[NDP Will Win]

The New Deal was right!

Had FDR not moved America to a mixed economy, the Great Depression would have ended with either Stalinism or fascism.

The geopolitical situation allowed for no other way out!

[Maxim Litvinov]

Huh?

How is the Great Depression minus New Deal supposed to bring about Stalinism?

Put simply - it wouldn't.

[NDP Will Win]

Huh?

How is the Great Depression minus New Deal supposed to bring about Stalinism?

Put simply - it wouldn't.

If the Great Depression ended in socialist revolution, the USA would have followed the dominant ideology of the totalitarian "left", much like North Korea and China did.

[Maxim Litvinov]

North Korea isn't Stalinist, and China never was.

I'm more interested in your use of the term 'Stalinist'. To me, it can only really mean - the political and cultural system prevalent in Russia from 1930 or so to 1953.

So, just as I wouldn't call Franco a 'Hitlerist', but a fascist, I wouldn't call a non-democratic socialist country 'Stalinist'.

Your post is, of course, based on a huge 'what if'. But following the path of historical speculation for a moment -- if the US had wanted to become socialist in the 1930s, and there had been a revolution, the chances of it occuring along similar lines to those in Russia is quite remote. There was no war, no immediate threat of foreign invasion, no long-term industrial issues - just short-term depression. There was a well-cemented democratic government, rule of law, Constitution etc.

The chances are 95% if a scheme like the New Deal hadn't worked then the people would have voted in someone else, the system wouldn't have changed and the US would have just taken a couple more years to extricate itself from Depression.

[malachi151]

The New Deal was right!

Had FDR not moved America to a mixed economy, the Great Depression would have ended with either Stalinism or fascism.

The geopolitical situation allowed for no other way out!

The New Deal WAS fascism.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... ascism.htm

I'm still working on this piece BTW...

[malachi151]

Huh?

How is the Great Depression minus New Deal supposed to bring about Stalinism?

Put simply - it wouldn't.

If the Great Depression ended in socialist revolution, the USA would have followed the dominant ideology of the totalitarian "left", much like North Korea and China did.

No way. *IF* socialism had occured in America, which it would not have, it would have been the most advanced and best socialism to exist, as the US was already the oldest democracy and had a very good base in modern government and production. No way Americans would have put up with any kind of Stalinist nonsense.

Besides, as my link above points out, the forceful opposition to "socialism" in America would have been overwhelming, union men were still getting lynched in America during the 1930s BTW.

[Llama Masters]

As was said, this topic is based on a lot of "what if's." It is true, however, that in the early days of the GD, the American Bolsheviks(sp) were gaining power in the streetsby the day. If too long had gone by without an appeasement such as the New Deal, who knows what would've happened? A Socialist/Communist revolution could very well have insued. Whether or not it would have accomplished anything...

[Ixa]

North Korea isn't Stalinist, and China never was.

They are/were both "Stalinist".

[Maxim Litvinov]

What do you call Stalinist, Ixabert?

I think of 'Stalinist' as generally a term referring to a period in Soviet history - late 1920s to 1953.

I think it can loosely be used when referring to socialist states which operate, not through open democratic principles, but under the influence of a 'cult of Personality'.

I think perhaps it can be used to describe a state which ascribes to some of Stalin's theoretical/ideological positions, although point out that seeing as he was a practical politician more than a theorist, you cannot use 'Stalinist' in the same sense as you can 'Marxist' or 'Marxist-Leninist'. I would guess these positions included 'Socialism in One Country', for example.

But, explain what you mean by "Stalinist", and we'll see.

[Ixa]

What do you call Stalinist, Ixabert?

I think of 'Stalinist' as generally a term referring to a period in Soviet history - late 1920s to 1953.

Then you are correct: the DPRK is not "Stalinist", nor was China. Nor was
any country in history except the Soviet Union under the leadership of
Stalin.

But it is often used in a different way.

I think it can loosely be used when referring to socialist states which operate, not through open democratic principles, but under the influence of a 'cult of Personality'.

Then no Stalinist society has ever existed.

I think perhaps it can be used to describe a state which ascribes to some of Stalin's theoretical/ideological positions, although point out that seeing as he was a practical politician more than a theorist, you cannot use 'Stalinist' in the same sense as you can 'Marxist' or 'Marxist-Leninist'. I would guess these positions included 'Socialism in One Country', for example.

Socialism in one country in the idea of Lenin and can be found in his
works.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Just tell me what you call 'Stalinist', and we can work through its use in Korea and China.

For me, if Stalinist is not an historical term, it must refer to politics/beliefs that were peculiar to Stalin - and not to Lenin, or the Soviet Union as a whole. I invite you to show how these politics/beliefs are employed in either Korea or China.

[Disenfranchised]

The New Deal was right!

Had FDR not moved America to a mixed economy, the Great Depression would have ended with either Stalinism or fascism.

The geopolitical situation allowed for no other way out!

The New Deal WAS fascism.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... ascism.htm

I'm still working on this piece BTW...

Thank you for your thesis; I think it is very accurate (with the expected Yankee difference of view ). What I did note was the absence of European fascism's denunciation of democracy. That is foremost in the minds of those of us raised during the 1950's. American fasism is now more (if not accurately) applied to the use of corporate influence to government in favor of "high finance".

I personally would have had a very difficult time not mentioning the Bush family in the context of Eugenics or Silver Shirts Thanks again.