#political essay | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

potuzzz · 1 year

Text

Western Communists, Psychopathy, and Love

Snark, smugness, and smarm are not revolutionary.

Pettiness, sadism and cruelty are not revolutionary.

The system of capitalism encourages narcissism. Psychopathy, sociopathy, megalomania and trance-like overconsumption are its core tenets. The cold and ruthless are rewarded while the warm and compassionate fall behind and suffer the whims of the cold.

It alienates us from not just our labor but from nature, our fellow humans. People are trained to be fake, to socialize only as a part of a grotesque game where dogs eat dogs and everybody has an ulterior motive, a vein of gold to mine, refine and exploit, and a limp leg, a disturbingly human flaw that renders them an imperfect asset in a world where only a string of uninterrupted perfection will win the race. A flaw which signals to a world of speculators that they are little more than a burden to be calculated around, or, preferably, removed altogether.

We learn to hate our neighbors. To distrust them, to make what use of them we can as quickly as possible and then to discard them—and that is only if we are forced to interact with them in the first place, as surely we would rather avoid all that is biological and social and only touch numbers on a screen or the stiff cardboard of an anonymously delivered box of fleeting dopamine. Everything is pornographic, but nothing is erotic; sex is a corrupted pantomime from the prude to the promiscuous. Passions are only useful insofar as a “side hustle” or a potential career. Friendships and family relationships are a chore to maintain. Community is dead in the West and we are all somewhat relieved to know this.

We have arrived at the conclusion we have neither the time, the emotional energy, nor the patience to deal with the human race which we now recognize as insufferable monsters. We shorten the time required to build rapport in cyberspace by donning on iconography to signal our allegiance in a flash; those who fall short of meeting every checkmark are quickly and unceremoniously discarded. We have a very woke-sounding rationale we cite to ourselves and to the audience to excuse our lack of positive emotional effort and our overabundance of negative behaviors and worldviews. We have no patience to change, or for others to change; real change is fake (when has a Westerner ever felt real, positive change?), and we have come to internalize this. Even those of us who understand the scientific, incremental, and bloodily difficult process it is to change society, who see the positives in the East which are taking their turn with humanity’s steering wheel, even those comrades also see how real, positive change in the West is unprecedented, how deeply sick this society is. The question we ask ourselves is not how to heal it, but rather how to save one’s individual self, how to amputate from the host body that is overridden with cancer…if we allow ourselves to reflect on this grim scenario and its implications for our personal life in the first place. And in truth, as we have come to subconsciously accept the fascist creed “to live is to suffer,” many of us happily accept a future of death and destruction, smiling softly knowing that perhaps the Chinese, Russians, Africans or Latinos may be happy in the world a century for now, and that we can finally know peace in the finality of our deaths, buried underneath the rubble of the Empire as its roof caves in on top of us.

However, these are revolutionary, unprecedented times.

The Empire is waning, and they have used up all their tricks on the populace—they may be brainwashed, but there is no new bleach to pour into the mix. The realities are more in our favor to persuade than ever before. The CIA, FBI, and numerous American Deep State entities which have been curating Hell on Earth on this plot of stained land are losing their grip. They are running out of ways to transmute revolutionary potential into an anticommunist Compatible Left. They are overwhelmed with the sheer amount of surveilled citizens who casually and constantly talk about treason and violence against the oligarchy from every bastardized niche of the American political spectrum.

People—even people who still believe Stalin killed the entire population of the Baltics, even people who still are tricked into demanding escalation of the war in Ukraine, even people who still think the United States is a benevolent force of “liberal democracy” that just occasionally makes mistakes in the war against a far-worse “authoritarian” menace, even people who proudly voted for Bush Jr. and then Obama and then Trump and then Biden—are sick of being sick. Tired of being tired. People hunger for real, positive change.

As the past century has shown, even the most expertly, intricately, secretly crafted boot made with the finest leathers and laces imperialism can procure cannot stomp out communism from the human heart. Three decades of uncontested Western hegemony, following several centuries of world-faring propaganda and power, even this solidified not the throne of capitalism but its own failures. People are looking everywhere for communism, and capitalism is increasingly desperate, feeding them half-truths to buy just a little more time. But as the hyper-individualized solutions of McMindfulness, narcissistically-twisted astroturfed narratives of isolating self-love, for-profit therapy, aesthetics-based New Ageism and the wheezing, decrepit body of Christofascism fail to bring peace of mind, as rise-and-grind culture and Yang-esque “capitalism, but different this time—seriously!” fails to bring prosperity, as billionaire foundations and “charities” and media virtue signaling and tokenization fail to solve homelessness, climate change, or racism, the bewitching capitalism will run out of new, ever-the-more complicated spells to cast to maintain the illusion.

The truth is, simply, too simple. Americans will not be surprised to learn that within the next century America might be a dystopic wasteland…but what will utterly shock them is that the rest of the world not only isn’t suffering the same fate, but is even better than America ever was!

Now is the time to sow seeds. When people are finally ready for their moment of epiphany, it must be a matter of coming to terms with reality, not shutting down into despair, depression and psychosis. The easier this process can be made, the less pressure it will take to trigger it, and the less explosive the transition will be.

People cannot feel “in too deep.” It is far too often the guilt associated to coming to terms with what they have done that a wolf will opt to stay the same rather than venture on the path of positive change. Nor can people cannot think that the path to redemption is one that involves showing one’s belly and prostrating unconditionally—not for the sake of sheltering their pride, but because in this society, in this world, we have been taught that only the wolf ever wins. A communist above all surely understands that we are all a product of our circumstances; every horror of capitalism is the predictable, logical conclusion of the core tenets it was built upon. People who are monsters today were not born that way, and, if shown the right path, there are many who can be saved from their seemingly terminal fate.

Just as the person is taught to either become a wolf or suffer as a sheep, we are unconsciously, expertly, and incessantly taught, as communists living in the West, to ultimately serve capitalism and thwart or own missions of socialism and intersectional harmony. The leftwardly curious are first sent on a marathon through a gauntlet of false-consciousness; many are plucked one-by-one, recruited towards social democracy, liberal Wokeism, anarchism, doomerism, and anticommunist, anti-AES socialist tendencies such as Trotskyism, Maoism, and the like. And then, if all else fails, and we cannot be hindered from reaching Marxist-Leninist conclusions, still there are diseases that capitalism will try to mix into our food: dogmatism, purity politics, social gamification, outrage loops. And, above all, core character traits we do not normally associate with our politics: fearfulness, grudgingness, arrogance, and the other aforementioned cancers outlined at the beginning of this.

The people need to see the alternative, to start conceiving in their mind of an alternative to this hellscape. They will not see it if we are bashing them for their current state—their natural, logical, predictable state per the path of least resistance in such a society which has been carefully manicured into a beast from the top down.

