Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- More Damning Evidence Points to Pesticide as Cause of Mass Bee Deaths
- Nobel Peace Prize Jury Under Investigation
- 'Gasland' Film Director Arrested at US Capitol Hearing
- The Cancerous Politics and Ideology of the Susan G. Komen Foundation
- A Journey To The End Of Empire: It Is Always Darkest Right Before It Goes Completely Black
Popular content
Today's Top News
The US Is Facing a Weimar Moment
In early 1919, Germany put in place a new government to begin rebuilding the country after its crushing defeat in World War I. But the right-wing forces that had led the country into the War and lost the War conspired even before it was over to destroy the new government, the "Weimar Republic." They succeeded.
The U.S. faces a similar "Weimar Moment." The devastating collapse of the economy after eight years of Republican rule has left the leadership, policies, and ideology of the right utterly discredited. But, as was the case with Germany in 1919, Republicans do not intend to allow the new government to succeed. They will do everything they can to undermine it. If they are successful, the U.S. may yet go the way of Weimar Germany.
World War I left Germany utterly devastated. The landed aristocrats, industrial magnates, wealthy financiers, weapons makers, and the officer corps of the military that formed the locus of right wing power were completely discredited. Their failure in provoking and prosecuting the War was catastrophic, undeniable, and complete.
The economy was destroyed. Prices were at 800% of pre-war levels and rising quickly. Agriculture, pillaged for the War, lay in ruins. Social insurance payments for the War's injured, to widows and orphans, and newly unemployed soldiers were astronomical. And all this was before the cost of rebuilding was even begun.
At the same time, Germany faced massive reparations payments to the Allied victors, France and England. But Germany's foreign properties had been confiscated and its colonies turned over to the victors. The combination of these conditions, both domestic and international, made it extraordinarily difficult for the German economy to recover.
As a result of the failure of the right, the German people elected a moderately leftist government to lead the nation's rebuilding. It was named the Weimar Republic for the city in which the new post-imperial constitution was written. The new government was led by Friedrich Ebert, head of the German Socialist Party.
But the country's new parliamentary system had allowed dozens of parties to run, making it impossible for any one party to win an outright majority. Ebert's party had achieved the highest portion of votes, 38%, in the first post-War elections, held in January 1919. Ebert would have to govern by coalition.
It was at this time that the right wing made its crucial decision. Despite its shocking, naked failure over the prior decade, despite the horrific devastation it had wrought on the German people, despite the discrediting of everything they had purported to stand for, they would fight Ebert, his new government, and its plans for recovery. They would do everything they could to make sure that the new government failed.
Their strategy was two-fold: first, stoke the resentment of the population about the calamitous state of its living conditions-no matter that those conditions had been created by the very right-wing oligarchs who now pretended to befriend the little guy. Rage is rage. It is glandular and unseeing. Once catalyzed it is easy to turn on any subject.
And stoking resentment was easy to do. Just before the War ended, the military concocted its most sensational lie: the German army hadn't actually been defeated. It had been "stabbed in the back" by communists, traitors, and Jews. It was an easy lie to sell. It entwined an attack on an alien political ideology - liberalism- with the latent, pervasive myth of German racial superiority.
The second strategy of the right was to prevent the new government from succeeding. To begin with, success of the left would conspicuously advertise the failure of the right. Moreover, success by the left would legitimize republican government, so hated by the oligarchs of the right. Much better for the people to be ruled by the self-aggrandizing right-wing autocracy that had governed Germany for centuries.
So the rightists set out to do everything they could to make it impossible for the leftists to govern. They would use parliamentary maneuver, shifting coalitions, domination of the new mass media, legislative obstruction, staged public relations spectacles, relentless pressure by narrow but powerful interests, judicial intimidation and, eventually, outright murder of their political opponents.
Contrition for their abject failure, humility for their destructive hubris, compassion for their crippled country-those had nothing to do with it. All they possessed was a blinding, visceral hatred of the left and a masturbatory lust for the return to power.
Eventually, they succeeded. Every setback in recovery - and there would inevitably be many - was met with hysterical demonizing of the left wing government. The lie was repeated relentlessly that the government was run by communists, traitors, and Jews-the same furtive cabal that had purportedly stabbed the country in the back at the end of the War. They steadily chipped away at the efficacy and, thereby, the legitimacy of successive republican governments.
By the time of the Great Depression, Adolph Hitler's ironically named National Socialist Party had become the biggest vote getter in the nation. The Nazis had once been derided as the lunatic fringe of the far right. But the "respectable" right-wing power brokers who had started and lost the Great War anointed Hitler Chancellor in January, 1933.
He immediately suspended the constitution, abolishing most civil liberties. He outlawed opposition parties, began a massive military build-up and a relentless propaganda campaign, and set Germany and the world onto the path of the greatest destruction it would ever know.
America now faces its own "Weimar moment."
The failure of right wing policy and leadership over the past eight years, especially in matters economic, is comparable to Germany's right-wing failure in World War I. It is catastrophic, undeniable, and complete.
Consider:
According to the World Economic Forum, forty percent of the entire world's wealth has been destroyed in the recent financial collapse. In the U.S. alone, between housing and the stock market, more than $18 trillion in wealth has already been destroyed.
The private mega-banks that anchor the financial systems of the western world are bankrupt. This makes it all but impossible to jump-start the western world's economies which are heavily dependent on bank-system credit to operate.
