Kyle and Krystal vs. Cenk on MAGA

[multivita-man]

Oddly, the US switched radically from Republicans to FDR because of the Great Republican Depression; and Germans switched from their democratic system to Hitler's fascism primarily for the same reason.

Not really. Germany was a fledgling democracy, and it never really recovered economically from WW1. Plus, Hitler implemented military Keynesianism, which was, like FDR's programs, state spending to boost employment, except that in Nazi Germany's case, it was for the purpose of preparing Germany for war against the rest of Europe.

 

[multivita-man]

Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR had a lot in common:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevelts/dp/0312427433

FDR had little in common with Hitler and Mussolini.

 

[Craig234]

Not really. Germany was a fledgling democracy, and it never really recovered economically from WW1. Plus, Hitler implemented military Keynesianism, which was, like FDR's programs, state spending to boost employment, except that in Nazi Germany's case, it was for the purpose of preparing Germany for war against the rest of Europe.

I can't agree with your post. Germany had democracy established, which is what's relevant. Hitler's military Keynesian economics are an irrelevant detail implemented after he gained power, when the topic is how he gained power.

 

[multivita-man]

I can't agree with your post. Germany had democracy established, which is what's relevant.

Germany had a democracy, which was a condition of its surrender, but they were not culturally democratic, and if we've learned anything over the past several decades, that's pretty important. It was a multiparty system which made it hard to form solid majorities. The Nazis exploited this in the late 1920s once they started gaining political traction. The elites and many people in positions of power never really accepted democracy as legitimate and worked to undermine it, which was something else the Nazis exploited.

Hitler's military Keynesian economics are an irrelevant detail implemented after he gained power, when the topic is how he gained power.

Hitler's campaign basically pledged to do a lot of what he ended up doing.

 

[Craig234]

Germany had a democracy, which was a condition of its surrender, but they were not culturally democratic

Your comments are ahistorical IMO. The topic is Hitler's rise to power, between the backlash to economic suffering versus your claim of it being related to Germany not having strong democratic culture but proneness to authoritarianism. Hitler became popular after WWi suffering, then when prosperity increased he lost almost all of it. That wouldn't have happened if your theory were correct.

 

[multivita-man]

Your comments are ahistorical IMO.

No, they're historical.

The topic is Hitler's rise to power, between the backlash to economic suffering versus your claim of it being related to Germany not having strong democratic culture but proneness to authoritarianism.

You were comparing/contrasting the US's and Germany's response to the global depression in the late 1920s. Your claim was that, unlike the US, which became more progressive as a response, Germany switched to fascism. The reason the US became more progressive and remained democratic and Germany became fascistic was because we had over a century of practice with democracy; Germany had barely 10 years before it started sliding toward fascism.

Hitler became popular after WWi suffering, then when prosperity increased he lost almost all of it. That wouldn't have happened if your theory were correct.

I have no idea where you're getting this. Whatever popularity Hitler lost was because he started a ruinous war.

 

[Craig234]

You were comparing/contrasting the US's and Germany's response to the global depression in the late 1920s. Your claim was that, unlike the US, which became more progressive as a response, Germany switched to fascism. The reason the US became more progressive and remained democratic and Germany became fascistic was because we had over a century of practice with democracy; Germany had barely 10 years before it started sliding toward fascism.

Baseless claim, and you ignored my argument, which contradicts your theory. No, both countries had a democratic backlash to support a radical change in response to the Great Republican Depression. The US was 'lucky' that its leading opposition was liberal FDR, and Germany was 'unlucky' that its opposition was fascism.

I have no idea where you're getting this. Whatever popularity Hitler lost was because he started a ruinous war.

No. In the terrible economic disaster after losing WWI, Hitler rose in popularity. As the economy recovered in the 1920's, Hitler lost his popularity, because the country was no longer having a backlash. When the Great Republican Depression caused economic disaster again, that's when Hitler rose again and took power - before the war.