No matter how deserved it must seem, the communist must strive to avoid being snarky, cruel, or petty. We are only humans, our days are hard and we have our own toxic behaviors baked into us by our natural life in these United States. However, as communists, we are the pioneers, the moss and lichens that must make do on barren rock so that one day soil and then a forest may bloom. Our job is not easy, and we must not beat ourselves up for failing to maintain perfect praxis in all our interactions. However, that does not mean that, when we have the spare energy, when we have a little bit of extra fight in us after making sure the bills are paid and our hens are in order, that we shouldn’t at least consciously strive towards it.

Kindness. Patience. Compassion. Empathy. Forgiveness. Conscientiousness. Acceptance Proactive helpfulness. Unconditional love for all. These are some of the traits a communist should be striving towards, as often as they can, per the circumstances they occupy. Avoiding starvation, maintaining a job and a good friend, battling demons, getting sleep, and necessary leisure to enjoy life for being life and to recharge the batteries are, of course, even more paramount. Us comrade have our own cancers that have been inflicted upon us. But it should be understood that if one is too tired, or their mood is too poor, they perhaps should avoid being cruel to the unenlightened—it is only through sheer luck of circumstance that we are communists and the vast majority of Westerners are not. It is only through the machinations of the ephemeral monster that we call “capitalism” that our neighbors are bigots, misers, painfully ignorant and excessively selfish, infantile and yet without the wholesome spark we wash out of children, delusional, rigid, and damaging bastards who have been tricked to worship devils. Sometimes walking away from these situations is better for both ourselves as individuals and for communism as a worldwide movement than staying and letting our enemies drag us down to their woeful state.

Choosing to be kind instead of cruel is rewarding in the long-term, much like how a healthy diet, exercise, passions, socialization, sleep and sun are. And, just like how doing those things are made incredibly, unnecessarily difficult in the world of capitalism, so too is being kind. Doing “the right thing” is often the opposite of doing “the easy thing,” as we all know. People will be cruel to you, inviting you to be cruel back. Tempers flare. Our lives are already awash with injustice, and this is only felt more sharply when one is going out of their way to be kind. People will taunt you. Men trying to be kind to other men, women, or children will be perceived as being gay, toxic, and pedophiles respectively. White people being kind to Black people is perceived as patronizing, fake, or conditional to their submission, whereas Black people being kind in reverse is seen as fearful, fake, or submissive. Even talking about “love and kindness” will be seen by many here as cultish and disingenuous. So many interactions that should be simple are made to be overly complicated and uncomfortable, across wealth, race, gender, sexuality, profession, interests, age, and certainly political label.

Yes, the social contract is completely fucked. As a communist, you should know this already. But unfortunately, while many revolutionary factors happen without our input required at all, many do require input—sweaty, infuriating, demeaning input at that. Just like how they ripped the idea of “peace” from the hands of revolutionaries such as Martin Luther King Jr. and turned him into a Walmart t-shirt, just as the notion of “One Love” and “world peace” of well-intentioned white suburbanite hippies was quickly distorted by the powers-that-be, they will try and co-opt any real, positive change and kill or corrupt those who birthed it. People will abuse a call to be kind and turn it into the equally gross smarm, to victimize themselves in the face of constructive criticism, to scold human emotions such as anger. We are swimming against the current, we are brushing against the grain, and we will shred our hands and cough up foul water in the process.

But also, in my personal experience, I can assure you that it is not always this agonizing. And, if we act as a healing force in society, if we help give these peoples a taste of what trust, love, acceptance and social harmony is like, we will find it slowly getting better, even faster than how slowly things got worse and worse. People are already hungering for a social dialogue to fix these issues, and the primary problem with their solutions is they are not anti-capitalist and they are certainly not pro-socialist. However, from the time of Christ, the ancient home of kindness on the political spectrum has always been in communism. If we take up our positions as the pioneers of a better society, we will naturally inhabit this niche; it will be like dusting off and oiling a machine that, while it has been neglected for quite some time, has always been waiting for us to reacquaint. The key to start this machine has always been in our possession, in the possession of the communists—we only need the willpower to fish it out of the refuse we have allowed to build up. Yes, we need to “clean our room,” as in we need to throw out all the poisonous garbage capitalism has instilled on the otherwise pure temples of our hearts and minds.

Capitalism is an anti-human system, and likewise it has instilled even its greatest detractors with anti-human tendencies. While socialist revolution will not break out in the imperial core through a mere few hugs, bummed cash, or kind explanations of Marxist theory, it will certainly accelerate the process of real, positive change. I ask my fellow communists to—especially when they are “on the clock”—catch themselves before they do “the easy thing.” To kindly assert kindness into our political spaces. To forgive and understand not only our comrades, not only our neighbors, but our enemies and ourselves as well. And if you begin to doubt the efficacy of kindness, ask yourselves how much good this society of cruelty, artificially brought upon us by the agents of the most inhuman system on the planet, has done for us, and ask yourself what sort of things every person on this Earth, especially in such a sick and stunted society, crave above all else. Peace and prosperity, love and kindness. Not from the cynical “doing what they must” to win a war, but the sincere sort that exists for its own sake with no ulterior motives or expectation of reciprocation.

The Soviets, the Chinese, and the other revolutions across time and space had their own battles to fight. Their societies were destitute, overexploited, and undeveloped. We too may need guns and the courage to make physical battle before this is all said and done—not every fascist fanatic and American state agent will be persuaded to change their ways—but in the now, while this is still an invisible warm war in the Age of Information for hearts and minds, we will need solutions to the remarkably sick hearts and minds of Western society, who have been inoculated against the very medicine meant to liberate them. If they are taught to hate Marxist buzzwords, how do we start a dialogue? What is the pioneer species that will break into this barren rock? Love and kindness.

17 notes · View notes

neutralgray · 3 months

Text

A Synthesized History: An Amateur Comparison of the Perspectives between the "Patriot's," the "People's," & The "True" History of the United States - Part 13

Full Essay Guide link: XX

(Patriot - Chapter 15-16 | People - Chapter 15 | True - Chapter 23-24)

The 1920's and 30's: A tale of Two Decades

"This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

--Franklin Roosevelt, 32nd president of the United States

The year is 1920. Warren G Harding is voted as next president of the United States. He appoints Andrew Mellon as Treasury Secretary, who then begins reworking tax rates at all levels of income, offering the largest tax breaks to the rich and affluent. The people are tired of the intellectualism and evolution of "reform." This exhaustion with social experimentation is so evident that Harding's appeal as president is his call for a return to "normalcy." This is the start of the "Roaring 20's."

In that same year the 19th amendment was passed. The amendment was the culmination of decades of women's rights movements. The new laws granted women the legal right to vote. While women's suffrage generally garnered more support from progressive voices, women's collective voting tendencies showed that they largely split across the same political lines as their husbands and communities.

