeper-type trolls who literally try to hijack threads by cutting&pasting repeatedly so as to render the whole thread too unwieldy to read. And yes, some of the "lefties" on the site engage in some nasty (though usually a bit more humorous) counterattacks.

This leads to a great variety among the individual threads. Right now there's one going about "constructing counternarratives to Apocalyptic conservatism" (if I've remembered the wording right)...next to that is a caption contest. This sort of humor and venting is what the "Talk like O'Reilly" threads were about.

Retreating in horror at the offense to your delicate sensibilities is at least as silly and childish as most of the flames.

As for "conflatng libertarians with the hard right," unfortunately most powerful "libertarians" in this country have done just that for political gain. This kind of intellectual dishonesty is called to account quite often at Eschaton and other places. It's up to actual libertarians to reevaluate who their actual political allies might be.

[Thumb]

Thumb, tell me you're kidding. You're basically saying that it's all right to bash those who disagree with your opinions

No, no, no. Cripes. I said, "most of us Eschaton regulars will go next door to Kos or CalPundit when we really want to get our intellectual debating fix." I also said, "Because Atrios simply will not delete or ban anyone he essentially operates a site more akin to the Wild West than most sites and gets more than his fair share of drunken freeperish trolls looking to start food fights because of it." I was specifically referring to "bitch-slapping the frequent masochistic troll." Seeing a difference yet? Please tell me you can see a difference. This isn't about a difference of opinion or respecting different opinions (which as NTodd pointed out we're fully capable of), this is about responding to people whose only purpose is to start a fight for a fights sake. Because there are so many (or it's the same one or two who just keep changing their pseudonyms?) of these types trolling the comments at Atrios the regular commentors are going to be quicker to shoot first and think second than they might at other more actively moderated boards. I'm not putting a value judgment on it as much as I'm making an observation about it. Yes, it'd be nice if we could all act like civil adults having nuanced policy disagreements ("can't we all just get along?") but that's not the goal of too many opposition "opinions" posting at Atrios'. As you admit, you've done it [shoot first], I've done it, most of us regulars have done it. It's just a common aspect of human nature that we're rather quick to defend our perceived territory. The more frequent the threat, the more impulsive the response.

Similarly I would expect to get venomously jumped, mocked and/or bashed if I went to any ROC blog and posted an "opinion" that could be summed up as "LOOOOSERS!!" in their comments section. I would be a damn fool to expect any less.

Look at it another way, Atrios is providing a service to the more intellectually robust comments of other boards: He's the Left's "Freeper Flypaper." Pulling off their wings is just a guilty pleasure for those of us pissed off at what too much of modern politics has degenerated into.

[Little Suzie]

Who is Bill O'Reilly? Why would anyone want to talk like him? Is Arnold Swarzizname a role model? Do all the Bin Ladens really look alike? Did the Bin Ladens really finance George Bush and terrorism?

[Duck Pit Victim]

There's a regular poster on Eschaton who goes only by "Dave". I don't know his last name but I believe he has a radio show on WCTC in New Jersey. He refers to Nader supporters as "moronic brownshirt greens".

[Kate]

I've been a witness to many a troll's post at Eschaton, and I have to second Thumb's comments. I've even seen one or two super-nice people on that site practically beg the trolls to stop screaming obscenities and start posting genuine, coherent arguments. On some threads you can even see the regulars just ignoring the namecalling for quite some time. Yet you can hardly fault website regulars for eventually losing their tempers when the sum total of the troll's debating expertise comes down to "yo' mama."

[Thumb]

He refers to Nader supporters as "moronic brownshirt greens".

And have you articulated your disagreement with his opinion? Explained to him why that's an unfair characterization? Is he aware that he's hurt your feelings? Dave's a reasonable chap, as long as you're not a MBF that is.

[Anonymous]

Hey guys, I am an Eschaton regular, and I have been looking at this thread on this site (through a link from Atrios). I find lots here I can agree with, most of you seem pretty sane even if we are likely to disagree on asome issues, even some pretty important issues.

The same cannot be said of the people running the country these days.

[Rick Barton]

michael (in DC) wrote:
"As for "conflatng libertarians with the hard right," unfortunately most powerful "libertarians" in this country have done just that for political gain."

Could you give examples?

Opportunity to advance liberty and/or it's ideas, like truth, is where you find it. There are Republicans in congress who tend to vote pro liberty. See: http://www.ntu.org/ and http://www.rlc.org/ Bush on the other hand, is not pro-liberty. There are writers who hold libertarian views on some matters but not others. It's the way of the world.

[Jim Walsh]

To paraphrase Ayn Rand: What do I think of O'Reilly? I don't think of him.

[Duck Pit Victim]

No, I'm not talking about violent threats against the trolls. I'm talking about violent threats against conservative pundits and politicians - including the President himself, which is illegal. It's definitely not as bad now as it was when Atrios went on vacation and left those horrible guest bloggers, but it's still bad - here's one against William Saletan from two days ago.

Blogger sucks, so it's hard to link to things in the past, but in this Google cache you can see Lambert Strether - on the main page, mind you, not in comments - invoking the "duck pit" against Tony Blair. And here Lambert suggests the same form of execution for the entire Bush administration.

[NTodd]

DPV - whoa, do you really think that talk of wingers being nibbled by ducks is a legit threat?

[michael (in DC)]

Rick:

Joe, above, wrote: I'll tell you this, the conflation of libertarians with the theocrat/nationalist right of the Republican Party is never challenged on that board....which is not true; Atrios has occasionally challenged self-proclaimed "small-l" libertarians to speak out against the huge threat to personal liberty posed by this administration.

...which prompted my comment.