More than 10,000 homes go into foreclosure every day. More than 20,000 people lose their job every day. And the collapse is accelerating, developing its own self-reinforcing dynamic. Job losses breed foreclosures, reducing demand, leading to more job losses and further degradation of the financial system. None of the stopgaps designed to stanch the bleeding have yet worked. There is no bottom in sight.
Meanwhile, debt has risen to astronomical levels. Reagan and Bush I quadrupled the national debt in only twelve years. Bush II doubled it again in only eight. It is now ten times higher than it was in 1980 when Reagan was elected. Total public and private debt exceeds 300% of GDP, half again higher than it was in 1929.
The government's unfunded liabilities, promises it has made to the American people but for which no payment source can be identified, now exceed $60 trillion, a literally inconceivable sum that can never, will never, be paid. Federal Reserve economist Lawrence Kotlikoff has suggested that the U.S. government is "actuarially bankrupt."
The full measure of the nation's plight is revealed in Hillary Clinton's first trip as Secretary of State. It was to China, to beg them to fund Obama's new fiscal deficits. Without loans from China, the U.S. economy cannot be revived. The significance of this cannot be overstated: the U.S. no longer exercises sovereignty over its own economic affairs. That sovereignty now resides in the hands of China, the U.S.'s greatest long-term rival.
Thanks to Republican policies of massive debt and shipping jobs abroad, the U.S. has technically become a colony of China. It exports raw materials and imports finished goods, together with the capital to make up the difference. Should the Chinese decide not to lend the trillions of dollars the U.S. is begging for, the U.S. economy will implode, plummeting onto itself in a World Trade Center-like collapse that will leave dust clouds circling the planet for decades.
Notwithstanding the destruction inflicted on the economy by Republican policies, the most devastating breakdown is in the intellectual foundation on which right wing economic ideology itself is premised. Free market doctrine, the secular religion of right-wing America, is in utter, irretrievable shambles.
One of the most lofty tenets on which free markets are premised is their claim for themselves that they are "efficient," that is, that market prices always reflect "fundamental values" of assets. But if that's true, how could the world's largest insurance company, AIG, have lost 99.5% of its market value in only 18 months? How could the world's largest bank, Citibank, have lost 98% of its value over the same period?
How could the world's largest brokerage company, Merrill Lynch, have gone bankrupt and need to be bought by Bank of America? How could the world's largest car company, General Motors, have lost 95% of its value and stand on the threshold of extinction? How could the world's largest industrial conglomerate, General Electric, have lost 85% of its value in only 18 months?
If the largest companies in the world, those at the very heart of the capitalist system itself, can lose virtually all of their value in only 18 months, what is the possible meaning of the phrases "efficient markets" and "fundamental value"?
The other core tenets of free market ideology are equally compromised. Major actors are clearly not rational - a breakdown of theological proportions admitted by no less an avatar of the cult than its pope himself, Alan Greenspan. Free markets clearly cannot, will not, regulate themselves. It is precisely their innate, irrepressible propensity for sociopathic greed and predatory fraud that has brought the whole of the world's economy to the precipice of collapse.
Free markets clearly do not align risk and reward, allocating capital to its most productive uses, as its promoters advertise. They clearly do not automatically return to equilibrium, but must be bailed out with trillions of dollars of injections from the shrinking coffers of the public to the ever-bulging coffers of a private priesthood of pillage and plunder.
And in perhaps the greatest indictment of all, one going back to its primeval roots in Adam Smith's eighteenth century opus, The Wealth of Nations, the unrestrained behavior of self-interested individuals clearly, manifestly, does not "coalesce as if by an Invisible Hand to the greatest good for the greatest number."
These are not peripheral premises that have failed. They are not tangential tenets. Efficient markets. Rational actors. Market equilibrium. Risk and reward. Self interest. These are the essential sacraments on which the entire free market system is founded. They are in tatters. And it isn't that any one of them has been discredited by the glaring, merciless force of events. All of them have been. All of them together. And all of them at the same time.
Free markets have long been the basis for a legitimate - though rightly debated - economic policy framework. But they have become little more than a robotically-recited cultural catechism, a mindless mantra mumbled to mask the looting of the nation's resources that is the true purpose of Republican economic policy as demonstrated by the staggering upward transfers of wealth that inevitably occur under Republican regimes. A more complete, conspicuous, catastrophic, and irrefutable repudiation of right wing leaders, right wing policies, and right wing ideology could not possibly be contrived.
So what is the right wing response?
They have adopted the strategy and tactics of the failed right wing plotters in Weimar Germany. First, stoke the resentment of the population about the increasingly dire state of its living conditions-no matter that those conditions were created by the very right-wing oligarchs who now pretend to befriend the little guy. Rage is rage. It is glandular and unseeing. Once catalyzed it is easy to turn on any subject.
Second, prevent the new government from succeeding in any meaningful endeavor. The Republicans have set all their efforts to doing everything they can to make sure the Obama administration fails. Rush Limbaugh's infamous, "I hope he fails" pronouncement is only the beginning of the fomenting of hatred from the right. As Limbaugh said, "Let's be honest. Every Republican in America is hoping for Obama's failure."
The same malignant hope oozes unadulterated from all the other Dogpatch Demagogues that rent themselves out to the Republican party to foment resentment against anything liberal: Joe the "Plumber," Rick Santelli, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and virtually every other wing-nut operative whose intellectual stock in trade has been vaporized by the collision of right-wing policies with objective reality.
Equally so for the "respectable" members of the party, the all-but-three Republican members of Congress who refused to sign on to Obama's first stimulus package and continue to grandstand against every effort toward any form of progress. Contrition for their own abject failure, humility for their destructive hubris, compassion for their crippled country-those have nothing to do with it. All they possess is a blinding, visceral hatred of the left and a masturbatory lust for the return to power.
