FDR was no less evil than Hitler.

[kurabrhm]

Ask the girl who made your "Nike" sneakers about her wonderful standard of living.

Quite right. Do ask, but the response, I fear, will be muted. You see, one of the things about capitalism and the poor is that the poor are sucked into the heavy imagery that tries to propagate the notion that working for money is a good thing. Its not surprising that the poor are attracted by earning money. They need it. However, what they presumably don't realise is that wages are set up by the higher order who can exploit the poor without their knowledge. Capitalism is a complex thing for the poor and uneducated working at a Nike factory to understand. In capitalism, the poor are not concerned by the fact that the big corporations such as Nike make a huge profit by employing third world workers. SO much profit that its in fact scandalous.
In communism, the message was simple for the poor to understand. Communism offered a near egalitarian society that had this image of being a workers party. Note the communist flag of the Soviet Union which had the hammer and the sickle to symbolise the work ethic. However, because communist countries could not keep with the economic competetion posited by the capitalist countries, it ultimately failed, as symbolised by the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, capitalism also won the image contest with the communists as well as the economic one. So now we have the red Coca Cola symbol in third world countries, for example, rather than seeing an abundance of the hammer and sickle red flag.

 

[Agrippa]

'In capitalism, men exploit men. In communism, the reverse it true.'

Polish proverb

 

[TerabyTe]

You think FDR was as evil as Hitler and you expect people to take you seriously?

Wow.

 

[Agrippa]

Would you like to live in Ukraine in 1931, China in 1960, or North Korea today? In the 20th century, 44 million people have died in unintentional man made famines. About 37 million of those people were killed by the actions of communist governments. Another 83 million have died as a result of genocide, government oppression, tyranny, and intentional famine. Of that total, communist governments are to blame for 44 million of those deaths.

kurabrhm, your support of the Soviet Union as some sort of worker's paradise is contrary to the historical record.

 

[jamesrwright3]

One of the major countries in the world that 'bought' capitalism in the post colonial era in order to develop its economy was India. Now you say that capitalism has increased the standard of living for all. Well, not in capitalist India.
In India, its the wealthy middle and upper classes that benefit from capitalism. The poor of India are in fact victims of capitalism. Look at the slum dwellers of Bombay, for example, who are juxtaposed with the capitalist exuberance of Bombay's middle classes.

Another example would be Sao Paulo, Brazil. The situation with the slum dwellers who are in fact the victims of capitalism is much the same as in India.

In India, these slum dwellers originate from the vast rural areas who come to the congested metropolis looking for work under the capitalist umbrella. What do they find? They find living conditions and work conditions are in fact much worse in the urban capitalist centres than in the rural areas. Yet they still come despite the obvious negatives. Why? Because of the false ideology of capitalism.

The world needed a Soviet Union to mobilise these third world masses who fall victim to capitalism but America and her allies, especially their military, was so powerful that the Soviets stood little chance of truly realising Marx's dream of a worker's revolt.

I am sorry but captialism is gradually increasing the standard of living in India. You have to look at other factors which cause poverty in India such as geographical and social forces. I also believe that the caste system in India has alot to do with the rampant poverty. Many people simply do not have the opporunity to advance themselves because of who their parents are...including many born into the slums Also, India has only recently came into modernity and embraced capitalism.

Although capitalism is the best means to bring people out of poverty, it is not a rapid process but an ongoing and continuous one. I am not saying that capitalism is perfect, but it the the only option which has consistently worked over time to improve the lives of people. Socialism and communism have never worked and never ever will work. Tens of millions died in China as a direct result of their embracing of communist ideology. They finally realized that capitalism and the laws of supply and demand were the only way to impove the lives of their people.

And I think you are engaging in revisionist history. Communism didn't collapse because of competition with the capitalists. I am not sure what kind of competition you are talking about. It's not like the state enterprises in the Soviet Union were competing with the Fortune 500. Communism collapsed from within because it simply did not work and made the lives of the people living in it miserable. You can't ignore the laws of supply and demand and expect a good return on your resources. T

 

[jamesrwright3]

Quite right. Do ask, but the response, I fear, will be muted. You see, one of the things about capitalism and the poor is that the poor are sucked into the heavy imagery that tries to propagate the notion that working for money is a good thing. Its not surprising that the poor are attracted by earning money. They need it. However, what they presumably don't realise is that wages are set up by the higher order who can exploit the poor without their knowledge. Capitalism is a complex thing for the poor and uneducated working at a Nike factory to understand. In capitalism, the poor are not concerned by the fact that the big corporations such as Nike make a huge profit by employing third world workers. SO much profit that its in fact scandalous.
In communism, the message was simple for the poor to understand. Communism offered a near egalitarian society that had this image of being a workers party. Note the communist flag of the Soviet Union which had the hammer and the sickle to symbolise the work ethic. However, because communist countries could not keep with the economic competetion posited by the capitalist countries, it ultimately failed, as symbolised by the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, capitalism also won the image contest with the communists as well as the economic one. So now we have the red Coca Cola symbol in third world countries, for example, rather than seeing an abundance of the hammer and sickle red flag.

