We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
True they did want to suppress the militarism of the Japanese, Italian Fascists and German Nazis, but both Britain and the US moved to continue the adoption of the Zwangswirtschaft of the Nazis in running the economy. It has been a struggle to push back on this interventionism ever since.
It's just socialism. And as we know, those murderous regimes before just didn't do socialism right, but it'll work under with the right academics in charge.
There is the Soviet pattern of all-round socialization of all enterprises and their outright bureaucratic management; there is the German pattern of Zwangswirtschaft, towards the complete adoption of which the Anglo-Saxon countries are manifestly tending; there is guild socialism, under the name of corporativism still very popular in some Catholic countries. There are many other varieties.
von Mises, Ludwig (1947). Planned Chaos (LvMI) .
Zwangswirtschaft (German) is an economic system entirely subject to government control. "Zwang" means compulsion, "Wirtschaft" means economy. The English language equivalent for Zwangswirtschaft is something like compulsory economy
Socialism is just a recognition that the average person is too stupid to run his own affairs and would be better off having his moral and intellectual superiors run them, for his own good and for the good of society. Why would you trust some nebulous "hidden hand" to create spontaneous order, this so-called "free market", to decide how much of various goods should be produced and at what price when all the market is is a democratic tallying of the wishes and desires of the masses where the idiots get the same voice as the experts? This is why we get more Doritos than broccoli, more TVs than exercise bicycles, more Harry Potter books than Encyclopedias Britannica. No, no, far better to let experts decide these things, they know better than we what's for our own good.
The problem is simply one of having the right experts, the right top men, making these decisions. And, heavens be praised, we do have the right top men in charge in the person of Donald J. Trump. His very good brain is much better at deciding the right price and quantity of goods we should be trading, what should be subsidized and what should be tariffed, than those idiots at Walmart and Apple and Ford who know nothing about running a business and deciding for themselves what they should be buying and at what price and in what quantity.
And what the heck, if it turns out Trump isn't in fact smarter than everybody else on the planet combined and his form of central planning doesn't work any better than any other attempt at central planning, we'll just blame the kulaks and the wreckers media and the Democrats.
I think there is a strong case to be made that World War I made all this happen.
I am currently reading a book titled. "The Sleepwalkers" about how World War I came about. I got interested in this after reading Pat Buchanan's book, "The Unnecessary Wars." He blames Grey and Churchill for WWI. He has a case for Grey but not, I think for Churchill. The book I am reading makes a fair case that France was a significant player in bringing about the war. WWII was merely, as Foch said, a second part of the war after a 20 year truce.
As we speak, Europe pays the price for WWI's impact on European demographics.
I'm a little bit taken aback at the proposal that the French were instrumental in instigating WWII. I had thought that as a result of WWI casualties, France had limited man power. I understood that there were villages in France pre WWII, with no able bodied men from that generation and that it had impacted fertility as well. It was not just maiming and blindness but lung damage and Shell Shock. I had read that the military authorities were well aware of this reality and that is why they gambled on the Maginot Line since they knew that they did not have the resources to field an army. Granted, in hind sight they should have invested in an Air Force.
I firmly believe that the failure of the "Christmas Truce" in 1914 was the beginning of the end for western Christian civilization. All of the horrible things that have happened since then can be traced to opposing armies, who were all Christians, culturally at least, deciding to get back in the trenches and begin killing each other again. That was the beginning of the self-destruction of Christian culture and belief.
Think if they hadn't gotten back in the trenches. No Lenin. No Hitler. No Stalin. No Communism. No Fascism. No Atheistic Modernism. And what led to all of this? Pride.
It was winnable, but it was focused on the wrong things. If Germany had not invaded Russia, stayed out of Africa and choose instead to put their considerable military power into acquiring adjacent Eastern Europe nations and then holding them they could have easily won and be in power today.
Uh, his point is ( and brought up in the book) Germany declared war on the US. They had NO WAY to win that war with us,.. same with Japan. There was no way either of them could have conquered the United States... they had no plan to do so nor the ability. No way. That is the "unwinnable" part.
Of course, had Hitler not pivoted east and sat pat on the continent, he would have had time to prepare for Stalin to attack him instead of the other way around.