And what else can they do? Bereft of ideas, bankrupt in ideology, architects of collapse, obstruction is all they have. If Obama is successful, it will not only advertise the full extent of their failure, it will provide a model of liberal governance that would render Republicans irrelevant for decades, much as FDR's success left them out in the political cold for an entire generation. Liberal failure is a matter of life and death for Republicans.
And it's not at all clear that the liberals won't fail. No one should underestimate the task at hand. Never before - not even during the Great Depression - has the country inherited such a daunting, intractable set of economic problems: a debt burden so crushing; inequality so vast; a loss of financial sovereignty so constricting; an intellectual edifice so bankrupt; a private economy so uncompetitive; or an opposition so callously self interested in its own recovery and so cavalierly disinterested in the nation's.
The economy has been so damaged, successful rescue requires threading a series of policy needles, each of them so complex in their own right that none could be solved by any administration of the past 50 years. This includes rehabilitating and re-regulating the nation's banking system, restructuring health care, reducing national dependence on oil, reviving manufacturing so as to reduce the trade deficit, rebuilding the nation's crumbling infrastructure, dealing with a soaring national debt, trying to resuscitate a collapsing housing market, and all the while maintaining the safety net under 77 million baby boomers entering retirement with a net worth 60% what it was only 18 months ago.
Success will require much more than luck, hard work, brilliant policy, or soaring rhetoric. It will require cooperation and contribution from every American. It is those two offerings, cooperation and contribution, that Republicans are intent on withholding, the better to ensure Obama's failure. Simply put, the Republicans hate Democrats more than they love America.
If they succeed in derailing Obama's efforts, the cost will be incalculable.
After World War I, one of the consequences of the liberal government's failure was Adolph Hitler. Hitler had a genius for exploiting the resentment of the German people for their condition. More than 80% of the Nazi party's members were unemployed. It was these legions of idle thugs who made up the ranks of Hitler's brownshirt militia, the SA. The right wing oligarchy that had set out from the beginning to destroy the Weimar Republic recognized the potency of resentment and Hitler's genius at exploiting it. It was they who sponsored Hitler's ascension to Chancellor in 1933.
Resentment and obstruction are all the right wing in America have to peddle. Their policies are utterly discredited. Their ideology - even by its own standards - is a sham. They are so bereft of leaders, their de facto leader is a former drug addicted, thrice-divorced radio talk show host. That is literally the best they can muster. But they have built a national franchise inciting the downwardly mobile to blame the government, not the right, for their problems, exactly as Hitler did in the 1920s.
The Republican propensity for fascism must not be underestimated. Witness their phony justifications for the war in Iraq, fanning the flames of nationalistic aggression, just as Hitler did with Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and Poland in the 1930s. Consider their symbiotic embrace of corporate interests in the oil, weapons, telecommunications, pharmaceutical, finance, and other industries-the same type of corporate interests that sponsored Hitler's ascent to power. Look at their efforts to dismantle civil liberties with the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Or their relentless, pervasive propaganda laundered through their corporate-owned right-wing media machine.
These are the classic hallmarks of fascism. The strategy is to obstruct recovery, facilitate collapse, and then incite the faux-populism of public resentment to re-install a corporatist oligarchy which has failed, but which will not abide a reduction of its privileges or a diminution of its control. It is a fetid, seditious agenda, awaiting only its own latter day mustachioed messiah for its final fulfillment.
World War I was a once-in-a-millennium upset in the architecture of global power. In four years, it shifted the center of that power from Europe to the United States. But failure now by the U.S. will shift that center once again, from the United States to China, out of the western world where it has resided for the past 500 years. The psychic shock to the billion-odd people living in western civilization, with its liberal democracies, capitalist economies, and Enlightenment ideals, will be incalculable, irretrievable.
This shift may be inevitable and only a matter of time. It is quite possible that the damage inflicted on the western world's economy by rapacious Republicans is already beyond repair. But it will be tragedy beyond measure if such a shift is consummated by the very wrecking crew that took us down the road to ruin, all the while so unctuously proclaiming "patriotism" as its crowning ideal. They are not patriots and their goal is not the revival of American power. It is the revival of their own power, even at the expense of America's. They represent a very dangerous threat to the nation's future.




212 Comments so far
Show AllThank-you Robert Freeman. As a Canadian who just lost 30% of his retirement savings due to "market conditions" I am not surprise at the extent to which the American economy is tanking out. I just wish we could make the right wing bastards on both sides of the border suffer for the wars, corruption and greed that put us here.
"The U.S. Is Facing a Weimar Moment" and Feuhrer Romney is waiting in the wings.