No, I can't quote you chapter and verse. I'm a political layman, and am not particularly well-read on libertarianism's history or various strands. Nonetheless it's my impression (& I don't think I'm alone) that many on the national stage, at CATO and other think tanks, tend to pay alot more attention to "economic liberty" than personal liberty; and view "economic liberty" pretty much in terms of cutting taxes--especially the more progressive ones; while not objecting all that strenuously to the massive government welfare program that is the military-industrial complex. I don't know where you stand on this, or how exactly you define "pro-liberty"...Depending on how you frame the question, I suspect you'd find plenty of Democrats who are "pro-liberty" as well. I suppose it depends on what you value more, and how much you're willing to sacrifice the one for the other.

[Stmack]

The biggest problem with O'Reilly is that with every ratings point he gained, the more his show becam about him. Now he just spins out his standard BS that he's just looking out for us regular folks (really just a small step above saying he is doing it for the children) and please buy the junk with my logo on my website. He was good during the election mess and good immediately post 911 but without a truly major event the only thing important enough for him to focus on is himself.

[Thumb]

Hey Duck Pit Victim -

Quack . . . quack quack . . . quack QUACK quack quack . . . QUACKquackquackquack . . .

RUN Duck Pit Victim! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!

ROFLMAO!!!!

[Duck Pit Victim]

I don't think it's a serious threat, but I do think it's revolting and embarassing. You don't see that crap at a lot of sites.

[Gwyn Thomas]

I think O'Reilly will eventually bore most of his audience,ala Chris Matthews at MSNBC.Most of the personnel at Fox seem to be NBC castoffs or local NY area news washouts,and I resent being punished twice,and usually don't watch.Is the title of his show a clever turn on the old English slur on the Irish,or is he simply clueless about that as well?

[Duck Pit Victim]

Reason posters should vist "Eschaton", the site that Julian cited for this thread. Looks like it is in need of some libertarian input. SEVERE need.

Be careful. Anyone who goes against the Eschaton party line gets called a "moronic brownshirt fuck" and is threatened with execution by a pit full of starving ducks. I swear I am not making this up. You don't have to be a right-winger either - anyone suggesting leftist third-party alternatives to the Democrats gets the same treatment.

[Thumb]

I don't think it's a serious threat, but I do think it's revolting and embarassing.

Funny, less than an hour and a half earlier you were saying the duck pit was, ". . . violent threats against conservative pundits and politicians." You're making it very difficult to take you seriously.

[Rick Barton]

michael (in DC),

"Nonetheless it's my impression ...that CATO and other think tanks, tend to pay alot more attention to "economic liberty" than personal liberty;"

Of course, the two are connected but check the Cato site, theres plenty on the drug war, civil liberties, school choice, anti-Patriot act. Economic liberty IS much more then just cutting and abolishing taxes and at Cato most of it is covered.

"...while not objecting all that strenuously to the massive government welfare program that is the military-industrial complex."

By and large, libertarians are for cutting back our forces around the world and believe that the only function that the military should serve is to protect Americans. See: antiwar.com a libertarian site that deals with this issue.

"...how exactly (do) you define "pro-liberty"..."

I define liberty as the absence of legal prohibition against acts among consenting adults that don't involve force or fraud. Libertarians reject as unethical, the initiation of force. Capitalism is the only ethical economic arrangement (with the exception of totally voluntary collectivism, which is quite rare since those situations tend to be about as stable as a radio-active isotope. (thus, their lack of appeal)

I find all most all Democrat politicians quite anti-liberty. I don't think we should have to sacrifice one liberty for another at all but Jefferson's assertion that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" seems to be true.

[Amy Phillips]

I've never seen Bill O'Reilly, so I just don't get the joke. I think I must be the only one, because it seems like everyone else, right or left, has an opinion on him. I prefer, however, simply not to watch shows I've been told are stupid and not that interesting. I often wonder why all these lefties who have such malice towards him don't do the same thing.

[Thorley Winston]

The bloggers of the left have dubbed today "Talk Like Bill O'Reilly Day," and Atrios is observing it with a vengance.

Gee this is almost as funny as the New Republic indulging in their ?Why I hate George Bush? rants. Jane Galt was right, now that the Democrats are out of power, they?ve pretty much have all lost it. It could be somewhat amusing to watch them self-destruct.

[R.C. Dean]

"many of the media types that are gung ho the Pres"

I think you mean "both of the media types . . . ."

[joe]

Actually, the MBF label is usually reserved for right wingers, and the Duck Pit for media whores.

[Rick Barton]

Julian,
Maybe you were right about "Eschaton". I went over there and got into it with a guy about fascism and FDR. I got a lot of BSing and one- upsmanship but not much reasonable disagreement.

[michael (in DC)]

OK Rick, that's it. From your deliberate misquotings and misconstruings of me, and then your last post, I can only conclude you're hopelessly smug and a sophist.

I went & read that thread you just referred to. (it's under the heading "Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt) That "guy" you "got into it" with was David Neiwert. He's a published author and experienced reporter, particularly on the extreme right in America. He runs a terrific blog here. If you visit you will find links to his Fifteen part, exhaustively researched series of essays "Rush, Newspeak and Fascism." which you dismissed out of hand because you didn't like the title. (It's largely about defining Fascism and cautioning liberals against using the term lightly.)

You picked a quote from Eco as a jumping point to labeling FDR as a fascist on the basis of one part of the New Deal stimulus plans that you think (and you may be quite right) was a giveaway to Wall Street (nothing unusual there). How exactly that equates to full-blown Fascism is beyond me, but be that as it may.

David was indeed civil with you. He offered exactly "reasonable disagreement." He attempted to educate you from the vantage point of his extensive research on what "Fascism" means. You, in reply, were snide, dismissive, and rude. You blithely asserted he hadn't read any of the sources he cited, then kept harping on your one or two favorite books, repeating your "It won a prize!" schtick from here.

