Posted on 06/15/2003 6:02:19 AM PDT by vannrox
YUP.
The traitorous oligarchy have been artists at that for many decades.
Can we bring this back???
It’s now 2009 and 1938 redux.
bump
I saw that the New Deal was only superficially a reform movement. I had to acknowledge the truth of what its more forthright protagonists, sometimes unwarily, sometimes defiantly, averred: the New Deal was a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social, and above all, the power relationships within the nation. It was not a revolution by violence. It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking. In so far as it was successful, the power of politics had replaced the power of business. This is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time. This shift was the revolution. It was only of incidental interest that the revolution was not complete, that it was made not by tanks and machine guns, but by acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court, or that many of the revolutionists did not know what they were or denied it. But revolution is always an affair of force, whatever forms the force disguises itself in. Whether the revolutionists prefer to call themselves Fabians, who seek power by the inevitability of gradualism, or Bolsheviks, who seek power by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the struggle is for power.
BUMP!!!
ping
Thanks VERY much for the ping !
What a great, and sad, read.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel
BTTT. Wow what a find.
Every once in awhile when I think it is appropriate I try to bump this old thread - and even older booklet (discussing FDR and the New Deal written in 1937) to the front.
With the passing vote in the house on the Cap & Trade I figured it was appropriate, once again.
An excerpt:
PROBLEM FIVE
WHAT TO DO WITH BUSINESS WHETHER TO LIQUIDATE OR SHACKLE IT
.....Business is in itself a power. In a free economic system it is an autonomous power, and generally hostile to any extension of government power. That is why a revolutionary party has to do something with it.....
How seriously the New Deal may have considered the possibility of liquidating business we do not know. Its decision, at any rate, was to embrace the alternative; and the alternative was to shackle it....
Then he said: “In the hands of a people’s government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets, of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people.”
There, unconsciously perhaps, is a complete statement of the revolutionary thesis. It is not a question of law. It is a question of power. There must be a transfer of power. The President speaks not of laws; he speaks of new instruments of power, such as would provide shackles for the liberties of the people if they should ever fall in other hands. What then has the government done? Instead of limiting by law the power of what it calls economic autocracy the government itself has seized the power. [end of excerpt].
2010 and the headlong plunge continues unabated!
btt
Dang, sounds like the man was describing our man Barry. To a T.
Thanks...
Bookmark big time!
Wow, interesting essay, and from 1938. And I’ve already been impressed by it (now that I look) and forgotten about it. Thanks SL for the new ping, well worth reading again.
Another year bump
FASCINATING! Thanks for this link. Printed it out and reading through it all now. Very useful illusion-shattering post-mortem. Isn’t it amazing how the same game is being played in our time?
A bump for “The Revolution Was” article (about FDR and the New Deal) - last posted 12 years ago during Obama.
BTTT and bookmarked
I saw your link tonight on a current thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.