Winter In America
by Gil Scott Heron
From the Indians who welcomed the pilgrims
And to the buffalo who once ruled the plains
Like the vultures circling beneath the dark clouds
Looking for the rain
Looking for the rain
Just like the cities staggered on the coastline
Living in a nation that just can't stand much more
Like the forest buried beneath the highway
Never had a chance to grow
Never had a chance to grow
And now it's winter
Winter in America
Yes and all of the healers have been killed
Or sent away, yeah
But the people know, the people know
It's winter
Winter in America
And ain't nobody fighting
'Cause nobody knows what to say
Save your soul, Lord knows
From Winter in America
The Constitution
A noble piece of paper
With free society
Struggled but it died in vain
And now Democracy is ragtime on the corner
Hoping for some rain
Looks like it's hoping
Hoping for some rain
And I see the robins
Perched in barren treetops
Watching last-ditch racists marching across the floor
But just like the peace sign that vanished in our dreams
Never had a chance to grow
Never had a chance to grow
And now it's winter
It's winter in America
And all of the healers have been killed
Or been betrayed
Yeah, but the people know, people know
It's winter, Lord knows
It's winter in America
And ain't nobody fighting
Cause nobody knows what to save
Save your souls
From Winter in America
And now it's winter
Winter in America
And all of the healers done been killed or sent away
Yeah, and the people know, people know It's winter
Winter in America
And ain't nobody fighting
Cause nobody knows what to save
And ain't nobody fighting
Cause nobody knows, nobody knows
And ain't nobody fighting
Cause nobody knows what to save
Poet
History never repeats. Maybe this time the right wing will just pack up and leave the country.
American's don't need the right wing corporatist.
If they leave, they can still come back or worse trouble us via controlling another nation and using it as a proxy against us. No, I say we confront them and force them to learn the meaning of DEFEAT that they deserve.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Robert Freeman, excellent analysis, historically accurate and well argued.
While Hitler's Germany is the most destructive example of the fringe right's ability to frame the discussion in narrow, self interest terms (at least prior to the "Regan Revolution" starting with Nixon), it is only one in an endless series of examples that could be cited. Since the beginning of social organization, it has always been the "haves" vs. the "have-nots" with the "haves" always the winners.
The question without an answer is how do we get the hardcore 40%, mostly "have-nots" to question their blind support to their own continued manipulation?
They hate us because of our freedom! Right, and I have this bridge....
One of the RIGHT'S favorite propaganda tactics is to loudly and with great repetition label its opposition exactly what it is.
As such, they're already accusing anyone and anything left of themselves as being a socialist, communist, fascist etc.
Never mind these labels make almost no sense whatsoever.
With their near total control of public and private media I believe they should be able to successfully convince the angry and ill-educated citizenry that it's left-wing extremism that's the cause of their misery.
Mitt or Jeb is being groomed to fill the void.
By 2012, thanks to a highly focused and relentless right-wing radio, t.v. and newspaper propaganda campaign, I'd wager, more than half the country will be blaming lefties for their job loss and debts.
I already hear right-wing media exclusively blaming liberals for loss of their civil liberties.
As Mr. Freeman said when people are pissed they don't need, or want, facts to justify it.
--------------------------
Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.
They're also calling us Nazis, claiming "national SOCIALISM" is part of the Left. Their ignorance alone makes me want to kick their asses.
Simply outstanding writing.
You've connected the dots with authority.
We can no longer say we haven't been warned.
Robert - thank you for articulating this so well. Taken to a logical conclusion,
one can almost picture in the not-too-distant-future, with the country in shambles, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter committing suicide in an underground bunker.
This is a terrific article. I recognized the resemblance with Germany 6 or 7 years ago right after the 9/11 tragedy. When Bush and Company started exploiting that national tragedy for their own selfish agenda. When he started using strong arm tactics with people who didn't agree with him. When extreme nationalism became the norm over night and no one seemed to care if neither country was a threat to us militarily. They were in the vengeance mode and there was no stopping it. But, you try and tell people their leaders were lying to them did no good. In fact, I was called unAmerican several times for trying to warn people we were on quicksand with Bush, militarilism and Republican ideals. I recognized the Republican's tendencies toward fascism way back in the 80's with the Republican Party's platform and stopped voting for them. I think it was Sinclair Lewis that once said "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."! Truer words were never spoken.
Ayuh.
The U.S. faced its Weimar Moment in 2002.
It slept through it.
Sieg Heil, baby.
When i see a headline such as "The U.S. is Facing a Weimar Moment" I think of it in rather different terms, but agree in the sense that the U.S. could well proceed in much the same way Germany did, possibly with similar results.
What I'd predict is an upsurge in anti-semitism as a likely, if not inevitable outcome of what's happening now. If Americans see all that's gone wrong in their country as resulting from Zionist control of the republican party (if not government entirely, as well as the financial sectors and mass media) then the backlash will be against Jews, not Republicans.
Consider the possibility, that instead of the conclusion drawn by the author that "It is quite possible that the damage inflicted on the western world's economy by rapacious Republicans is already beyond repair" the conclusion will be"It is quite possible that the damage inflicted on the western world's economy by rapacious zionists is already beyond repair."
And if the full extent to which zionist involvement in 9/11 and the war in Iraq becomes fully known, well, at that point, the shoe really drops. To my knowledge, nothing as scandalous as that was ever perpetrated upon Germany (although the 1933 declared Zionist War on Nazi Germany might come close) and yet still vicious anti-semitism resulted.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/jewishwar.cfm
"What I'd predict is an upsurge in anti-semitism as a likely, if not inevitable outcome of what's happening now."
You've got to be kidding. Muslims are the whipping boy du jour.
Muslims? Not enough of them. Try immigrants, who are "stealing our jobs!"
My state is so bloody rightwing despite Obama's victory and the same could be said of a lot of other states. Even in states where Obama won, there's a lot of red out there that needs to be cooled down. Plus, Obama's taken a conservative tilt on a number of issues. That's understandable given that he had to work twice or thrice as hard as a typical white male Democrat to win let alone big.