You were out of your league.

There is a species one encounters on the web, from all political stripes. Elevated from simple name calling, they nevertheless refuse to hear any argument they don't already agree with; then they accuse anyone who refuses to accept their terms of "BS" or "not being reasonable." They read, but not critically. They find their pet ideas and apply them like a filter to any and every historical, political, or intellectual situation without regard to context. On that thread at least, that's you, Mr. Barton.

On a friendlier note, try to remember, when commenting on sites serviced by the evil Haloscan, don't hit "Refresh." for some reason it reposts whatever you wrote last. Close the window & click again on comments. Pain in the ass, but that's the way of the world.

[Rick Barton]

michael (in DC),

"OK Rick, that's it. From your deliberate misquoting and misconstruing of me..."

And now, unable to defend your offended political sensibilities you resort to whining. Well, perhaps you are not yet a "published author and experienced reporter" like David Neiwert so at least you have a better excuse then he does. My exchange with you is right here on this thread for any one to examine. My exchange with David Neiwert is at the the Eschaton site:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/ in the comments thread for the 9/27 piece: "Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt" I think reading both exchanges will enlighten anyone who is considering your current comments.

My point, in response to Eco's comment on the FDR quote was that FDR's NRA (the Swope Plan) was fascist economics. I never contended that it "equates to full-blown Fascism" and in viewing a recent comment by David Neiwert it seems he is also still confused about this. (although I am suspicious that he is bring this up because he has no points with which to defend his side of what we were actually discussing)

"then kept harping on your one or two favorite books, repeating your "It won a prize!" schtick from here."

I was trying to inspire both of you to broaden your horizons. It's not unimportant, is it, that Hayek ("The Road To Serfdom") won the Nobel prize in economics and that "Anarchy State and Utopia" won the "philosophy book of the year" award? The other volume I recommended to you was "Capitalism the Unknown ideal" Ed. Ayn Rand, and to David Neiwert; "Wall Street and FDR" by Antony Sutton I don't think either of these have won any awards but both are quite engaging.

"...try to remember, when commenting on sites serviced by the evil Haloscan, don't hit "Refresh."... "

Thank you. I'm hep now; sorry about that.

[Rick Barton]

Thumb wrote:
"If he considers smug, condescending arguments..."

Instead of name-calling, how about addressing the actual arguments. Can You? I bet not.

"while dismissing reasoned, referenced, counter-arguments by professionals in the field..."

If this (David Neiwert's writing in his exchange with me at the Eschaton site) is an example of the thought of one of your revered "professionals in the field", you guys are in real trouble. I hope every body goes there and checks it out!

[Duck Pit Victim]

Direct link to the Barton-Neiwert thread.

[Julian Sanchez]

To be honest, I thought Neiwert had the better of that exchange to the extent that his position depends upon the distinction between fascism as a specific historical movement that extended beyond the economic realm. What's interesting is that he does seem at least possibly willing to assent to the labeling of FDR's economic program as totalitarian.

[Thumb]

Thumb wrote:
"If he considers smug, condescending arguments..."

Instead of name-calling, how about addressing the actual arguments. Can You? I bet not.

I was addressing the fact that you were dismissing his arguments in a most narrow, puerile and uninformed manner. David can otherwise handle himself quite well without me to back up his arguments.

If this (David Neiwert's writing in his exchange with me at the Eschaton site) is an example of the thought of one of your revered "professionals in the field", you guys are in real trouble.

This statement actually makes my point. You obviously never did follow any of his links to any of his much more exhaustive writings on the subject or took a moment to check out his professional credentials listed at his site, also linked.

Just because it's an ad hominem doesn't mean you're not a blowhard.

[Rick Barton]

It was my contention that FDR's NRA program (the Swope plan) was fascist economics.

From Neiwert's first post in response:

"Anyone accusing FDR of promoting fascism is parading their own manifest and profound ignorance."
and:
"Perhaps you mean to say "totalitarianism," of which fascism is but a species. The kind of totalitarianism to which you refer, however, is more commonly known as "communism.""

Communism?? I would say he is quite confused. Perhaps this stems from the fact that the predominance of political attack against FDR policies that has alleged either characterization has likened them to communism rather then fascism.

From his last post:
"Obviously, you think fascism is primarily an economic program. It is not, and never was. Its agenda is almost entirely sociopolitical."

He does not defend (in the whole thread) against my original contention but instead claims I think something that I don't, and is not germane to the point I was making. The last sentence is representative of why I think his knowledge of fascism is pretty superficial at best. Economic regulation has repeatedly been an integral part of the program of fascist regimes. (see: "Omnipotent Government" by von Mises)

Julian Sanchez wrote:
"What's interesting is that he does seem at least possibly willing to assent to the labeling of FDR's economic program as totalitarian."

I found that interesting as well. But he still does, naively, seem to try to put a benevolent (from his values) spin on it.:

"In essence, corporations controlled the government not the other way around -- as FDR's schema tended."

Duck Pit Victim, thank you for the link.

[Rick Barton]

I intended my last post to address Julian's comments.

[michael (in DC)]

Kevin,

thanks for the link. interesting stuff. Am I crazy in seeing a conceptual link between Tucker's "Mutual credit" and the "microcredit" idea that one heard so much about (briefly) in the early Clinton years--viz a viz Bangladesh, etc?

It's this sort of thing (your link, not Bangladesh) that I was referring to in my initial response to Rick's picture of "liberty" (my post of 11:23 last nite)...

In general, though, I'm a bit more interested in the mechanisms of power and money (often same thing) in our real world, than the theoretical worlds of any of the various "isms." For example, I find Marx & co. compelling, not for a prescription or prophecy, but for Dialectical Materialism as an analytical tool.