Changes in technology included the availability of automobiles, the use of radio broadcasting, and the supply of convenient home amenities as industries grew. A drastic increase for the demand of automobiles bloomed in the 1920's, which also affected demand in many raw materials industries. There was now a greater call for infrastructure such as roads as well. And while roads made it quicker to travel the country, the radio brought the country closer through shared broadcasts across communities.

The 1925 "Monkey trial" (formally The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes) became a national broadcast sensation. Listeners across many living rooms shared interest in the developing case of a teacher who was accused of breaking Tennessee law, which forbade the teaching of evolution. While the trial is now understood as a "staged" trial, it illustrated the power of radio broadcasting to attract many listeners. With this in mind, its sensible that the business of radio broadcasting relied almost exclusively on advertising revenue, with companies financially competing for the exposure of radio air space. Advertising and professional marketing were becoming a mainstream aspect of American life.

Radios and vehicles were not the only new technology shaping American life, of course. Irons, washers, vacuum cleaners, toasters, and electric fridges were becoming more common. These "modern" amenities grew more accessible as electricity became more available nationwide.

Another cultural shift of the Roaring 20's was The Harlem Renaissance. This "renaissance" refers to a wave of new black American culture in the music and arts, including the birth of jazz music. Prominent performers and artists during this time included Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, Duke Ellington, and Langston Hughes. This was a new chapter in the cultural narrative of black American expression but it also rose up during an increase in racial lynching and a second "new" wave of the Klu Klux Klan. In spite of (or maybe in response to) the continued theme of direct and systemic violence on black Americans, these new modes of sound and artistic expression endured.

While black culture was experiencing an artistic revolution, many other minority groups saw their communities stagnate. This shift in ethnic and national minorities was due to the aftermath of war related immigration policies, which severely restricted immigration in an effort to reduce foreign influence. These acts included:

The 1917 immigration act, which enforced literacy tests

The immigration act of 1918, which restricted "radicals" such as anarchists and communists

The immigration act of 1921, which severely restricted the ability for Southern and Eastern Europeans to enter the U.S. by limiting the amount of immigrants allowed from a country annually to not exceed 3% of that country's population (based on the 1910 census)

The immigration act of 1924, which restricted immigration from Asia and placed stricter national origin quotas than the previous act

The anti-immigration policies were coupled with a severe reduction in the socialist position in the United States. The AFL saw a total 4-million drop in membership in the 1920's and the IWW was essentially dead after many demoralizing and violent responses from state and federal authority. Involvement in the recent "Great War" also shifted public tide away from these "un-American" positions, helping pro-business Republicans such as Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover guide the United States through this decade.

From 1922 to 1928, industrial production increased by 70%, gross national product was up by 40%, and per capita income increased by 30%. Compared to 15% of families owning stock in 1900, a shocking 28% of regular American families owned some kind of stock or trade by 1929. Despite these gains, 40% of American working class were still in poverty, 75% of Americans did not own a washing machine, and 60% couldn't afford the illustrious radio. Wealth had carried to some lower income sectors of the economy, but the ones on the top of that pyramid continued to keep more than the lions' share of wealth. This significant imbalance between the rich and poor would be a factor in the economic crash that would close out the 1920's and define the 1930's.

With respect to the historians that study this time, there are few satisfying answers as to "why" the Great Depression happened, at least if one thought there must be a simple straightforward answer. There are a few significant variables worth mentioning, however:

The massive stock market crash of 1929

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff and European trade retaliation

Lay-offs and chain reactions leading to economic panic

The stock market crash is often held up as the cause, though it's likely the crash was merely a visible symptom that exacerbated the economic downturn. The crash itself was caused by a myriad of factors including overproduction, continued bank loans, and panic selling in response to lowering values.

Output outmatched demand in many industries, with the flow of money simply not being able to keep up with available supply. The Smoot-Hawley tariff was enacted to protect domestic trade against imported goods, with over 20000 international goods receiving an artificially inflated rate. In response to this harsh tariff, other countries retaliated and raised their own tariffs. With the United States supply line of many goods outpacing the demand for them, the international markets were the best hope at selling the excess, but the tariffs prevented foreign markets from being viable. Locals in other countries were now buying cheaper local products over imported American goods-- a direct reflection of what was also going on in the United States.

Companies saw reduced profits as the country "settled in" with its current supply/demand strain, and in response many companies laid off large sectors of their workforce, leaving thousands unemployed. People now had no money to spend and the money they did have was going strictly towards necessities. This meant, of course, that much less money was stimulating the economy, which only further aggravated the supply/demand issues. With companies suffering and many stock prices floundering, rich moguls would sell their stock. Lower-end investors saw this as a sign of tanked value and did the same. These sell dumps of stock led to a chain reaction of panic that was felt across virtually every industry.

While one can analyze this web of reasons and potential causes, another reality of capitalist systems like the one in the United States is that the capital system doesn't value stable flat economic relationships but instead continued growth and surplus. With an economy so focused on digging for the economic "booms," it's only natural that the market would have periodic forced "shrinks" in response to unregulated speculative profit margins. Perhaps it was simply something that could be expected to naturally happen under the system.

At the start of the 1920's the people were eager for a change from the constant experimental reform of the Progressive era, simply wanting stability and comfort. After a decade under Harding, Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, that "stability" ended with one of the most profound economic downturns in the country's history. People were once again ready for a change. The will for political change was demonstrated in the 1932 election, when democrat candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt (or FDR, for short) was elected the 32nd president of the United States.

Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the American people a "New Deal," which was more or less a loose concept for potential reforms. This New Deal had two primary missions, as understood by Zinn: Stabilize the capitalist economic system and prevent emergent rebellion. The first was needed to ensure the system could continue operating under a profit model and the second was needed so people would be content to continue tolerating that economic system. To achieve the second, FDR would roll out multiple social programs meant to stimulate the economy, provide jobs to the jobless, and moderately appeal to labor class interests.

Roosevelt's responses to the economic crises across the decade were varied, and not always ideologically consistent. Here Schweikart proposes that the New Deal was a string of reactionary measures meant to meet ever growing problems as soon as they developed. Sjursen's writing supports this, emphasizing that FDR's approach was likely not based on any single economic philosophy but was instead deliberately experimental. FDR had the difficult job of guiding a massive nation with an economic powerhouse engine out of its lowest period, so it's not entirely surprising to consider that the task may have required some willingness to try different programs and determine what worked and what didn't.

One such law was the National Recovery Act (NRA), which served to grant the president authority to regulate industry for fair wages and prices meant to stimulate economic recovery. Another act was the conception of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), which was meant to regulate and help the agricultural/farm sectors by raising prices, reducing surplus, and paying farmers when instructed not to grow a specific crop. Other administrations included the Public Works Administration (PWA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which provided government jobs to many. These jobs were often public works projects such as infrastructure development and the expansion of the arts.