If you all want to help avoid this Weimer moment from snowballing, I suggest you consider battling it out starting from the local level like I'm doing.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
The sad thing is most of the economic damage we now face is a result of the Clinton administration. Obama has surrounded himself with ex Clintonistas. People refuse to look at the democrats role in this mess. What we have is a kleptocracy. I see little chance that history won't repeat itself when every recognized institution whether it be the educational system, media, religion etc. exists to further the kleptocracies indoctrination. Until people reject corporatism and form their own economic systems based on cooperative community interest, take back control of their currencies, political systems, educational systems,and establish an honest media one can only expect disaster.
In terms of your comment that "People refuse to look at the democrats role in this mess"...I'd say people refuse to look at zionist control, power, influence - whatever you want to call - of both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, as well as numerous governments before that.
There are plenty of people who are willing to point the finger of blame at Bill Clinton, orlooking before that, to Bush Sr, Reagan, etc. But it was under the George W. Bush Administration, that the bizarre conflation of US and Israeli interests reached its most extreme, with predictably disastrous results.
The real test now, is whether Obama has the integrity, the power and the courage to resist, and to chart a new course for America.
I must state that I despaired of any post actually pointing fingers at the Democratic Party's role in this debacle. One notes that, during the first two years of Bush's governance the GOP was in total control and acted like it. When the Democrats ascended to power in 2006 the GOP still acted as if it were in control, and the Democrats refused, during all the previous administrations in fact, to make a stand on anything.
Today we see a greatly reduced power base in the Republican Party, their losses were huge in this last election, yet instead of a Democratic steamroller we see excuses for inaction, or worse, action that emulates Republicans in power. No investigations, no ending to war, no restoration of regulation, of education, and certainly no repairing of the crippled social safety net. Instead we get platitudes and speeches, we get the back of the hand to progressives and the appointment of democratic conservatives and one republican war monger, Gates, who almost single handedly destroyed honest intel when at the CIA. We get Wall Streets favorite sons as economic advisors and a deer in the headlights guy at Treasury.
Yet we see a large number of our citizenry who still believe that voting for Democrats is the answer. That makes me conclude that these people do not even know the questions.
Robert Freeman, amen.
Almost excellent if not for superficial "It is quite possible that the damage inflicted on the western world's economy by rapacious Republicans is already beyond repair."
Sure, Republicans will be and already are substituted by Zionist lavishly. This is why I am writing from another side of the globe.
Besides, you have quite a few other inaccuracies in your analysis of the Weimar’s Moment. American Weimar’s Moment is rooted in the same 1919 when Palmer Raids had occurred. It just lasted way too longer. Continuation of American Weimar’s Moment came in 1947, Democratic President, mind you Robert Freeman, named Plain Spoken Harry Truman, openly founded Leib Guard of American moneyed men, a.k.a. CIA, a quiet analogue of Hitler’s SA with the same mission to be accomplished: roll back unwashed masses with brut force while employing “Free Press” to ridicule everything smacked by “populism”.
And here we are discussing in purportedly “progressive” portal the ways to face, and protect us from, American Fascism, which is currently killing itself according to scenario written by three old playwrights, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their “Manifest of the Communist Party” written in 1848 and Vladimir Lenin in his pamphlet “Imperialism as the last Stage of Capitalism”, published in 1915. Both scenarios are widely available on line in any languages.
Wake up and unite Robert Freemans of the world.
v.purto
Sioux Rose
Excellent article except that it does impart too much power to the "opposition" party that has morphed too closely into its intended antithesis. As so many in this forum have astutely pointed out, with the exception of small cosmetic improvements, a few crumbs thrown to the proletariat, the two parties indeed serve the same corporatist interests.
Last night I happened to watch of all things, Will Ferrel DOING George Bush's "Goodbye tour." It was brilliant! We've recently seen comments in this forum relating the unseemly fact that only today's fool (comedia) can tell the king/dom the truth as seen in the scathing satires done by Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. These persons touching on subjects gone missing from all other mainstream media outlets.
I presumed quite an informed team of writers wrote the series of skits which pretty much parodied every phase of Bush's life, family background, and 8 years in office. Ferrel wrote the material and brilliantly used FACTS within the context of humor to let lots of people know what they otherwise would not have. Rove's record was cited, too. This footage said more about the true state of the Bush Presidency and what it did to this nation, then just about anything I've seen in mainstream media. It was also a 90 minute sketch, so it had the chance to cover a lot of ground.
For comic relief there's a scene where Condi Rice does the equivalent of an extended lap dance with Bush, and the choreography was absolutely expertly done. Many Bush quotes were used in their actual contexts, and the mockery of his flight suit scene and others were unbelievably powerful. This was a piece of American journalism done in just about the only way something that cuts that deep can be done these days: as comic relief.
I,too, watched that brilliant portrayal by Ferrel and was somewhat amused
( and greatly entertained by the dancer portraying Condi...wheeeew). Until it occurred to me that this was entertaining but at the same time trivializing something hugely important.Unfortunately that is the American way, take a very serious subject and make folks laugh.
I would much rather be entertained by the results of a special prosecutor's investigation into constitutional violations, war profiteering and general corruption. Now that would greatly amuse me.
It has been evident for years that the US would inevitably collapse, and clear that creeping fascism would accelerate in such an environment, but the question remains, as the US spirals downward economically and it thrashes about in its death throes, will complete maniacs take charge and create a high risk for nuclear armageddon?
the answer is yes:-)
I agree. The answer is yes. :-(
This has become the nation of Mickey Mouse, not the cartoon character but the embodiment of the slang expression that implies cheesiness, fatal simplicity and downright stupidity.