I don't believe one can point to any modern industrial society that doesn't have (indeed, require) a fairly strong state, to print currency, regulate commerce, broker disputes, enforce contracts, etc., etc. And where there is a State there is a power structure; and there are inevitably imbalances of wealth and power, which will tend to increase over time. The problem then (to me) is to try and institutionalize as far as possible mechanisms to minimalize the imbalances--in the interest both of long-term stability (social and economic) and of social justice. (principal among these is the "eternal vigilance" Rick quoted--attuned to the actions of power, both Governmental and private)

Where libertarians work to check the state's injustices and unnecessary intrusions in the lives of the citizenry, I'm all for it. When, however, they start to wax rhapsodic over the Magical Marketplace that would enrich us all if the damn Gummint would just stop interfering (please excuse the caraciture--not directed at anyone here)...I think they're as naive, and as dangerous, as those who thought Lenin heralded a new Dawn for the oppressed masses.

[David Neiwert]

Mr. Barton:

First of all, let me point out that saying "you're hopeless" is not an insult. It is a simple observation that you seem unable to adequately debate a point. Neither, for that matter, is saying that you have paraded your manifest ignorance. These are not insults -- you may take umbrage at them (naturally), but they are observations based on your posts. Anyone claiming that FDR was a "fascist" is frankly quite ignorant both of history and the nature of fascism.

"He does not defend (in the whole thread) against my original contention but instead claims I think something that I don't, and is not germane to the point I was making."

Actually, I did exactly that. Your original contention was that FDR's economic program was "fascist." I pointed out, first, that it bore ZERO resemblance to fascism as it has come to be understood by scholars. I even tried to get you to consult these scholarly works, but to no avail. And of course, you refuse to read my work because you think you have discovered some flaw in it which doesn't exist, but which you did not even bother to discuss with me there.

Secondly, I tried to point out to you that there is no such thing as "fascist economics" -- which was in fact the core of your claim. And now you try to claim I'm setting up a straw man!

You, sir, are an ideologue: you see the world only through the narrow lens of your libertarian ideology. (And libertarians, I might add, try to define nearly everything in terms of economics, which leads to all kinds of simple failures of understanding when it comes to a subject like fascism.) Anything outside of that very narrow perspective is rejected out of hand. You may indeed understand libertarianism very well -- but you have little comprehension of anything outside it.

Here's a basic adage by which I live: Ideologues are fundamentally untrustworthy people, because they consider ideas more important than people.

To which, in this case, I should add: They are congenitally incapable of comprehending any ideas that do not fit their ideologies.

[D. Lusional]

"I've never seen Bill O'Reilly, so I just don't get the joke. I think I must be the only one, because it seems like everyone else, right or left, has an opinion on him. I prefer, however, simply not to watch shows I've been told are stupid and not that interesting."

To Amy from the top of the post: You should try thinking for yourself some time - it's really fun.

[digamma]

And libertarians, I might add, try to define nearly everything in terms of economics

And do they all make sweeping generalizations about people they don't agree with?

[joe]

When Atrios (and readers) were celebrating "Appropriate Michael Savage's Name for Your Own Purposes Day," I referred them here.

"Joe, above, wrote: I'll tell you this, the conflation of libertarians with the theocrat/nationalist right of the Republican Party is never challenged on that board....which is not true; Atrios has occasionally challenged self-proclaimed "small-l" libertarians to speak out against the huge threat to personal liberty posed by this administration.
Yes, michael in DC, Atrios does make that challenge." True. What I meant was, when a commenter calls a libertarian a right winger or an MBF for, I dunno, wanting to start emissions trading on carbon or lower some tax or other, it's pretty much allowed to sit there unchallenged on the comments board.

"I don't think it's a serious threat, but I do think it's revolting and embarassing. You don't see that crap at a lot of sites." I think it's light-hearted, tasteful, and amusing.

[Thumb]

Reason posters should vist "Eschaton", the site that Julian cited for this thread. Looks like it is in need of some libertarian input. SEVERE need.

I just looked into what Rick considers "libertarian" input (thread reference). If he considers smug, condescending arguments based solely around his limited understanding and improper application of a limited handful of pet phrases and quotes, while dismissing reasoned, referenced, counter-arguments by professionals in the field as "just nay-saying," then I'd say that Eschaton already has enough "libertarian" input. We just don't call them libertarians, we call them trolls.

But hey, thanks for playing.

[Rick Barton]

David Neiwert:
You started out your response to my point, that FDR's NRA(of which, you never gave any evidence that you knew anything about in the whole thread) was a fascist enonomic program, with an insult and kept them coming because you are unable to refute the point itself.

"I pointed out, first, that it (new deal economic plan) bore ZERO resemblance to fascism as it has come to be understood by scholars"

A laughable absurdity! Frank Chodorov, Jonathon Hughes, Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, John T. Flynn, Rothbard, have all written about the parallels. I'm sure the readers of this site can supply more examples. Oh yes, and there is the Sutton volume I cited, which if you would actually look into instead of waving off,you would have some insight into the episode that we are talking about.

"Secondly, I tried to point out to you that there is no such thing as "fascist economics""

Good! Just incase someone was taking you seriously they can read the above.

"And libertarians, I might add, try to define nearly everything in terms of economics..."

And now we see that you don't no any more about libertarianism then you do about the New Deal or fascism. Not that you show any desire read any serious scholarship, but if you ever want to find out about librttarianism you could see:(Libertarianism by John Hospers)

As far as your little rant about Ideologues goes:
I take the council that one should always be willing to question their own beliefs lest they continue in error. I think you should too.

[nm156]

Tarentino has a new flick coming called KILL BILL. Coincidence?