The Social Security Act is perhaps the most prominent piece of New Deal legislation still active in modern American life. The act helped provide a social safety net of sorts for older workers who would benefit the system by leaving the job force. This vacancy would allow the person to retire while a younger worker could enter the labor pool. Unfortunately for the workers it benefited, it only benefited in a limited capacity. Social Security was not the wealth redistribution some activists wished it was. Instead, social security was essentially a retirement fund based on the pension of the worker, i.e. the worker got out of it what they put into it. This meant the rich still lived far more comfortably than their poor labor class counterparts.

While the president attempted to use his federal power to steer the American economy in a positive direction, the people often found ways of helping themselves. In 1932, over 330 self-help organizations with over 300,000 members existed in 37 states. People were suffering and organizing. Smaller farmers would sometimes take their stock and sell it directly to the people. Miners would pass "bootleg" coal to those who needed it. Many people weren't waiting for help, they were actively supporting one another. This still was not enough, though. The economic suffering caused by the Great Depression was so severe that often these self-help organizations would fizzle out because the jobs they were attempting to fill were simply too big for these organizations to handle. It was a desperate time that called for new forms of action. One such "new" action in the laborers' playbook was the sit-down strike.

Laborers in the United States would picket and strike against unfair conditions, but with the sit-down strike, the protestors would "sit" in their labor spaces and simply not do the work. This had the same effect as traditional striking but now by simply taking up space in their place of work, the companies couldn't use strikebreakers to undermine the protest. Furthermore, sit down strikers excelled at non-violent strategies which prevented giving police and federal powers the obvious incentive to crush the protest.

To appease civil unrest among the laborers, FDR passed legislation aimed at giving laborers more "legitimacy" in their organized power and ensuring a minimum standard of fair pay. These acts included the Labor Relations Act, the Labor Standards Act, and the Wagner Act. The Labor Relations Act protected the right for people to organize unions and prohibited firing union activists and leaders. The Labor Standards Act established the minimum wage, setting a minimal bar that businesses needed to pass to ensure "fair" wages. The Wagner Act set up the National Labor Relations Board, which organized unions into legitimate politically recognized groups. While these acts helped bolster confidence in the American system and gave labor unions further legal backing, this legitimacy also weakened the effectiveness of labor unions in the following decades. Union power had often come from their ability to disrupt the economic machine; by organizing into a legally recognized entity, labor unions simply became another economic variable which needed to be considered.

FDR valued government regulation and social welfare over labor movements, though did provide some structure for the U.S. labor movements. One could argue, however, that the positions taken were compromises made to appease demands originating from grassroots activists. Recall that one mission of the New Deal, at least according to Howard Zinn, was to prevent emergent rebellion. Despite businesses condemning FDR for his "support" of the laborers as a class, it was under FDR's administration that the House Committee for the Investigation of Un-American Activities (HUAC) began to develop real power. It was no secret that socialists and communists in the U.S. often aligned themselves with labor movements. The HUAC was meant to investigate suspected "communist infiltration" and root it out. This mission meant the HUAC could investigate, disrupt, and ruin potential organized labor movements under the guise of protecting the American public from a corrupt foreign influence. Labor unions were now on their way to being legally recognized and "legitimate," while also being watched closely by a government that could weaponize political labels as crimes.

Roosevelt took the country off the Gold Standard in 1933, closing a "leak" in the financial stability of the United States. With the Gold Standard in place, all American dollars were backed by physical gold in reserve. Dollars could be converted to gold if wished, and this meant that when foreign countries obtained American money via international trading, they could convert it to gold as well. This action undercut the American gold reserves by essentially removing that gold from the country's overall wealth and then injecting it into the foreign market. By taking the country off this system, it stopped the drain and helped ensure American wealth stayed in American hands.

With all of these economic plans, laws, and administrations, unemployment and industrial production did improve... initially. A second crash then occurred in 1937. Schweikart proposes this was because of demoralized businesses who did not trust the government to not interfere in the private market. With all the new regulations and artificially controlled variables, potential profit was now more uncertain than ever. Sjursen suggests, however, that this was a sign that New Deal programs didn't go far enough, stopping halfway in a similar manner to Reconstruction. The American economy was still essentially capitalist, meaning it was heavily influenced by capitalist limits and that a crash could be expected after 4 years of economic growth. There was also the fact that Social Security took a significant pool of wealth out of the immediate economic base to provide that wealth back to the people for future benefits. These assumptions are speculative, though. The reality is simple-- a second crash happened in the midst of a potentially promising economic recovery and because of this crash, peoples' faith in FDR's New Deal policies was shaken.

Republicans deemed the entire concept of the New Deal as a waste of resources that ultimately led to nothing but delayed disappointment. The 1937 crash marked it as a "failure" as far as they were concerned. Authoritarians such as Charles Coughlin, a radio preacher and anti-semite, used criticism of FDR to prop up their careers and gain populist support among an angry public. On the left, FDR received criticism for not going far enough. Socialist and communist supporters believed the New Deal was attempting to save a "decaying" economic system that was not worth saving. One vocal opponent to FDR was Huey P. Long, governor of Louisiana. Initially supportive of FDR, Long's opinions shifted, sympathizing with those who argued FDR had not gone far enough. Long started the Share Our Wealth Society, with the aim of genuine wealth distribution while working outside the Democratic political party. Long's slogan was "Every man a king, but no one wears a crown." This was a popular sentiment that spoke to many who felt let down or completely unaided by FDR's administration.

Another blow to FDR's good standing with the people was his attempt to "stack" the Supreme Court with additional democratic justices. The idea was to dilute the power the elderly Republican judges on the bench had over potential laws and administration decisions. The supreme court may be why he didn't go "far enough" in his earlier efforts, as the Republican judges always voted against him and only needed one democrat judge to make a majority ruling. To borrow the words found here, the "New Deal was no match for an old court." FDR's proposal to expand the seats was ultimately defeated but during his time as president, he would appoint 8 justices to the Supreme Court as seats became vacant, making the Supreme Court a critical ally in the New Deal reforms. Despite the failure to push this initial proposal and the court's later fate as a significant component in pushing New Deal policies, the very fact that FDR proposed this at all was attacked by critics and supporters alike. To many people, this attempt to dilute the court with his own people created a fear that FDR was ultimately power seeking. Despite this fear, though, FDR had notably resisted the fascistic counsel of some of his advisors, who proposed the only way to fix the economy was by taking further control.

Despite all these noted criticisms, FDR was not unpopular among the people. Americans seemed loyal to FDR, and were willing to vote him into office four times. He was the first president to ever do so and the only one to this day. Black Americans also largely shifted to voting for the Democratic party during this time. While FDR said very little on race relations or racial equity, his proposals tended to aim at helping lower class laborers, many of whom were minorities. Eleanor Roosevelt, the first lady and wife to FDR, was also a vocal activist and proponent for black rights. This meant that the FDR administration appeared more inviting to black Americans than many previous presidential campaigns. Despite this support, FDR did not support an anti-lynching bill when he had the chance, fearing that southern Democrats in Congress would unite completely against him and block any political moves he made. Once again the solution to the "race problem" was to simply save it for later.