Robert Freeman's argument is fatally flawed. He works hard to make the reader believe that laissez-faire economics or neo-liberalism is either a creation of Republicans or that Republicans are its primary adherents. This is simply not true. It was during Clinton's presidency that some of the most egregious deregulations occurred. The Democrats in opposition during the Bush and Reagan years showed themselves to be just as credulous about the so-called powers of the market to regulate itself (or more accurately, acted just as hog-like at the trough of corporate hand-outs) as the Republicans they opposed. Obama has surrounded himself with neo-liberal and ex-Clinton economic advisors - so don't hold your breath.
It is not just that Freeman gets this wrong, but how damaging such a belief is. There is nothing that pleases a plutocrat more than when he can get the "herd" to continue believing that it has a real choice and that democracy is alive and well while he and a few elite friends run the show. This is the modern equivalent of the Roman "bread and circuses" strategy. Freeman seems to be arguing that the emperor really cares whether the gladiator with the elephant symbol on his tunic wins against the gladiator with the donkey symbol on his tunic. If you can continue to make the crowd believe that the 'fair' competition between the gladiators represents a fair and democratic political system, you can continue to rule in favor of your tiny elite without fear of revolution.
Chomsky describes the two American political parties as the "left and right wing of the business party". I challenge anyone to demonstrate that that is any way fundamentally untrue.
It's much easier to demonstrate that both the democrats and the republicans are the "left and right wing of the Likud party".
I couldn't believe how, during the elections for example, both Palin and Biden, Obama and Mclain would try to outdo each other in expressing their subservience to Israel.
That, to me, was truly unbelievable.
The left wing is for regulating business, and the right wing is wedded to unfettered, neoliberal, de-regulation.
Both pro-business.
I do not seek to defend either Freeman's loyalties or the Party to which he gives them ,only to balance the scales a bit. The following is from his concession upon withdrawing his name for the post of Director of Intelligence:
"There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government -- in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel... This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States."
I have also been critical of the article that heads this thread ( post above)but do support this stance by Mr. Freeman.
Full speech can be found at Tomdispatch.com
the point of this article is to scare you into thinking if obama doesn't succeed, you'll get hitler redux.
lots of misinformation and mis-analysis here. lots of fear-mongering and figure-fudging.
not to discount the threat of fascism, but if obama's trillion dollar handouts to bankers and continuation of GWOT is your idea of rescue from fascism, you are already a "good american", doing your part for das Vaterland.
personally i think that obama - hold your breath - is the one inclined towards fascism
i was listening rahm emmanuel fleshing out obama's new 1 million man or in this case children force who will be going door to door canvassing everyone on whether or not they support obama
taking down license plate numbers of anti-obama drivers
and just watching - spying - trolling around for anything that looks suspicious
that is how fascism starts
in both italy and germany fascism was a ground up effort - brown shirts and black shirts as obama has proposed
emmanuel went on to describe their vision of mandatory non-military service for everyone, starting with kids but soon to include seniors and adults
that folks is fascism
so we have two brands of fascism - both with the same master at work in the country
the right wing oligarchs and mr obama
when these two forks in the road reunite we will be in deep doo
the comparisons with hitler are usually rejected - mostly by folks who don't read much history - but are none the less compelling
i think the author is wrong when he declares the germans lost the war
they ran out of money
they actually ran out of money in 1916 but the rothschilds saw fit to extend their credit and they fought on for two more years
the end of the war came as quite a surprise to the men in the trenches
they were not defeated by the enemy
they were willing to continue fighting
they were upset that they had to give up
they blamed the jews - rightly so in a way - because the rothschilds cut off the government's credit - not a jewish conspiracy but a conspiracy by a jew
when these soldiers went home they were pissed off
one little corporal who was in the trenches - a guy who was happy in his role - his companions noted that he never once complained about the conditions in the trenches - one little man who would have been happy to finish his life in the military as a non-com
a little guy named adolf hitler
unfortunately he was sent home when the army downsized after the fighting stopped
the entire "war on terror" strategy - that is the homeland security act, patriot act, watch list etc were all developed before 9/11
moves right out of the nazi playbook
policies that have been continued by mr obama
the us has operated now for 6 years under martial law - that is the fact of the day
bush's signing statements and a lap dog congress = fascism
the fact that you weren't hauled from your beds and renditioned to eastern europe notwithstanding - we the people have allowed a fascist coup without even caring
we have not been interested
i think everyone would be well advised to consider what to say to the obama brown shirts when they come to your door to feel you out on our new "great leader"
you would hate to ad lib yourself into a fema prison
This is the second post here saying that Germany didn't loose the war "militarily", they went broke. How do you think countries loose wars?
Granted many disasters occur during wars both stratigic blunders and ill fortune but wars between modern large nations are won and lost economically. Even the Cold War was won economically. Or take the American Civil War. It is a matter who can maintain the insanity the longest. How long can a nation keep making all of those bullets, boots, trucks, cans of spam, not to mention babies and just keep dumping them into a meat grinder? All the while the populace starves, freezes and works their asses off for the glory of king and fatherland.
Make no mistake. War is just monopoly by other means. Whoever runs out of cash looses.
How do countries lose wars? If WW2 is any example they lose them by being defeated militarily and by being occupied with their infrastructure in ruins. The point made about WW1 is a valid one in that Germany remained intact as a nation after WW1, and was neither occupied nor was its infrastructure destroyed as were Japan's and Germany after WW2. This had the effect of a belief by the German people that their army was not defeated but was betrayed, a primary reason they marched again into war some twenty years later.