[michael (in DC)]

Joe,

point conceded w/r/t the comment boards (provisionally since I don't claim encyclopedic knowledge) with two caveats:

-lots o stuff "sits there unchallenged" (or, alternately, unacknowledged) on those boards (almost nothing is deleted, as noted above)...I'm often frustrated when some point or (more often) query I raise on the board is ignored because some other issue/aspect is commanding attention, or I just got in at the tail end...also, many regulars on the board choose to ignore the more knee-jerk name-calling posts either under the "ignore the trolls" imperative, or just 'cause they've become cliche. (although meta-threads on netiquette and effective advocacy do pop up from time to time...)

-there are conservatives of the Freeper variety who claim the title of libertarian.

Interesting you should mention an idea like carbon-trading...since I tend to percieve the Eschaton community as more center-left Clintonian than anything else. Particularly under the substitute regime mentioned earlier it seemed to become filled with Clinton apologetics (and associated Green-bashing.)

(I guess I associate carbon-trading with Clinton; I seem to remember them pushing hard for that in the Kyoto negotiations. I may remember wrongly).

[michael (in DC)]

Oh, and Joe:

When Atrios (and readers) were celebrating "Appropriate Michael Savage's Name for Your Own Purposes Day," I referred them here.

sorry, I'm not getting it...was that a big deal here?

[michael (in DC)]

Rick,

Jesus, I've barely got time to read your posts!

I got a long list & I'm a slow reader. sorry.

Some "economic regulation" is a function--a DEFINITION, of any government. Governments deliniate land boundaries, enforce contracts, levy taxes, issue currency, etc etc etc.

In addition, all other functions of government--infrastructure, defence, etc. affect the economic life of the society.

Now, if you want to go into the level or kind of economic regulation, well, then we've got an even longer conversation on our hands.

But the sentence as you wrote it is a meaningless tautology that proves absolutely nothing.

[Sandy]

Um, I started reading that "experienced [freelance] reporter"'s essay, and I had to laugh at the irony when I got to this point, very soon in the piece:

'This is a classic case of Newspeak ? diminishing the range of thought (it's telling that Limbaugh
originally filed this under "Making the Complex Understandable") by nullifying the meaning of words.
Democracy, according to Limbaugh, is fascism.'

So Newspeak diminishes the range of thought by nullifying the meaning of words. Presumably the author thinks it is a Bad Thing. Then he proceeds to use Newspeak to prove he can do it, too, I guess.

To put it in context, he's complaining about a Rush Limbaugh Web site entry where he compares some public-private health care financing plan to fascism. I'll agree it probably doesn't really rise to the level of fascism in a pure theoretical sense. But then, calling a public-private health care financing plan "Democracy" is even less accurate and as equally characteristic of a demagogue as the man he's complaining about.

And people wonder why I don't bother reading every tract thrown at me on the Web ("Well, if you'd read Everything Sandy Thinks Is Evil, a 24 volume opus published by Red-Brown books, a division of my parents' basement, you'd know that you're full of shit, so you don't know what you're talking about until you do.").

[Thumb]

Gee this is almost as funny as the New Republic indulging in their "Why I hate George Bush" rants. Jane Galt was right, now that the Democrats are out of power, they've pretty much have all lost it. It could be somewhat amusing to watch them self-destruct.

Gee, this is almost as insightful as the average Mallard Filmore cartoon.

[Andrew Lynch]

Who are these people and where did they come from?

[Rick Barton]

Joe,
"Doesn't the fact that the biggest German industrialists sided with Hitler, while the biggest American industrialists fought FDR tooth and nail, suggest anything about the relationships between government and industry to you?"

To the contrary; just the opposite!
The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was a creature of the politically well connected segment of Wall Street. At the NRA's top sat the "Three Musketeers", the heads of GE, Standard Oil, and Filene's of Boston. Gerald Swope of GE authored the plan that was a blue print for a corporate state. (the Swope plan) He warned of the "harmful effects" of allowing "rampant competition from small concerns to threaten America's pillar companies" The NRA became a tool of oppression against small and medium sized buisness. It, and the Swope plan were promoted over the years by numerous prominent Wall Streeter's. See: "Wall Street and FDR" by Antony Sutton.
Also, for an account of the big business initiators of the Progressive era see the very interesting "Triumph of Conservatism"
by Gabriel Kolko. "Conservatism" in the title refers to big business not any ideology. The thesis is that the economy at the start of the twentieth century was in fact trending towards growing competition and decentralization and giant businesses sought to establish control over the economy and protect themselves from competition via progressive legislation.

[Kevin Carson]

michael in DC,

Thanks for the kind word. But I probably belong in the category of naive and dangerous libertarians, because I believe most (I'm tempted to say all) the evils specific to corporate capitalism are a result of state intervention. The concentration of capital and centralization of the economy, the exploitation of labor and consumers, the enlistment of the U.S. national security state behind the export and defense of American capital (I abhore pretty much the same litany of evils as the mainstream Left)--all are caused by the State.

The State is the political means of enriching one group at the expense of another; and despite the mainstream Right's pretense that the main welfareism is AFDC moms, the group enriched is almost always either Fortune 500 companies or coupon-clipping billionaires. There's a large body of revisionist and New Left historical and economic literature (Gabriel Kolko, James O'Connor, James Weinstein, as well as right-wingers like Rothbard) who have shown that the main force behind the Progressive and New Deal agendas was corporate capitalists who wanted to enrich themselves through the State.

Most of the "complexities" the State is allegedly necessary to solve were CREATED by the State, through it's subsidies to growth and complexity far beyond the level of cost-effectiveness, and far beyond what could survive in a free market.

You might (or might not) be interested in an article of mine that tries to synthesize the New Left theories of monopoly capital with the libertarianism of Rothbard and Joe Stromberg.

"Austrian and Marxist Theories of Monopoly Capital: A Mutualist Perspective"
http://www.mutualist.net/mutualistnetresourcesandinformationonmutualistanarchism/id10.html

This text is still pretty sloppy, and is in process of being reworked for the Libertarian Alliance.