In order to maintain support of southern Democrats and prevent them from uniting with Northern Republicans, FDR periodically allowed for the manipulation of key legislation. Southern powers insisted that some federal programs be administered on a state or local level. This allowed individual states to ignore some policies and twist the application of one's the southern states enforced. This Southern strategy was demonstrated when Southern leaders changed the Social Security Act to exclude farm laborers and domestic servants. This legal exclusion stripped the racial language from the argument, but there was a very obvious population disproportion between white and black laborers and servants. By using language stripped of clear racial connotations, Southern political leaders were able to cripple the continued economic development of black Americans with the sacrifice of a few unimportant poor white Americans. The race problem and explicit racial hostility had not completely lost its place in American government yet, but this demonstrated a new strategy of weakening minority populations through language that appeared politically neutral.

Other large key acts to consider during this decade, and their long-term effects are as followed:

Tennesse Valley Authority Act (1933): Created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), provided electric power to private citizens, and helped to develop Tennessee River hydroelectric dams

The Glass-Steagall Act (1935): Intended to separate investment banking and commercial banking. Resulted in financial institutions other than banks to compete with banks in various financial services

Revenue Act (1935): used tax hikes and estate taxes to offset federal deficits, though the wealthy often avoided these taxes altogether by moving money offshore

Works Progress Administration (1935): Created public work jobs for 9 million laborers. These job wages were paid directly by the federal government and the work included the construction of bridges, sidewalks, art theaters, opera houses, etcetera. Despite temporary economic growth, the crash of 1937 saw unemployment soar back to 14 million people. The program was ended in 1943.

It is important to note that despite FDR's efforts through the 1930's, the New Deal did not "end" the Great Depression. It did, however, help regulate short-term economic gains and provided new federal support structures to assist in further economic development. It is also worth noting that the Great Depression was not an isolated incident, but instead part of a world-wide economic downturn which greatly impacted many countries. In Europe, these economic failures of supposedly great "democracies" led many to take interest in state-run communism or militant fascism. While there were certainly some in the U.S. population who turned towards these alternative political styles, FDR's approach had at least prevented it from being a mainstream call to action.

Final Thoughts:

When one considers the modern Republican, these positions are often traced back to Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon, but the blueprint can be found as far back as the 1930's, with the sizeable political body that opposed FDR's "New Deal." Southern Democrats, Northern Republicans, and other comparable political bodies developed an opposition to "Communism," fearing foreign political influence. The HUAC even weaponized this stance by rooting out supposed "communist influence" in the United States. There was also the drafted "Conservative Manifesto" of 1937, which outlined general principles shared among Southern democrats and Northern Republicans. The Manifesto listed provisions that generally aligned with conservative principles common with Republicans today. Some of these positions include reduction of taxes, opposition to government competing with private enterprise, safeguarding private enterprise, and the maintenance of states' rights.

There's also the clear conception of the modern democrat as well. With FDR's experimental (if maybe shallow) attempts at appeasing politically active laborers, labor became a party issue, with most seeing democrats as the "pro-labor" party. The same happened with minority populations. Under FDR's administration, many minority groups saw laws that may not have provided social equity, but did provide greater economic relief than they had seen under a decade of Republican rule in the 1920's. These lines have remained more or less consistent with the party lines, with laborers being more often mixed in modern America.

I am disappointed by the lack of a "true" answer as to the cause of the Great Depression-- one of the biggest economic tragedies of American history. I suppose though, that as one studies history, one learns that often there are not clear simple instances of cause and effect. It was likely the combination of all these competing variables which created a downward spiral, further pushed by the economic failings of the larger world, which led to the enduring crisis of the 1930's. I'm reminded of Thomas Jefferson's words: "The life and soul of history must forever remain unknown."

Regardless of the exact cause, the Depression DID happen and many millions of real people suffered because of it. The 1920's and 30's demonstrated the massive highs and lows an economic giant like the United States could experience. The New Deal was an attempt to course correct and prevent such devastating lows, but even at the height of New Deal reforms, the New Deal did not actually solve the crisis. The New Deal didn't save the economic machine-- it only kept the engine running long enough for the coming world war to "save" it.

#A Synthesized History #A True History #A Patriot's History #A People's History #Howard Zinn #Larry Schweikart #Michael Allen #Franklin Roosevelt #American history #The Great Depression #Daniel A Sjursen #Educational #Political essay

0 notes

muse-fragmented · 1 year

Text

✨️ESSAY TIME✨️

(CW: queer hate, ment. Of antisemitism, politics, dont read this)

Just so we're all aware, the almost exact rhetoric Nazis used to demonize queer people is what is currently being used in America today. In 2023. I'm disgusted.

Let's call it what it is: stochastic terrorism

"The parallels to the current groomer panic are striking. Of particular note is the fact that Nazis distinguished between those who they believed had come to homosexuality and could be cured, and those who were congenitally homosexual. The latter of these were labeled Jugendverführer or Jugendverderber, and seen as the primary vectors of the “disease.” These terms, meaning “seducers,” and “corruptors of youth,” respectively, bear a striking similarity to the meaning and implication of the term “groomer.” Just as the Nazis attacked Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, institutions that conduct research and provide trans-affirming healthcare are being targeted through both attempts to ban the services they provide and through violent means, with the most prominent example being the bomb threats made against the gender clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital. Likewise, there are attempts all across the nation to ban books and media that normalize non-heterosexual romantic relationships and transgender identities. According to PEN America, there has been a surge in such book bans across the country, targeting more than 1,600 individual titles, all under the pretext that such providers are “grooming children,” or “seducing the youth.”"

An example of this hate would be how "...No person or entity has been more influential at inciting this hate than the anti-LGBTQ+ Twitter account Libs of TikTok, operated by former real estate agent Chaya Raichik. The account, which has over 1.3 million followers and has been praised by the likes of DeSantis press secretary Christina Pushaw and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, reposts selected out-of-context social media content created by LGBTQ+ people and liberals in order to generate outrage and stoke anti-LGBTQ+ hostility. Raichik has frequently characterized LGBTQ+ people and allies, as well as those who teach about LGBTQ+ issues and healthcare professionals who offer gender-affirming care, as “groomers.” The individuals, events, schools and organizations targeted by Libs of TikTok are frequent targets of harassment, threats and violence." Again. Disgusted. I have no words about how our late-stage capitalist government continues to allow this hatred to spread. Shame on them.