 

[multivita-man]

Baseless claim, and you ignored my argument, which contradicts your theory. No, both countries had a democratic backlash to support a radical change in response to the Great Republican Depression. The US was 'lucky' that its leading opposition was liberal FDR, and Germany was 'unlucky' that its opposition was fascism.

The US wasn't just lucky; it was a stronger democracy, even if flawed. There were strong separation of powers. We had peaceful transferred power in election after election. We even had elections in the middle of a brutal civil war. Compare that to a German political system that had only known monarchy up to that point in time.

No. In the terrible economic disaster after losing WWI, Hitler rose in popularity. As the economy recovered in the 1920's, Hitler lost his popularity, because the country was no longer having a backlash. When the Great Republican Depression caused economic disaster again, that's when Hitler rose again and took power - before the war.

If you call a party winning no more than 6% of the popular national vote between 1920 and 1928 popular, okay...

 

[Dans La Lune]

Ok, what's the progressive solution to sky-high housing prices?

That's a function of capitalism, a problem created by capitalism and the commodification and corporate control over housing. I mean, capitalism leaves a giant shit, and then look to progressives to clean up the mess. Fair enough, it's what we do. There are progressive solutions, but they are muti-faceted and requires a number of approaches -- increasing supply, regulation on corporate landlords, rent control, taxation and government support of home ownership.

Are you aware that poverty and homelessness can be largely solved in America JUST by collecting the unowned taxes from the rich? Not even increasing them.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR had a lot in common:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevelts/dp/0312427433

You mean they saw a crisis in capitalism and took different directions in solving them. Hitler and Mussolini went towards right-wing fascism, FDR went towards progressive social solutions. I agree.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Not really.

Bernie was on the verge of winning in 2020, causing MSNBC ("The Left" LOL) and Chris Matthews to melt down at an impending Nazis style takeover.

Chris Matthews' Wild Rant Connects a Bernie Sanders Win With Public Executions

Chris Matthews' fear of socialism sparked a post-debate rant regarding a possible Bernie Sanders presidency and executions.

www.rollingstone.com

Why MSNBC Is Freaking Out Over Bernie Sanders

Beholden to Never Trump partisans, the network can’t stand the Democratic Party’s shift to the left.

www.thenation.com

Chris Matthews Short-Circuits On Live TV About Bernie Sanders And Castro

Fox News should send a thank you note to Chris Matthews for his rant conflating Bernie Sanders with 1950s communism and never mind that that is clearly not what Sanders stands for.

crooksandliars.com

 

[Dans La Lune]

 

[aociswundumho]

That's a function of capitalism, a problem created by capitalism and the commodification and corporate control over housing. I mean, capitalism leaves a giant shit, and then look to progressives to clean up the mess. Fair enough, it's what we do. There are progressive solutions, but they are muti-faceted and requires a number of approaches -- increasing supply, regulation on corporate landlords, rent control, taxation and government support of home ownership.

Nothing you wrote here even comes close to answering the question. But I'll respond to it anyway:

That's a function of capitalism, a problem created by capitalism and the commodification and corporate control over housing.

Corporations actually own very little housing:

Blackstone, the third-largest owner of single family homes in the country, owns 0.07% of the approximately 89 million owner or renter occupied single family homes in the United States. The top three owners of single family homes own a combined 0.25% of occupied single family homes.

That's peanuts.

I mean, capitalism leaves a giant shit, and then look to progressives to clean up the mess. Fair enough, it's what we do. There are progressive solutions, but they are muti-faceted and requires a number of approaches -- increasing supply, regulation on corporate landlords, rent control, taxation and government support of home ownership.

Do you support rolling back the progressive regulations which artificially restrict the number of homes built each year?

 

[aociswundumho]

You mean they saw a crisis in capitalism and took different directions in solving them. Hitler and Mussolini went towards right-wing fascism, FDR went towards progressive social solutions. I agree.