And BTW, "Appropriate Michael Savage's Name Day" was a big deal here. I just about laughed myself into a rupture. Check the archives.

[Rick Barton]

Joe,
And I wanted to add: Yes the reality of the episode does suggest much to me about the relationships between government and industry, when the government is not properly limited from using it's legal ability to coerce at the behest of politicaly well connected industry.

[Kevin Carson]

Jean Bart,

On reflection, I think "fascism" is such a grab-bag term that it doesn't add much to the discussion. But putting the New Deal in a common genus of "state capitalism" or "corporatism" with the economic policies of Germany and Italy (but distinctly different from those of post-capitalist systems like Russia) is still a productive idea. And substituting these terms for "fascism" doesn't change the substantive validity of Rick's comments.

On treating the Holocaust as an "insane exception," my point was simply that it had no inegral connection with the major political-economic policies of the Hitler regime, and if anything impaired their efficiency. If anything, it was an insane holdover from the ideology of the pre-governing party days, and reduced the regime's service to big business. Aside from the sheer human horror involved, tying up a major part of the transportation system, along with large human and material resources, just to exterminate millions of laborers, is pretty stupid from the point of view of a ruling class. A smart totalitarian regime, at least, would scapegoat a group that posed a REAL threat to its power.

There's also a parallel between fascist regimes in the contrast between pre-triumph ideology and their economic programs in power. For example, Mussolini's fascism (or at least one of its main contributing currents) was an offshoot of syndicalism; but it's pretty clear the blackshirts knew which hand was feeding them when they started taking back worker-occupied factories in 1920.

[Kevin Carson]

michael in DC,

Nice to meet you, too. I'm one of those anti-copyright cranks, so feel free to reproduce anything I've written, with attribution.

On the "playing defense" thing, I think I'm with you to a point (at least if I understand you correctly). I'd prefer to play offense--but for me, that means a piecemeal and gradual rollback of the State, starting with those of its activities that are most structurally essential to state capitalism. I am certainly opposed to food stamps and welfare in principle; but in dismantling the state, I'd save the parts that make state capitalism humanly tolerable for the last.

I don't agree with Chomsky that it is necessary to increase the power of the State in any way to reduce private concentrations of power; it's necessary only to allow the market to break them up. But the order in which we go about it is very important--and people on food stamps aren't exactly at the top of my list of parasites to have their programs cut off.

The first step is to dismantle things like the patent system, monopoly banking laws, and direct subsidies like the MI complex and highway and airport spending. When the market has time to work its levelling and decentralizing miracles, we can go on to the final step of ending welfare and running all services on a voluntary cost basis.

To accomplish this dismantling, the only possible road to success is the broadest possible single-issue coalitions, on an ad hoc basis. And except for some neocons, pseudo-libertarian corporate apologists, and marxoid types, the potential for such single-issue libertarian coalitions is almost endless. Most people, while they may not be amenable to dismantling the State as such on general philosophical grounds, may be quite responsive to populist arguments about how a particular form of State activity screws them.

And as you say, the final vision of a new society is something to be fought out a long time from now.

[Jean Bart]

The worst blog as far as lack of rational discussion is the so-called "Command Post." The level of playground insults and the like is unmatched anywehre on the web.

[Jean Bart]

Kevin Carson,

To be frank, one of the problems with defining fascism is that was never, as an ideology, as systematically codified, studied, etc. by its practitioners as "communism" was by the Soviets. This is of course partly because its existance was far briefer, but also partly due to, IMHO, its more amorphous nature as an ideology (which in part is due to its much more amorphous genesis).

[Kevin Carson]

I forgot to add, michael: I'm glad, for my sake, that I'm NOT an academic. It would be nice getting paid for this pointless activity, though.

War, BTW, was also central to FDR's system. The U.S. corporate economy depended on integrating the markets and resources of most of the world into a single global economy, and Fortress Europe and the Co-Prosperity Sphere withdrew autarkic regional blocs from this market. FDR's major aim, from the late '30s on, was to prevent this, and to create something like the Bretton woods system to guarantee that no rival power would ever withdraw large parts of the world from the integrated global economy. Check out the Shoup and Minter article on the FDR State Department's postwar planning in Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism.

The PNAC's design, justly excoriated by liberals, seems pretty consistent with that of FDR and Truman sixty years ago. Their choice of the term "American Century," as the Leninists say, was "not by accident."

[joe]

Rick,

German industrialists, the Teutonic equivalent of Standart Oil and Filenes, were financing Hitler by the early 1930s, before he consolidated his power. They were not acclimating themselves to his economic program, but actually created it, their prize for getting him into a position to impelement it.

Industrialists in America opposed Roosevelt in 1932 and in every other election he ran in (though they toned it down a bit in 44). In the midst of this, they made a few arrangements to maintain their position in case they lost the battle, but only after it became clear that their enemy, "the traitor to his class" FDR, was going to be president despite their opposition. That's a pretty big difference.

[joe]

So by "war was also central to FDR's system," you meant that a system of international trade was central to his system, and war would be necessary to achieve it, given the actions of the Japanese and German governments. In other words, war was not central to FDR's system, and was merely a means to an end.

That's pretty different from fascism, in which the achievement of a war/conquest economy is the end, and wars drummed up for the sake of having a such an economy.

[michael (in DC)]

Rick,

this is pointless, but...

Isn't your whole argument RE: FDR predicated on defining nearly everything in terms of economics?

For example, why not point to the much more obvious parallel between FDR's policies & those of the Nazis: the Japanese-American detention camps during the war?