Source(s):

https://pineandroses.org/culture/seducers-of-youth-fascist-origins-and-motives-of-the-groomer-panic/?amp=1

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-community

#text #text post #politics #political essay #im fucking exhausted #and sad #fuck this anti lgbtq shit bro #socialism #anti capitalism

1 note · View note

jonathantaylor · 1 year

Video

youtube

I have left the party since I made the video. Still, I do regret that this book will have limited traffic due to the language barrier. I don’t think it will be translated much, to be honest.

#the heir's lair #review #book review #collection #essays #essay collection #politics #political essay #USR

0 notes

luthienne · 6 months

Text

Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick, from Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics

#marc lamont hill #mitchell plitnick #except for palestine: the limits of progressive politics #words #essays #lit #palestine #free palestine #on zionism #typography #id in alt text

3K notes · View notes

rooolt · 16 days

Text

guy whos sooooo normal abt the Mountains of Chaos fantasyhigh. Like, the fact that Brennan establishes it as this classic adventure location full of monsters and dungeons for learning adventurers to explore and gain xp, and it’s also the site of kalvaxus’ lair and the temple of the earth defiant its a very fantastical place. BUT, it’s also the place where riz’s grandparents immigrated from, and it’s the place where the cultures worshipping gods like ruvina and ankarna originated from, and the fact that solace literally has a border patrol for the mountains of chaos that the Applebees are literally apart of. It’s something about these fantastical elements that are so often focused on by the people in solace, so completely glossing over the people and cultures that live there and originate from there. I’m so regular about it and I think about it a normal amount

#Soooo obsessed with the politics of fantasy high #Like the fact that they have dignitaries from fallinel and people like the dawns from high court in solace #And provide people like bill seacaster with solace from the law #And yet they have an active border patrol on the mountains of chaos #The fact that it’s not even like it’s own nation and the members of solace probably don’t recognize the people that live there of having #An organized government #Sorry it’s so fascinating to me I would read literal fake academic essays about it #dimension 20 #fantasy high #fantasy high junior year

645 notes · View notes

sapphireshorelines · 2 years

Text

– Arundhati Roy, Peace is War, March 2003, from the collection of essays An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire

#essays #political essay #book excerpt #book quote #an ordinary person's guide to empire #arundhati roy

0 notes

philosophybits · 4 months

Quote

Weakness, fear, melancholy, together with ignorance, are the true sources of superstition.

David Hume, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary

#philosophy #quotes #David Hume #Essays Moral Political and Literary #fear #ignorance #superstitions #beliefs

394 notes · View notes

melandrops · 21 days

Text

whispers softly Come here. No, come closer. A bit closer. Perfect.

I know neoliberal is just code for dumb stupidhead if you're a leftist who doesn't read theory, but I need all of you to know that Adjudicator Shrue isn't a neoliberal.

Neoliberalism specifically advocates for deregulation, for a free market with very little government interference and for privatization of various (traditionally government owned/regulated) industries. It's often associated with trickle down economics is a largely conservative ideology.

Where does Shrue give any indication that they align with these principles? Shrue is anti-war, pro government, and a highly principled person that is not driven by money.

I'd say that in season two, during the reelection campaign, Shrue presents more as a liberal identity. They're concerned with optics, with PR and with making the right move in order to get reelected. However they also stand by their principles and remain relatively honest. They want progress, but the progress they're searching for is far from radical and they're not particularly fussed about how soon it happens.

By the time we first see them in season 3, it's clear the war has radicalized Shrue a bit. They're jaded, tired and they never wanted the war to begin with but now they have to contend with it along with all the other remaining pieces on the board. They're moving more left on the scale. They stand out among the crowd as an "alternative voice" but they aren't too different, they still largely adhere to the same beliefs about sacrifice and religion.

At the point in the series that I'm making this post (post episode 39), it's safe to say that Shrue has been fully radicalized by the exposure to the full evil that encapsulates their government. It's unclear what policies Shrue will take from here on out in public, but in private we know Shrue does not hold any of the same conservative beliefs that the other politicians do. They hate the corporatism, they hate the money talk, and they hate the manipulation and the lies. This is no neoliberal.

I'm not just saying all this to sound like a nerd or like I'm smart. Shrue's political beliefs have genuine impact on the choices they'll make in the future and on the narrative. It's important to understand the media you're engaging in and the full weight behind it. You might think Shrue is an idiot, but they're not a neoliberal.

#okay i'm stepping off my soapbox now #you know youre a political junkie when seeing the words neoliberal and shrue right next to each other sends you flying into essay mode #but seriously #stop calling them a neoliberal #tsv #the silt verses #adjudicator shrue

151 notes · View notes

just-late-roman-republic-things · 3 months

Text

Hi my name is Ebony Dark'ness Publius Clodius Pulcher and I have long ebony black hair (when I'm sneaking into the Bona Dea rite) with purple streaks and red tips and icy blue eyes like limpid tears and a lot of people tell me I look like Sempronia the conspirator (AN: if u don’t know who she is get da hell out of here!). I'm related to Clodia Metelli but I wish I wasn't because she's a major fucking hottie. My brother's a witch, and we're in the senate in Rome where I'm a tribune of the plebs. I'm a plebeian (in case you couldn't tell, CICERO) and I wear mostly black. For example today I was wearing a black toga with matching lace around it and a black leather miniskirt, pink fishnets and black combat boots. I was walking in the forum. A lot of optimates stared at me. I put up my middle finger at them.

#sometimes you get serious political essays and sometimes you get this #just roman memes #publius clodius pulcher #my immortal #jlrrt speaks

179 notes · View notes

locuas642 · 1 year

Text

youtube

Both HBomberguy and Defunctland have recently (November 20th 2022) released new videos which, surprisingly, touch on very similar themes. I highly recommend watching them. Especially if you are worried about the topic of authorship and want to learn more about music and sound in media.

And remember, your media is made by countless invisible individuals, not a faceless company or just one person

#hbomberguy #defunctland #youtube #video #video essay #documentary #disney #videogames #politics #capitalism #music #alex lasarenko #Joey Kuras #Youtube #kevin perjurer

2K notes · View notes

gentil-minou · 5 months

Text

"This is more about your ego and pride than Palestine" No its about putting pressure on a party that is supporting genocide

It's about logic

Biden and the DNC would rather cause dissent and dissatisfaction within their own party rather than call for a ceasefire

They know they can get away with it because they're a better option than Trump, because they know they could murder babies in front of you and you'll still vote for them.

So why would they call for a ceasefire when they don't need to?

That's why putting the pressure on them, saying they won't get our vote or saying we are looking for other options is so important.

Because that's the only way they will change.

By saying "Vote Blue No Matter Who", you give him and the DNC permission to permit genocide despite the vast majority of public opinion. You say they can do whatever they want because you will vote for them anyways.

You tell them they don't need to do anything else. That in fact they can do whatever they want. You've shown them you are so terrified of your own government that you would rather lie down and let it walk all over you than put any pressure on them at all

They have a year to make a change. Biden could end this all tomorrow, but why would he when he has you doing his dirty work?