The Cold War was certainly as you posit it to have been, but that was not a shooting war. The Civil War, by contrast was such, and the South was defeated militarily and occupied, with Atlanta being burned almost to the ground.
The ordinary USers have to wake up and stop letting the freak groups run the country.
No country can prosper democratically while under the control of plutocratic oligarchy. The ordinary citizens always get cheated . . . or exterminated.
As for the government's "unfunded liabilities," that is how the boss class wanted the system rigged: to destroy the capacity of government to serve ordinary people and to condition ordinary citizens to abandon any hope of government ever being able to serve their interests.
From the title, I was expecting an essay about the coming hyper-inflation. "Weimar" usually is a synonym for "hyper-inflation". As a child stamp collector, I remember handling German postage stamps that had sold for 4 million Marks. If hyper-inflation hits the USA, maybe starting next summer, and bread costs $1000 per loaf, that might cause crime on such a scale that the USA will break down into a new feudalism, and the national government simply ceases to exist.
Also, the historic Hitler was in a much better position than will be our post-Obama Hitler, whomever the right wing finds for that role. In the 1930s, Germany had a collectivistic political psychology, with people ready for obedience and sacrifice: Hitler's party was "National Socialist". Germany had a work-ethic: people believed that it was moral to work hard and to be thrifty. Germany had a superior education system: everyone could do arithmetic and knew basic science. Germany had technologies and industries that were superior to all competitors.
In comparison, our post-Obama Hitler will face a selfish, individualistic political culture. Taboos against the word "socialist" and against nationalized industries will remain. Americans will never blindly obey a government. American work ethic has been replaced by decades of get-rich-quick ideology and by our deep belief in consumerism and instant gratification of our desires. Our public education system has been destroyed, to the degree that most Americans are ignorant of arithmetic, geography, history, and almost everything except memorized Bible verses. We have to import engineers. The USA now has inferior technologies and industries, compared to our competitors.
Freeman has understated our crisis.
some of what you say is true, but then wouldn't our "selfish, individualistic political culture" and our ignorance protect us from fascism, and thus be a good thing?
i don't think you can overstate how ignorant many americans are, but other than that, i think you overestimate the other differences b/n the u.s. and germany. besides, it took almost 15 yrs for hitler to come to power. 15 years of depression & instability in the u.s.? might suprise you what we come with.
the "individualism" of the average american is a total crock.
"Then, only when the public finally gets angry at being viciously raped by Republicans, the Dems are brought in -- with vague populist-sounding rhetoric ('Hope and Change!')"
"YES WE CON!"
hang in there for another four or eight years and you will get to have your fix of false hope all over again.
to test your statements, look at how obama was received by the businessmen's roundtable thingy the other day. 75 ceo's, lots of applause and agreement, obama conceding any point of (mild) criticism from ceo's (say, about healthcare "reform").
despite what brush limpdick & co may say, the business community is fully behind obama. some people, wsj and a few wing-nut politicians, crow about "socialism" or whatever, but it's all for show.
that's where i got my info from. (btw, i already knew you were a wsws reader from other posts).
I agree. The "Ownership" party has two wings the Dem. side is slightly more social democratic, but only slightly. The core values of the "Ownership" party are the same. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't be seeing the huge transfer of wealth from the public to the private banking and Ins. sectors now happening. We would also see a stand down of our huge military budget and it's 700+ bases world-wide. As for China being ascendant, this would have happened whether our economy had collapsed or not, it just would have happened on a slower time frame.
quite right about the "china" thing. thus my 1st comment on this thread that this article is really about scaring readers into supporting obama.
"NAFTA was pushed through by Clinton-Gore. Telecom was deregulated under Clinton-Gore. Glass-Steagall was repealed under Clinton-Gore. Etc etc."
You're right, Clinton (and democrats in general) are deficient in many ways, but the Bushites were far worse. There were plenty of regulations still on the books when Bush took office that, if followed, could have saved us from the present economic disaster.
Bush chose to let business do whatever it wanted; the SEC looked the other way---and we're paying the price now. Same thing with the environment and the EPA, with food and drugs and the FDA, with no-bid contractors and the military. ALL much worse under the extreme-right-wing Bush.
And the glass-steagall repeal was pushed through the republican congress by Phil Gramm.
Your use of the pejorative "Lib-tard" is perfect for stifling any meaningful debate.
Your pomposity, blended with your use of that name, reminds of Rush Limbaugh.
Congress, during Bush's years was controlled by the Democrats in only 2 of the eight years---and then, the majority was razor thin. Hardly enough power to do anything with an executive that was running amok.
Also, there's evidence emerging that Cheney was running an extra-legal military hit squad right here in the USA; quite possibly connected to Sen. Wellstone's plane crash. Enough, surely, to put a damper on any meaningful opposition.
I'll think up a good name to call you and your ilk and get back to you.
I'm leaning towards CONflater.
I would say that BOTH parties have done plenty since WWII that qualify as unforgivable betrayals. Betrayals to the constitution, and to humanity in general. Does that mean I will blame every person who affiliates themselves with those parties, for all the harm those parties have done? No. I believe good men and women can, and do, work within the parties to improve things. I don't really care what party Obama is in. If he had run the exact same campaign, said the same things, used the internet the way he did, etc. from the republican party, I would still support him. Hell, I almost voted for Paul because of his views on civil-liberties and foreign wars---I can't get over the libertarian philosophy though. Sure, I'd like to see a Nader get elected some day ( I might've even of voted for him if I thought he had a chance in Hell of getting elected), and make some truly revolutionary changes---but I don't think this country is there yet. Given where this country is, I think Obama is a fairly radical choice.