I just find it amusing. You point to how these poor workers from the countryside are being exploitged, but you don't realize that in many instances they are making more money by making those Nike shoes than they would have made in their peasant economies. And you point out that many of these workers are uneducated..even workers in the West who are uneducated do not make top dollar. You make it seem like we are herding these people into factories and forcing these poor people to work...but these people may not have many other opportunities in their region.

 

[TheRealityOfMan]

FDR did so much for my race.

 

[oldrooster]

FDR did much for all races, he was the first rich man in office that gave a hoot about the little man.

 

[TheRealityOfMan]

But he probably did more for my race than for the blacks.

 

[wildthing]

I really think you all should reavalulate your opinnion on what FDR did for minorties. I am not siding with the people who said FDR was as evil as HItler. I just think that he was not all that great. Please just let the historys books show their evidence on race relations during that time.

 

[kurabrhm]

I really think you all should reavalulate your opinnion on what FDR did for minorties. I am not siding with the people who said FDR was as evil as HItler. I just think that he was not all that great. Please just let the historys books show their evidence on race relations during that time.

Well, FDR, did actually want to do more for the Blacks in America. But he couldn't since he feared that he may alienate the support of conservatives who represented a large majority of the people he needed to push forward his New Deal reform policies.

 

[jgarden]

FDR didn't invent the Depression, nor was he responsible for WW2. It was Germany who declared war on America and in the case of Japan, FDR had little choice. If America had been any more isolationist, Britain would have fallen and the Nazi's would have ruled Europe.

FDR was elected a record 4 times by the American public. Unlike Hitler, FDR didn't have the Capitol building burnt to rid himself of the legislature.

 

[oldrooster]

FDR didn't invent the Depression, nor was he responsible for WW2. It was Germany who declared war on America and in the case of Japan, FDR had little choice. If America had been any more isolationist, Britain would have fallen and the Nazi's would have ruled Europe.

FDR was elected a record 4 times by the American public. Unlike Hitler, FDR didn't have the Capitol building burnt to rid himself of the legislature.

Amen.....

 

[kurabrhm]

Well, FDR was no maniac like Hitler! FDR enjoyed certain priviliges like a good loving family and a first class education that Hitler certainly did not enjoy! If you look at the history of Hitler prior to his coming to power and blasting away the Weimar republic, he in fact led quite a poor man's life. He certainly did not have a loving family. In fact, his family history is a rather tragic story. Hitler did not have a proper education either, let alone going to an elite University, which FDR did by the way. Before his coming to power Hitler actually spent many a time simply trying to survive on cash earned through drawing paintings whilst residing in Vienna. A rather brief but nonetheless romantic picture in his life I imagine, even though Hitler is well known for his atrocities!
So if you compare Hitler with FDR, you can see the stark contrast between them. Hitler's past at least explains why he was prone to taking drastic actions such as burning down the Reichstag. Whereas FDR's past only serve to reinforce the idea that he was an extremely well off person who despite his polio managed to become a successful American President.

 

[Archivist]

FDR didn't invent the Depression, nor was he responsible for WW2. It was Germany who declared war on America and in the case of Japan, FDR had little choice. If America had been any more isolationist, Britain would have fallen and the Nazi's would have ruled Europe.

FDR was elected a record 4 times by the American public. Unlike Hitler, FDR didn't have the Capitol building burnt to rid himself of the legislature.

 

[LordsRanger]

FDR, like Hitler, geared the economy towards a massive industrial drive for the benefit of capitalism. Both ruthlessly exploited a bad situation to make some sort of a good situation.

In the case of FDR, he exploited the weakness in US society as a consequence of the Great Deppression. Hitler, likewise exploited the legacy of the Weimar Republic on Germany, namely, a massively weakened German economy.

Both converged on the same junction in WW2, with their massive industrial nations 'eagerly' following behind them. Ultimately only one could win the contest.

Was the winner more evil than the loser or is it the other way round?

Modern day capitalism would lead us to believe that the winner of WW2 was the lesser evil. However, Soviet Communism in the Cold War tried to argue that both was very evil indeed and that the only real alternative was Communism.