#there is nothing to be proud of here there is no ego here #if anything i am deeply ashamed that my vote and my country has allowed this to get so bad and that my tax dollars have led to this #i didnt read the whole ask because it was abother essay but if you are implying im voting third party because of an ego you are part of #the problem here #but im sad because so many people i thought were friends or people i admired have shown they dont actually care abouot the world #if it were my country's people that biden was funding a genocide against they would still expect me to support it #i want desperately to never think about politics or any of this but when millions of lives are directly at the mercy of my government #the least i can do is not give them a pat on the back and look away for my own comfort #at least in finding out who to block and unfollow i guess #us politics #joe biden

240 notes · View notes

neutralgray · 4 months

Text

A Synthesized History: An Amateur Comparison of the Perspectives between the "Patriot's," the "People's," & The "True" History of the United States - Part 12

Full Essay Guide link: XX

(Patriot - Chapter 14 | People - Chapter 14 | True - Chapter 22)

The United States & The Great War in Europe

The United States continued to grow in bold new ways as they ushered in the 20th century. The Ford Motor Company was responsible for designing the first motorized automobiles. The Wright Brothers created a successful plane model that could sustain temporary flight and would then continue to improve on the model in the coming years with their Wright Flyer II and III models. Women's suffrage was becoming a more common talking point across the nation. Banking reforms led to the Federal Reserve Act, which helped establish 12 new federal banks across the country. The United States was an economic powerhouse but despite their growing economic influence, they lacked the military power to match. In 1916, two years into the "Great War" across the ocean, the United States had only the 17th largest military. This would soon change.

The infamous assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, is often understood as the "start" of the war we now call "World War I." The assassination outraged Austria-Hungary and led to a series of events in which political alliances created a schism between world powers that were now in conflict. The United States initially abstained. The U.S. was no stranger to conflict with European powers but generally these conflicts came about when there was potential significant gain for the United States. A war of this sudden magnitude did not seem particularly beneficial nor were the American people thrilled about the prospect of another war after the political storm that followed the Cuban and Caribbean imperialist conflicts.

The Great War was almost immediately one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. After the first three months of the war, almost all of the original standing British Army had been wiped out, with droves of fresher, younger faces taking their place. New tools of war such as flamethrowers and poison gases created new ways of destroying and demoralizing the enemy. Outdated infantry practices led to the slaughter of thousands of young men who were faced with new instruments of death such as machine guns, barbed wire, and trench warfare.

The United States claimed to be neutral when it came to European affairs, but the reality of that position is dubious. Wilson had imposed a ban in 1914 on loans to warring countries, however this ban was later lifted and powerful affluent individuals such as J. P. Morgan could loan out money directly to the powers they supported. The United States received a boom of profits from selling to both Allied and Central powers, but bankers and profiteers such as J. P. Morgan generally favored the Allies because the American economy was closely tied to trade with England. England also blacklisted American companies legally trading with Central powers, incentivizing companies to cease trade with those countries.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson won the presidency with the slogan "He Kept us out of War." Despite that slogan, he would not keep his country out of the war for much longer. The previous year, German u-boats torpedoed and sank the passenger line RMS Lusitania, killing approximately 1200 people, 128 of which were American citizens. This began a shift in public opinion, with many thinking this attack needed retaliation. The sinking of Lusitania would also be heavily used in American propaganda meant to encourage military enlistment. In April 1917, Germany declared that they would sink ANY ships suspected of bringing military supplies or aid to their enemies, indicating they had no intention of ceasing their attacks on non-combatant ships. This outward position of hostility was an inherent challenge to the United States and its interest in continued trade with the Allies. Detailed manifests of the Lusitania did reveal, however, that the German suspicions were not wrong. The ship had been carrying military supplies, meaning the allied powers were potentially using civilian lives as shields to move their supply line.

Anti-war meetings held by socialists and other groups of interest bloomed across the country, especially in the mid-west. Despite some wave of opposition like this, though, the American machine sped up in the direction of war. George Creel, a veteran newspaperman, became a propagandist for United States, setting up the Committee on Public Information and sponsoring over 75000 speakers. The Department of Justice sponsored a group of private citizens known as the American Protective League, who made it their mission to identify, expose, and counteract suspected German sympathizers. The War Industries Board (WIB) helped government and private companies work together to profit off joint interest in the war effort. Anti-war writings, socialist papers, and general leftist literature were also suppressed by the American Post.

Several acts were passed into law directly related to the United States formally entering the war on the side of the Allies. The Immigration Restriction Act was passed in 1917, limiting foreign influence by requiring all immigrants to pass basic reading tests. The Espionage, Sabotage, and Sedition of Acts of 1917-18 extended what was considered espionage or sabotage, including criminalizing anti-military speech and criticisms of the Constitution. This blatant contradiction to the supposed free speech afforded in the Bill of Rights displays how malleable the law can be during times of great strife. Lastly, the Selective Service Act of 1917 enforced the draft, i.e. a mandatory registration of all males of certain ages to be potentially pulled for military service. Very few American citizens (only around 75000 or so) willingly signed up for service when the United States entered the European war. Now voluntary service didn't matter. The draft gave the United States plenty of bodies to throw at the war effort and the new laws governing free speech ensured any voice of dissent could simply be jailed for un-American behavior.

The United States forces helped bolster Allied war efforts after a long and exhausting campaign. The U.S. had entered late, avoiding the mass casualties other countries suffered, but they were not without loss. During the war, the United States lost approximately 112,432 people compared to 1.8 million Germans, 1.7 million Russians, 1.4 million French, 1.3 million Austrians, and 947 thousand British. The signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 would end the Great War, with much of the blame going to Germany due to that nation being the most prominent force of the Central alliance.

The war had dramatically reshaped European powers. Austria-Hungary was soon dismantled, with its territory going to other nations. Russia faced a civil war during the conflict which led to the rise of communism as the central power of Russia. Germany was left battered; peace treaties required the country to pay for many damages and required a severe reduction of their standing military.

Under president Woodrow Wilson, the idea of a "league of nations" was born. Wilson believed this league of nations could help guide world powers and outlined 14 significant points that he believed would lead to sustained peace in Europe. For the sake of ease, I've used an outside source (Worldwar.org/learn/peace/fourteen-points) to summarize Wilson's points:

Open diplomacy without secret treaties

Economic free trade on the seas during war and peace

Equal trade conditions

Decrease armaments among all nations

Adjust colonial claims

Evacuation of all Central Powers from Russia and allow it to define its own independence

Belgium to be evacuated and restored

Return of Alsace-Lorraine region and all French territories

Readjust Italian borders

Austria-Hungary to be provided an opportunity for self-determination

Redraw the borders of the Balkan region creating Romania, Serbia and Montenegro

Creation of a Turkish state with guaranteed free trade in the Dardanelles

Creation of an independent Polish state

Creation of the League of Nations

These 14 points were cause for much debate between the world powers as they argued for or against the most fundamental principles required for the maintaining of peace and (potentially) the maintaining of the current power structure.

