Reddit reviews Wall Street and FDR

"Wall Street & FDR" by the good man Antony Sutton might interest you.

Publisher link: https://clairviewbooks.com/viewbook.php?isbn_in=9781905570713

Amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-FDR-Antony-Sutton/dp/0899683258

Kind Regards

> you actually added nothing of fact

You've missed my point. What I'm trying to say is not about facts, but interpretation of facts. This is why Zinn said that history is a weapon. It is a story, a narrative. And narratives can be incredibly powerful in affecting how we interpret, feel about, and perceive facts and reality.

To give you and example, the standard "mainstream" narrative about the American revolution is that the colonists, unhappy about their lack of representation, democracy, etc, under the British govt, and angered by capricious and arbitrary British decisions such as the stamp act, quartering of troops in Americans' homes, etc, decided to seek independence, so they could rule over their own affairs.

A leftist narrative, while not disagreeing with the essential facts, would instead say that the root of the revolution lay in the economic conflict between British entities like the East India company, and New England merchant classes unhappy about the monopoly on trade with the far east that it enjoyed. And the desire of southern plantation classes and land speculators who desired to expand into the Ohio river valley.

So that's the sort of thing I'm talking about here. Your narrative about FDR is a quintessentially mainstream/liberal/Democratic party narrative that paints FDR and liberal politicians in the rosiest possible light. It frankly smacks of mythology and propaganda (or do I repeat myself here?).

Real leftists would instead point out that the 1930s were a period of tremendous left wing/labor militancy, with clashes between labor and police that approached the level of open battles, and that it was this, rather than liberal politicians' benevolence, or correct ideology, etc, which caused the State and capitalist classes to relent and back off from opposing working classes so much.

Even this narrative may be too rosy (in overstating the effectiveness of the left/labor). It is also possible that the main cause of American workers prosperity in the 50s and 60s was simply that all our major competitors physical plant and manufacturing capacity had been bombed flat and destroyed, not to mention tens of millions of industrial workers been removed from the labor pool. The natural consequence of this was naturally the physical plant/manufacturing of the sole untouched industrial power running at full capacity for a while, and supply and demand driving up the bargaining power of American labor for a while.

> FDR contracted polio then found what life was really about hence the blue blood was drained from his being.

Uh... no. Lol.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0899683258

> Look at the infrastructure FDRs programs

Yes but what do you think that proves? Hitler built infrastructure too. Our own banksters build infrastructure if it suits their purposes. Did FDR pay for that infrastructure himself? Was that infrastructure somehow unprofitable to Wall Street and American businesses?

> how inequality increased dramatically with the Bush tax cuts.

Actually, income inequality has been increasing from sometime in the 1970s. Started with Carter, whom some people consider our first neo-liberal president. It's increased the fastest under Obama. And while Bush's tax cuts are probably not very helpful, they probably aren't as important as Clinton era's Financial Services Modernization Act and Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which set the stage for the whole mortgage securities-CDO-CDS bubble that inflated during Clinton-Bush and exploded in 2008.

> Trickle down never worked but is a talking point that works to fool the masses.

Of course. But why focus on a small lie? Let's consider a far bigger lie - that liberalism never worked and seems only to be a talking point to fool the masses.

> facts not made up "free market" ideology.

Sure. But are you sure you understand the use to which "free market" is being used in our system?

The main reason why the peasants and the sheeple accept tremendous wealth inequality in our system is that they've been induced to believe that the super-rich got their wealth in a "free market." I.e. they earned it fair and square in a "fair" and free system by virtue of hard work, intelligence, and luck.

And you reinforce this when you run around saying "the problem is free market ideology!"

It might actually be more subversive to say "we don't have a free market economy. It's all rigged monopolies and cartels. So the rich got their wealth basically by using govt power to force everyone to give them rents! It's all property accumulated by thievery and coersion!"

> humans nature is such that people need to be led.

More than that, we ARE being led. RIGHT NOW. But by whom and to what end? What I'm telling you is, by very bad people, and to very bad ends for the vast majority of us. So perhaps you should be telling people "HEY STOP FOLLOWING THEM!" rather than this worse than useless "oh well. We NEED to be led, anyways." I mean WTF. That's not the right thing to say if, e.g. you see people being led by Hitler, you know.

> leaders that lead well is a daunting task.

Worse. Possibly it is impossible.

> "depends what the meaning of win actually means"

My point was simply, if you don't get the policies and outcomes you want, you haven't won anything. Even if you manage to convert people to "your" doctrines and ideology.

> I guess you peg me as liberal.

Yes. You think and interpret things like one.

> Actually I consider myself a cooperative anarchist. See Emma Goldman.

No. Actually, you're a liberal. Because you think like one.

But don't feel too bad. I think liberalism was invented precisely to defang mislead and confuse leftists like you. So it's only natural it's so effective on you.

No anarchist would lionize FDR and the Democratic party of the 1930s so. Instead, they would credit labor and leftist militancy. Direct action. Threats of open revolt and revolution.
No anarchist would defend political authority like the Federal govt, or defend the necessity of leadership.

> Your jousting would be more valuable to me if you insert some fact

Most valuable thing I can do for you is recommend you go read some Zinn, and understand what he meant by "history is a weapon", and to point you to /r/anarchism. They're good ppl over there, they will set you on the correct path. Right now you're not an anarchist, more like a liberal democrat sheeple.

> That's some really revisionist history.

Revisionist history is what the left has done with FDR, who was a center left elitist trust fund kid, whose family had strong ties to wall street and big banking and who himself worked on wall street as a speculator.

And lol at quoting a speech as some proof, speeches are always little more than pandering. Clinton has some tough speeches on wallstreet too. Like this one when she launched her campaign. Try reading a book on FDR's wallstreet ties, they are well documented, and the new deal was plenty friendly to big business, so much so that the ideological left in the US hated it as not going far enough during the era.
http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-FDR-Antony-Sutton/dp/0899683258