No, Mussolini went towards progressive "solutions" just like FDR did:

He imposed unionization:

Under this labour policy, Fascist Italy enacted laws to make union membership compulsory for all workers.

Massive amount of government spending on infrastructure, schools, etc.:

Mussolini’s spending on the public sector, schools and infrastructure was considered extravagant. Mussolini "instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivaled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages; swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forests were planted and universities were endowed". As for the scope and spending on social welfare programs, Italian fascism "compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive".

Mussolini imposed a large and expansive welfare state:

By 1925, the Fascist government had "embarked upon an elaborate program" that included food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing and old age and disability insurance.

He made a direct comparison between his government policies, and FDR's government policies:

When New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian fascism in 1939, the reply was: "It is like your New Deal!".

Mussolini referred to himself as the "Lenin of Italy":

During the 1919 elections, the Fascists had attempted to court the socialist-left while publicly dubbing himself the “Lenin of Italy”

Last but not least, fascist Italy had a very high degree of public ownership of the means of production:

By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state ownership of any economy in the world other than the Soviet Union.

The truth is that Mussolini was more progressive than FDR.

 

[Craig234]

The US wasn't just lucky; it was a stronger democracy, even if flawed.

I continue to think you have it wrong, with a mythical idea of 'stronger democracy' as relevant. That's not it. It has to do more with who the more effective opposition was, and that was largely 'luck'.

If Hitler hadn't been there as an effective opposition figure, Germany's backlash would have gone a different direction.

And the US wasn't as far from a Hitler-like reaction as many think. Fascism had a large following. There was almost total opposition to entering the war against Hitler. Powerful US interests supporters or were friendly to fascism and Hitler. The most popular broadcast in the country was a far-right figure, a Senator was openly pro-Nazi, "America First" was a fascist movement with a lot of popularity, there was a fascist coup attempt against FDR.

The book "It Can Happen Here" around 1935 described a fascist takeover of the country, a novel with a somewhat trump-like figure becoming president. We were lucky.

 

[multivita-man]

I continue to think you have it wrong, with a mythical idea of 'stronger democracy' as relevant. That's not it. It has to do more with who the more effective opposition was, and that was largely 'luck'.

I'm not sure we really disagree but feel like maybe we're focusing on different things.

Oddly, the US switched radically from Republicans to FDR because of the Great Republican Depression; and Germans switched from their democratic system to Hitler's fascism primarily for the same reason.

The Depression was a catalyst for both the US's embrace of an expanded welfare state and also German fascism -- I completely agree with that. I guess I tend to view the Depression as a trigger, though. There were underlying factors predating the Depression that made Hitler/Nazism possible. While any democratic system can fail, it's more likely to fail and give rise to someone like Hitler not because of a single trigger but because of factors that have likely been present for some time. In Germany's case, the loss of the Great War, persistent unemployment and inflation, and an immature democratic system that was easily manipulated.

And the US wasn't as far from a Hitler-like reaction as many think. Fascism had a large following.

It was popular among the super wealthy and powerful, who feared a stronger, more centralized government that was going to keep their power in check. It was not necessarily that popular among the masses of people who were afraid to put money in banks, although I'm sure there were plenty of adherents. In any given democracy - even a healthy one - probably 15-30% of the population have no use for it. That's why it's important to be an informed and active voter, to keep the fringe from becoming the mainstream.

There was almost total opposition to entering the war against Hitler.

Isolationism doesn't necessarily equate to fascism.

Powerful US interests supporters or were friendly to fascism and Hitler.

Yes, powerful interests and barons like Henry Ford. Not unlike the tech barons of today, who have made it clear that they have little use for people voting against their corporate interests.

The most popular broadcast in the country was a far-right figure, a Senator was openly pro-Nazi, "America First" was a fascist movement with a lot of popularity, there was a fascist coup attempt against FDR.