Despite Wilson's heavy hand in the initial conception of a "League of Nations," the United States itself did not join the League. The U.S., despite its intervention, continued to practice isolationism.

This period of time may not have impacted the population of the United States the same way it had many European populations, but the influence of war-time events was certainly significant in the direction of the United States both as a country and as a culture. The United States tried to help the non-communist forces during Russia's civil war but failed to stop communism from taking root. This Russian movement is often referred to as the Bolshevik Revolution. The revolution coupled with an event in April, 1919 where over 20 packaged bombs were sent out by suspected communist groups led to a "Red Scare," i.e. a social panic over the potential influence of communist ideas, leading to unjustified witch hunts for suspected communist sympathizers. Communism and socialism became associated with anti-war sentiment, foreign influence, and intellectual trickery.

IWW meeting halls were often targeted during the war and the Red Scare only amplified the pressure and opposition felt by anti-capitalist leaders. The state displayed its willingness to lay down the law, use the law, and then ignore peoples' demands to silence voices of radical opposition. In no better case was this displayed than the case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two Italian anarchist immigrants who were arrested and charged with a break-in and murder that they almost certainly did not commit. Despite constant proclamations of innocence and public pressure from interested groups, the two men were found guilty on little evidence, condemned to die, and were forced to endure 7 years in prison before they were executed by way of electrocution.

Besides the "Great War," other social movements in the United States at this time included the Prohibition movement and the call for women's suffrage. The Prohibition movement was influenced by many active groups such as the Scientific Temperance Instruction Movement, the Anti-Saloon League, and the Women's Christian Temperance Union. This movement had been mounting for decades and finally led to the 18th amendment, proposed in 1917 and ratified in 1919. The 18th amendment declared the production, transport, and sale of alcohol were criminal offenses.

The women's suffrage movement had also been mounting for decades and led to the 19th amendment. The amendment was introduced in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. This amendment prohibited any discrimination based on sex when voting, giving women the right to vote in the United States. This new legal right was, of course, largely afforded to white women and did not affect the many minority populations in the United States. Still, it was at least a progressive direction that extended the influence the people had on their government. "We the people" did not yet include everyone in its poetic blanket, but its meaning had come a long way from simply white affluent landowners.

Final Thoughts:

I've tried to maintain neutrality on my opinion of these books and the words therein. I have arguably not done a great job at this and fully admit my own general left-wing biases. That said, I've been open about these biases from the start of this essay project. It's becoming increasingly more difficult as we get closer to the present, however, to not simply laugh or outright loathe some of Schweikart and Allen's focused points.

In this chapter Schweikart makes a strange point on how propaganda is not meant to be influential in the sense often thought of. Instead, Schweikart proposes that the point of propaganda is to prepare the public for the necessity of a "grim task" and this is only natural because war is inherently understood as an "abnormal" event. These words effectively condemn the unfortunate violence of war while outlining the potential justification of it. I am of the personal view that there certainly are agendas and political powers worth dismantling with violence if that power is not kind to its people, however Schweikart seems to be proposing a state of plausible deniability here (at least in my view). Essentially, war is bad but if we're doing it there must be a good reason and propaganda exists to make the people accept this. It is a very strange stance. As I said, I do believe in the use of violence as a potential tool for dismantling evil powers but I wouldn't say I'm "pro-violence" and I'd certainly never say I'm "pro-propaganda," but the points made in A Patriot's History read as pro-propaganda to me.

Another frustrating point is that it often feels like the whole point of A Patriot's History is simply to "set the record straight" in the wake of books like Zinn's A People's History. Zinn often combats a general historical narrative but Zinn focuses on using personal sources such as newspapers and records of the periods discussed as he continues to explore the labor and rights movements of each decade. Schweikart sets up points then discusses his own speculative opinions against an outward general "them" such as "liberal historians." One example of this is when Schweikart and Allen go on a brief tangent about the issues Prohibition gives these "liberal historians." Schweikart states that Progressives often did not attempt to pursue policies based on morals and values but the Prohibition movement, which often had a lot of Progressive support, is seen as a clear counter to that. This proposes Progressivism and social Darwinism as a sort of points system with black and white values rather than as the complicated, messy, and potentially hypocritical movements they were. It's natural in human history for social movements to often be logically contrary to the moral maxims of their supposed base because humans are often contrary and these ideas are not founded by a homogeneous group of people. These ideas come together through the passions of many people with many different experiences. Schweikart seems to see some kind of "gotcha" moment for Progressives but fails to see that even if Prohibition may have been an atypical cause, most progressive ideas are rooted in a sense of "morals and values," these values are just often less religiously coded and apply more to the state than they do individuals.

Schweikart also makes a random dig at the Planned Parenthood organization when discussing suffrage, largely rambling about Planned Parenthood following many of the ideas of radical feminist Margaret Sanger but noting that the organization supports abortion, something Sanger supposedly opposed. However, Sanger also supported eugenics, which modern Planned Parenthood has unquestionably condemned in their mission. I personally have no strong feelings on Planned Parenthood but from what little I do know, I think their objectives are generally good ones. I have no obvious personal stake or passion for them, however. I say all this to establish that I'm not trying to go after Schweikart for potentially attacking "leftist" groups. I merely want to outline how sorely out of place this mentioning of Planned Parenthood felt. It's not dwelt on for very long but I suspect that's by clever design. The subject is mentioned briefly, almost only in passing, but by bringing the subject up at all when it simply has zero relevance, it feels particularly revealing for how Schweikart wants his words to be read and how his audience should feel when reflecting on history that leads to the modern stage.

To close, World War 1 was an influence on American politics but its shadow fell much darker and longer on the European countries affected. As socialist voices were choked out by patriotic war mongers, women enjoyed the right to vote for the first time in American history. The moral value of "freedom" is an important cornerstone in understanding the messy reality of American politics and how a country can blatantly fear intellectual voices on political theory while celebrating the extended rights for its people to influence government with the ballot box. Freedom is an abstract and complex idea in the minds of Americans. It is the promise of a land where one can work their way up to success by their own hand. It is the idea that a company is free of unfair government restrictions to their profiteering. It is the hope of a better future for many wary immigrants hoping to find their fortune in the great "melting pot." It is the support of imperial regimes to extend the requisitions demanded by a great "empire of liberty." It is all of these contradictions at once, and it is why this empire is worth studying and understanding.

#A Synthesized History #A Patriot's History #A People's History #Howard Zinn #Larry Schweikart #Michael Allen #Daniel A Sjursen #American history #History #Political essay #Educational #World War 1 #The Great War

0 notes