In the end, even the US, a long time after defeating its rival Germany, managed to squash the dissident voice. So what are we left with now?

The legacy of FDR, whether an evil person or not, is still with us today.

Take your intellectual implications and shove them. I am glad you do not reside in my nation.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is one of this nation's greatest. You had better count your blessings, as any other president would have let your kingdom fall into the hands of the mad brutes that were the Reichists. He went to great lengths with P.M. W. Churchill to ensure the success in driving out the Reich in the Atlantic.

Foreigners shouldn't insinuate.

Go find another board to provoke.

 

[kurabrhm]

Take your intellectual implications and shove them. I am glad you do not reside in my nation.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is one of this nation's greatest. You had better count your blessings, as any other president would have let your kingdom fall into the hands of the mad brutes that were the Reichists. He went to great lengths with P.M. W. Churchill to ensure the success in driving out the Reich in the Atlantic.

Foreigners shouldn't insinuate.

Go find another board to provoke.

Do you realise who FDR tried to emulate? He tried to emulate Mussolini!! And remember, Mussolini comes from Italy which in 20th century terms is really the backwater of Europe. Muss in turn tried to emulate none other than Adolf Hitler! In the United Kingdom, our leaders did not try to emulate any of the nasty dictators on continental Europe. The UK was a bastion of democracy. America, on the other hand, tried to be.
The UK's survival was helped by the Americans, for sure. But do you really think that just the Americans on their own could have stopped Germany from going as far as the UK? The Soviet Union also played a crucial role in preventing Nazi Germany from 'taking over' the UK. Without the Soviet assault from the East, I doubt whether the allies could really have defeated Germany.

There are certain things in America, which I noticed on my trip there last year, which reminds one of a quasi fascist state! The rules that reminds one of this may be quite petty considering the economic richness of a great number of people but its still there.

 

[kurabrhm]

[
Foreigners shouldn't insinuate.

Go find another board to provoke.[/QUOTE]


But, hey, thanks for your vigorous demonstration aganst my thread. Its livened things up a bit.

 

[Agrippa]

Do you realise who FDR tried to emulate? He tried to emulate Mussolini!! And remember, Mussolini comes from Italy which in 20th century terms is really the backwater of Europe. Muss in turn tried to emulate none other than Adolf Hitler! In the United Kingdom, our leaders did not try to emulate any of the nasty dictators on continental Europe. The UK was a bastion of democracy. America, on the other hand, tried to be.
The UK's survival was helped by the Americans, for sure. But do you really think that just the Americans on their own could have stopped Germany from going as far as the UK? The Soviet Union also played a crucial role in preventing Nazi Germany from 'taking over' the UK. Without the Soviet assault from the East, I doubt whether the allies could really have defeated Germany.

Mussolini didn't try to emulate Hitler; Hitler tried to emulate Mussolini.

The US could have defeat Germany on its own; in 1939, the US possessed ~ 42% of the world's warmaking potential, compared to 15% in Germany. The USSR and UK possessed 14% and 10% respectively. The US could have defeated Germany on its own, though it's doubtful that the UK and the USSR could have done so.

I'd like to see some evidence that FDR wanted to emulate Mussolini, considering that fact that FDR was staunchly anti-fascist.

 

[kurabrhm]

Mussolini didn't try to emulate Hitler; Hitler tried to emulate Mussolini.

The US could have defeat Germany on its own; in 1939, the US possessed ~ 42% of the world's warmaking potential, compared to 15% in Germany. The USSR and UK possessed 14% and 10% respectively. The US could have defeated Germany on its own, though it's doubtful that the UK and the USSR could have done so.

I'd like to see some evidence that FDR wanted to emulate Mussolini, considering that fact that FDR was staunchly anti-fascist.

FDR tried to emulate Mussolini? Must have been my imagination running wild. Its one thing to be anti fascist and quite another to put the New Deal in place and argue that the program had no fascist undertone to it. The New Deal was packaged in a form that gave the impression that America was getting a fair deal. Not some cheap copy of the European fascist model.
FDR symbolised that form. So yes, you're right. FDR probably tried to stay as far away from European dictators in terms of personality.
Just look at the various programs started by the New Deal. They all sound just like their European counterparts. I studied the European works programs at school. At University, I realised that America tried to copy the European model in order to recover from the deppression. The fact is America needed a person like FDR to hide the fact that the New Deal was nothing more than a cheap example of European fascism.
How many other European things has America tried to make a cheap copy of?
Come on, the list is endless.