FDR was a politician. He was born into and remained a part of the American ruling class. He was no saint. Nevertheless, to assert baldly, as you did over at Eschaton, that he "promoted fascism at home." (even with the qualifiers you've since added) is, as I've said, facile and incoherent, and betrays a blinkered and ultimately useless understanding of what "fascism" means. Yes, of course, some of his efforts to revive a comatose American economy involved cooperation with big, (even monopolist) capatalist powers. I assume, then, you would label as "promoting fascism at home" Woodrow Wilson, William McKinley, or, shit, why not Alexander Hamilton?

As for "economic regulation" and liberal democracies and monarchies...How was the British Crown's relation to the East India company, or the colonial system practiced by any of the European powers, not state interference on behalf of monopoly capital? Many feel that one major purpose of the Constitution was securing the interests of the propertied classes. Certainly that's been a function of much of the Supreme Court's history (the 14th Amendment, it's often pointed out, was until recently used to protect the rights of capital.)

Shaping economies has always been a central funtion of government. The consent of monied or propertied interests has always been a chief source of any government's legitimacy, and an object of its policies. (the Soviets aren't a real exception, either--read some Chomsky). Obviously, you have philosophical objections to particular way the New Deal went about this. Fine. But equating the New Deal with "promoting fascism" is rhetorical grandstanding, not reasoned analysis.

In 1930's America, the rise of Fascism (or Communism or another form of totalitariansim) was a real threat not just abroad but at home. The crisis was not simply economic but social. As I've said, real-world politics is about a shitload more than economic policy. Equating the man who told us "The only thing we have to fear is Fear itself," with a regime fundamentally based on instilling fear, based on some "similarities" in particular planks of economic policy, cannot, IMHO, be treated as serious historical argument. It is, to me, of a species with those who pull mistranslations from the founding documents of a group like MEChA in order to compare them to the Ku Klux Klan.

[michael (in DC)]

Kevin,

glad to have run into you here. I found your article, which looks very interesting, if (like much of David's stuff fwiw) long and "thick"...hope you don't mind that I copied it into word to read when I'm offline...and more awake. I assume (hope for your sake) you're an academic?

I think Jean points to the problem of talking about fascism (or politics in general) in terms of economics when she points to "its more amorphous nature as an ideology." Of course the Nazis' ideology was amorphous: in real-world politics, ideology always bends to the needs of power.

More to the point, how can any coherent analysis of German Nazism set to one side as an "insane exception" the Anti-Semitism at its heart, or overlook completely the centrality of WAR in Hitler & Co's whole system?

This to me is why David's analysis of fascism is compelling and Rick's, frankly, facile and incoherent. Politics is about power: its acquisition, conservation, and increase. Since all political power depends to some extent on the consent of the governed (not equally from all, necessarily), politics is about acquiring that consent. Thus its about much more than economics; it's about language, psychology, emotion, religion, coercion...the manipulation of all the variables in how society runs.

Thus, while I'm pretty much with you all the way on the distortions and evils of the current American State, and agree that what we refer to as "capitalism" or "free enterprise" bears little relation to what those terms are supposed to mean...I don't see a viable alternative to the State or a realistic path to it. The reason I see folks who live in Theoryland as dangerous is that they traditionally have been, and look still to be, easy marks for those in power who would proclaim their allegiance to whichever True Religion, so as to acquire Consent, and meanwhile proceed to Lie, Cheat, and Steal (and murder) as humans have always done and will always do.

In any case, I hope all lovers of liberty, of whom I count myself one, recognize that at this particular time we are Playing Defense, and need to beat the Barbarians back from the gates before we worry about the new architecture for the city.

[michael (in DC)]

Kevin, thanks for the pardon...

good point about war as part of FDR's program...I tend to buy that the first aim of the war was to beat back the Axis--not sure how much Bretton Woods was on anybody's mind in 1939-41...but certainly, at home, WWII itself was the ultimate Keynesian stimulus, and ended up birthing the modern MI complex...

One long term effect, though, of Bretton-Woods neoliberalism, has been, to my thinking, the weakening of States, at least in the economic realm (imho)...I tend to buy into the lefty line of thinking that the more serious threat to liberty these days is international Capital as a rule (more-or-less) unto itself; governed only by non-democratic supra-state treaty mechanisms that limit local sovereignty...

I guess that's an outgrowth of my general problem with economic libertarianism as I understand it: I tend to buy into the Marxist assertion that Capital, in a true laissez-faire setup, would tend not to devolve but rather to concentrate--as with increased capital comes increased power to increase capital. (was that a sentence?)...

I'm out of my theoretical league here, but that's my intuition...perhaps I've been reading the Nation too much...

[Rick Barton]

Joe,
Industrialists in America opposed Roosevelt in 1932 and in every other election he ran in...

No way. Not even close! While he was governor of N.Y.,long before the 32' election, FDR cultivated enduring Wall Street relationships. 78% of FDR's 1932 pre-convention expenses came from Wall Street. Bernard Baruch, Hugh Johnson and other Wall Street operatives were pushing their version of economic planning and sharing it with FDR's speech writers.
Note: "In Wall Street and FDR" a topic haeding is titled "Wall Street ELects FDR in 1932" (pg.118)
"The Higher Circles-the governing class in America" by Domhoff covers the relationship as well.

[Rick Barton]

michael,

"Isn't your whole argument RE: FDR predicated on defining nearly everything in terms of economics?"

No it's not, the point I am making is the fascist nature of the NRA program, since the NRA was about economic policy, the disscusion will tend to be about economics.

"why not point to the much more obvious parallel between FDR's policies & those of the Nazis: the Japanese-American detention camps during the war?"

One of the great tragedies and shames of our nations history. No surprise that it was FDR that did it. Politically, it was opposed by conservatives, who used constitutional arguments against the outrage.

"As for "economic regulation" and liberal democracies and monarchies..."