And I don't feel like we know the whole story as to why the Democrats were so quiet. Freeman writes: "The silence is beyond eerie. It is far beyond strange. It is almost surreal" I think it's quite telling how the Obama DOJ released that series of Yoo memos, and the Sy Hersh story came out about the Cheney hit-squad. It's looking more and more like the coup the 2000 selection always stunk of. And you can brush off the Wellstone death and the anthrax attacks as ex-post-facto revisionism, but I think there's something to it all.
Now let me ask you a direct question. What good do you think you're doing by constantly harping on how horrible you think the Democratic party is, and labeling anyone who sees any progress being made with Obama a DPA, lib-tard? We know the American political system is screwed up---do you really think you're doing anything to make it better?
Some of what you write is quite incisive. I just wonder why you're so hung-up on the democratic party.
"In other words, you're saying that no matter what the Democrats (and for that matter, Republicans as well) do, you wouldn't condemn them"
No, not really. I'm saying I wont condemn a PERSON for the past crimes of his or her party. I don't look at Obama and see before anything else a Democrat. I look at him and see a man, with a lovely family, who's obviously intelligent and very well spoken, seems empathic, and who takes positions on many issues that agree with mine.
If I wanted to really change things in this country, and was thinking of running for office, I would likely run as a Democrat, not because I agree with everything that party stands for, but because that's where the power is---the vast resources, and the votes. Sure, I could run as a Green candidate, but where's the value in losing? Show me a viable alternative.
If we take your condemnation argument a bit further, we can just condemn ALL Americans for the genocide and the slavery that are part of OUR history. You can argue that, but then what?
Wrong. Good leadership has everything to do with the capability of loving others. Love mixed with empathy and intelligence. It's the blending together that makes for a good character---an essential quality of a good leader. Intelligence alone is not enough.
You want to compare that with having a beer?
Policies matter. I don't agree with every policy decision Obama has made. But I wouldn't say:
" Obama, like all Democrats (except Kucinich & perhaps 3 others) is primarily a whore for Wall St, & also a firm supporter of US militarism. He advocates US global domination."
Why would we be seeing overtures being made toward Iran, Syria, Hamas, and the Taliban if your statement were true?
He's advocating a return to internationalism. It seems to me he's looking for a way to end the wars he inherited and searching for a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict.
Madcow, I must say you make an excellent case for your side of this discussion. If I were not so convinced of the certain failure of our escalation in Afghanistan I could agree with your assessment of Obama's foreign policy. One might see the overtures of which you speak as the actions of a President who knows his military stretched to the breaking point and thus seeks to separate and delay opposition by those states you mention.
It is hard for me to agree with your assessment of Obama as no shill for Wall Street for the following reasons:
1. The way he broke off campaigning to insist upon the release of the initial TARP funds, even though no restrictions or conditions were in place.
2. The matter of that seven hundred million dollar war chest. Surely you must see that the money didnt come without strings. You have seen, I wager, the breakdown of where that money came from.
3. The pouring of good money after bad even though the first payouts caused not a ripple in the economic downturn, and despite the way that money has been used or misused, especially but not limited to AIG.
4. The appointments of Geithner and Summers, the lack of appointments of progressives, and of course the retention of Gates.
I have heard his regrets for the way that money went to other than its intended purpose, just as I have heard his intentions, many of which I agree with quite strongly. However, this is a time for actions not words and I believe more each day that Barack Obama is over his head.
The current makeup of Congress is hardly a razor thin majority yet we see no great assertion of principle or power by the Democratic majority. Democrats have held a majority in both Houses of Congress since 2006, and we see yet a basically Republican agenda being advanced.
Madcow, do you not pause to wonder why the GOP wields so much sway whether in the majority or in the minority?
I wouldn't say we're seeing a Republican agenda being advanced now. As for the sway they wield---I would look to the media and its influence.
I would object to your analysis of actions as not GOP lite. The increase of our military presence in Afghanistan , the refusal to investigate possible wrong doing and constitutional violations by the previous administration, the refusal to consider strong regulatory powers to curtail rampant capitalism, the signing of that budget bill containing thousands of earmarks all seem to me to be familiar indeed.
As to the sway of the media I agree that it forms public opinion but do not believe that it enters the Houses of Congress. No, those folks are influenced only by the money.
ok, madcow, you are not a "libtard".
moving on, in every year of the bush admin, the dems had enough people in the house & senate to thwart (via filibuster or whatever) any particular of the bush agenda they felt like.
and they refused to. time after time after time after time after time. what did they even filibuster?
what possible conclusion can one draw from this? that dems are "better" than repubs?
besides, many of w's worse actions had their foundations laid under clinton (iraq, patriot act, etc.)
repeatedly asserting, contrary to mountains of evidence, that "dems are better" is a knee-jerk, reactionary, unexamined view.
as for cheney's "hit squad", what's the quickest way to put an end to that BS? "omg if i say/do something, cheney will get me"? these are the people you are pinning your hopes on? people that have the power to have cheney executed as a traitor (assuming "hit squads" are running around the us, which i seriously doubt)? yeah, cheney's hit squad threatened 50 dem. senators into voting for the patriot act. sure. when just ONE of them could have opened their mouths and bro't this admin crumbling to its knees and REFUSED to. that they did not do so would prove exactly where their class interests lie.
yeah, such is the stuff of heros. these dems, all of them, deserve the roman title "father (or mother) of their homeland" for their fearless courage.
jeez, this argument is ridiculous.