The book "It Can Happen Here" around 1935 described a fascist takeover of the country, a novel with a somewhat trump-like figure becoming president. We were lucky.

Those things did happen against the backdrop of severe economic turmoil, but the reason a crackpot idea of overthrowing the President and replacing him with someone else failed is because it was still considered a fringe idea. Compare that to today, where we've had powerful plutocratic forces undermining public confidence in our democratic institutions, as they relentlessly have since the 2000s (probably earlier than that, but post 9/11 is when things got weird).

 

[Craig234]

The Depression was a catalyst for both the US's embrace of an expanded welfare state and also German fascism -- I completely agree with that. I guess I tend to view the Depression as a trigger, though. There were underlying factors predating the Depression that made Hitler/Nazism possible.

I think you underestimate the US's vulnerability to fascism, overestimate Germany's desire for fascism, and the specific point we're arguing about is the importance of the 'luck' that America's leading opposition was FDR while Germany's was Hitler, not so much because of some 'national culture', but other factors. Fascism could well have gained control of the US - and as I said, not in Germany without Hitler.

While any democratic system can fail, it's more likely to fail and give rise to someone like Hitler not because of a single trigger but because of factors that have likely been present for some time. In Germany's case, the loss of the Great War, persistent unemployment and inflation, and an immature democratic system that was easily manipulated.

We're going in circles - you keep repeating 'immature democratic system'. Germany was affected by arguments one way or the other. The US was affected by arguments one way or the other. Either could have gone either way, and it wasn't determined by "immature democratic system". Perhaps you could get more familiar with the culture in Germany by reading "Hitlerland".

Those things did happen against the backdrop of severe economic turmoil, but the reason a crackpot idea of overthrowing the President and replacing him with someone else failed is because it was still considered a fringe idea.

No, the reason it failed is because they chose Smedley Butler to be the new president, and he opposed them and exposed the coup, much as Mike Pence disagreed with trump's coup and single-handedly prevented it.

Compare that to today, where we've had powerful plutocratic forces undermining public confidence in our democratic institutions, as they relentlessly have since the 2000s (probably earlier than that, but post 9/11 is when things got weird).

The US has decades-long growth of fanatical ideological shift toward oligarchy, destabilizing our democracy. See the HYeritage Foundation and Project 2025 for just one part.

 

[multivita-man]

I think you underestimate the US's vulnerability to fascism, overestimate Germany's desire for fascism,

I don't because the US didn't become fascist and Germany did.

and the specific point we're arguing about is the importance of the 'luck' that America's leading opposition was FDR while Germany's was Hitler, not so much because of some 'national culture', but other factors. Fascism could well have gained control of the US - and as I said, not in Germany without Hitler.

I think what you're saying is that things could have been really messed up for a while if we had ended up with another weak leader, and I don't disagree, but a decade or more of weak leadership (let's say Hoover + 4 years of the Democratic answer to that) and any democracy has a real problem on its hands. But a real problem can be many things other than fascism. It could be a civil war. It could illiberal democracy, fascism, or something in between.

We're going in circles - you keep repeating 'immature democratic system'. Germany was affected by arguments one way or the other. The US was affected by arguments one way or the other. Either could have gone either way, and it wasn't determined by "immature democratic system". Perhaps you could get more familiar with the culture in Germany by reading "Hitlerland".

I'm well aware of the 1920s and 30s Germany. Do you know anything about the history of Germany before Weimar? Bismarck? Franco-Prussia conflict? The pan-German movement in the post-Napoleonic period? The centuries of antisemitism during which Jews were not considered citizens? There's a lot that went into the making of Nazi Germany.

No, the reason it failed is

 

[Craig234]

View attachment 67575996

No idea what you are saying but it doesn't seem useful.

 

[multivita-man]

No idea what you are saying but it doesn't seem useful.

I guess I'm saying, we'll just have to agree to disagree.