But, one can cite counter examples for those types, but not for fascist regimes.

"Many feel that one major purpose of the Constitution was securing the interests of the propertied classes."

If that was the purpose the framers would have empowered the state not limited it's powers.

"I assume, then, you would label as "promoting fascism at home" Woodrow Wilson, William McKinley, or, shit, why not Alexander Hamilton?"

For what it's worth you are closer with Hamilton then you would be with the other founders. But still way off the mark.

"But equating the New Deal with "promoting fascism" is rhetorical grandstanding, not reasoned analysis."

On the contrary, ignoring the commonalities and not calling them when they are there is what is not "reasoned analysis".

[Kevin Carson]

joe,

On the "traitor to his class" thing, I think you're buying into the Art Schlesinger official myth. And whether or not it was part of his motivation in the drift toward war, the "military Keynesian" spending starting in the late '30s was a major part of the State's activity in absorbing idle industrial capacity. Under Truman, I think, the promotion of military spending from 1948 on was much more deliberate. In any case, we've had a permanent war economy ever since.

[michael (in DC)]

Rick,

If you can't see the importance of defining terms, or the difference between asserting "commonalities" between two regimes and asserting their identity...you truly are hopeless.

Can you see how your assertion of "fascist economics" (which actually was a retreat from your initial assertion of "promoting fascism" leads inevitably, a la Joe above, to "fascist transport infrastructure" or "fascist military training techniques"?

How, by your definition, is Woodrow Wilson, who fought numerous wars on behalf of Big business interests, not a fascist?

This renders "fascist" as meaningless as "Communist" was in the era of HUAC. It's not clear use of language and it does not aid your cause.

[Johnathan]

Bill O'Reilly - who is he? Another noisy Irishman?

[joe]

"Frank Chodorov, Jonathon Hughes, Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, John T. Flynn, Rothbard, have all written about the parallels (between the New Deal and fascism)" Yes, Rick, once "fascist" was defined as "everything we don't like," people of all political stripes began calling their betes noires "fascist." Though I like the way you moved from "promoted fascism at home" to "similarities." In the first couple of decades after the war, it was a pretty good hook with which to draw public attention.

But as far as these similarities go: Did you know the autobahn uses macadam pavement, is limited access, and connects different German states? Damn fascist Eisenhower! Or that the SS trained with rifles, hand grenades, and armored vehicles? Damned fascist Marine Corps!

You told David Niewert that he doesn't know anything about fascism, and that he obviously hasn't done much reading about it. That's gotta be embarrassing.

[Rick Barton]

"If you can't see the importance of defining terms..."

Remember, I was the one who insisted on defining liberty before we tried to identify "pro-liberty"
politicians.

Fascist economics is a subset of fascism.
The NRA (swope plan) was fascist economics.
Therefore, the NRA was promoting fascism. QED

"How, by your definition, is Woodrow Wilson...not a fascist?"

There are many different government interventions for business, most are harmful, all are unfair but not all are of a fascist nature. The Swope plan reads a lot more like a Nazi economic platform then Wilson's policies did.

[Rick Barton]

michael (in DC,) you wrote:
"declaring something an "integral part" of a regime's program is at all remarkable when said thing is an integral part of the very definition of the word "regime"."

To reiterate,I wrote:
...you can not name a fascist regime that economic regulation was not a center piece , or at least a very prominent part of, there have been plenty of parliamentary, liberal ( you left the obvious one out, oh yeah I mean "classical" liberal of course) and monarchical regimes that have a rolled back economic regulation!

"Center piece"..."very prominent" Read "FRIGGEN HUGE!" This is so self evident I can't believe were debating it. We wouldn't be if David Neiwert
had been ready to defend against the contention I posited, (the fascist nature of FDRs NRA) but he was not and after his initial confusion, sought to deflect the debate to more comforatable terrain. His motivation to respond to me, it seems, was to defend old FDR. (Read his first post) After the confusion he displayed his first post he goes on later to say (on this thread) really silly things!:

"Secondly, I tried to point out to you that there is no such thing as "fascist economics""

and

"(And libertarians, I might add, try to define nearly everything in terms of economics,..."

[Rick Barton]

Joe, you wrote:

"Though I like the way you moved from "promoted fascism at home" to "similarities." "

I said (at least what I meant) FDR "promoted fascism at home" (within the rubric of economic policy) and various thinkers have noted the "similarities." between the economic policies of fascist regimes and FDRs NRA. (the swope plan)

[joe]

But you haven't demonstrated that FDR's economic plan was fascist, just that it had some similarities. It had some pretty big differences, as well. Ever read about labor relations in the Reich? Women in the work force? Doesn't the fact that the biggest German industrialists sided with Hitler, while the biggest American industrialists fought FDR tooth and nail, suggest anything about the relationships between government and industry to you?

The fact that FDR and Hitler both meet your definition of fascist, like the people who can demonstrate that Bush is a Nazi, tells us far more about the inadequacy of the definition than about American or German politics.

[Rick Barton]

michael,

"Some "economic regulation" is a function--a DEFINITION, of any government."

But I said: "Economic regulation has repeatedly been an INTEGRAL part of the program of fascist regimes"

[michael (in DC)]

oy, rick,

as they say on SCHPROCKETS, "your story has become tiresome...now ve must dance!"

perhaps you can recommend a book that will explain to me how declaring something an "integral part" of a regime's program is at all remarkable when said thing is an integral part of the very definition of the word "regime".

I'm not certain I care anymore.

[Ahmad Saif]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PENIS-PILLS-SECRETS.NET

DATE: 12/11/2003 01:43:24
There are no weird people - some just require more understanding.

[France Kim]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 68.173.7.113
URL: http://low-fat.drugsexperts.com
DATE: 01/10/2004 06:46:59
Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God.