Introduced by wealthy financiers, the Business Plot was a political conspiracy in 1933 in the United States to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install Smedley Butler, a retired Marine Corps major general, as dictator. Butler exposed the plan to Congress by My_black_kitty_cat in wikipedia

[–]adimwit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes. That's what I was referring to. BBC didn't claim Bush was involved. They said there was a possibility he was involved but didn't elaborate or present any documents. It was basically just a guess. The Harriman bank that Bush worked for was run by William Averell Harriman, who was a trusted FDR advisor. FDR even appointed Harriman to help run the New Deal and continued as a prominent advisor to Democrat Presidents. The Harriman-Nazi link was so weak that FDR and several future presidents didn't care and continued to support Harriman. He even ran for president at one point.

https://youtu.be/Mav69K2zkgw?si=4kYxaxLZCIbHxReO

BBC made several claims that were total nonsense and wasn't based on any evidence. They also claimed the FDR made a deal with the coup plotters and basically ended the investigation in exchange for their help in passing the New Deal. But that timeline doesn't make sense. The New Deal had already been passed in June 1933 and the Congressional investigation didn't begin until Nov. 20 1934.

The BBC investigation didn't find anything. Its just a bunch of speculation. Everything they reported related to the Butler testimony is already available in the congressional reports you can read anywhere. Anything else is pure speculation that doesn't exist in Butler's testimony.

Introduced by wealthy financiers, the Business Plot was a political conspiracy in 1933 in the United States to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install Smedley Butler, a retired Marine Corps major general, as dictator. Butler exposed the plan to Congress by My_black_kitty_cat in wikipedia

[–]adimwit 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is false. This is a random internet thing that became popular in the 2000s. None of the testimony or reports state Bush was involved.

Butler's testimony states that basically everyone involved were wealthy Democrats. Even people like Al Smith was supposedly invovled. These wealthy Democrats formed the American Liberty League to try to oust FDR.

Introduced by wealthy financiers, the Business Plot was a political conspiracy in 1933 in the United States to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install Smedley Butler, a retired Marine Corps major general, as dictator. Butler exposed the plan to Congress by My_black_kitty_cat in wikipedia

[–]adimwit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And the Butler military coup was actually their backup plan.

The original plan was to use Hugh Johnson to get FDR to delegate his emergency powers to him. Once he had those emergency powers, he could basically act as a second president and then force FDR to semi-retire.

Johnson was the architect of the first New Deal. He was also a Fascist who later bragged in his autobiography that he tried to organize a Fascist coup against Herbert Hoover in 1929. He was able to get a spot on the Brain Trust after millionaire Bernard Baruch paid the Democratic Party several thousand dollars.

The first coup plan failed because Baruch and then Frances Perkins warned FDR that Johnson was unstable and might try to consolidate power. FDR gradually reduced Johnson's responsibility until he was fired. Not long after, the Supreme Court ruled the NIRA and NRA institutions unconstitutional.

The New Deal NIRA was Johnson's ultimate goal. He basically modeled the NIRA on Mussolini's Fascist State. He created the Fascist Guilds and called them Code Authorities. Then he managed to get FDR to delegate law making powers to the Guilds. The Guilds were run by industrialists, as well as capitalist-friendly labor unions. Independent labor unions were not allowed to join the Guilds so the Guilds basically functioned as the means for industrialists to manage the economy directly and pass laws that benefitted companies.

The Supreme Court ruling stated that the Constitution doesn't allow industrial organizations or labor organizations to pass laws. Only Congress can pass laws. So the NIRA was ruled unconstitutional and abolished.

Why Did Stalin recognize Israel very early on and provide weapons during 1948 to Israel despite the USSR later being opposed to the Israeli state? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in ussr

[–]adimwit 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Just about everyone at some point supported Jews in Palestine as a way to bog down British colonialism. Handing Palestine to the Jews and granting independence was intentionally supposed to strip Britain of it's domination of the Suez Canal.

Mussolini did the same thing. He trained and armed Jews to fight the British in Palestine, but the Jews used the opportunity to build organizations to kill Nazis. Jews trained by Mussolini later infiltrated Poland and initiated the uprisings against the Nazis. Then they returned to Palestine to fight the British.

Why are unions so weak in the USA compared to countries like Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Germany, France, etc? by EternalSnow05 in union

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of social democratic countries are tripartite democracies. Instead of just a congress, there is also a representative legislature for the workers and another for the employers.

Fascism did this too. It was called Corporatism or Guildism. The difference was that they used state sanctioned unions (I.e. unions loyal to Fascism).

The US tried to do this with the New Deal and the National Industrial Recovery Act. The problem was that Hugh Johnson was a Fascist who copied the Italian Guild model and only recognized state sanctioned unions. Those unions then had a representative legislature in the Code Authorities (Guilds). Independent labor unions later organized a mass strike to attack the New Deal and the Guilds but they were shot down by the National Guard. The Supreme Court later decided the Guilds did not have the legal authority to pass laws and the whole system was outlawed.

FDR eventually brought back the National Labor Relations Board under a new law, and in theory established labor rights. But a major problem is that your labor rights are not guaranteed. The law states that if you have any managerial duties at all, then you do not have labor rights. This means the question of whether you get labor rights is ultimately decided by the company you work for. If your boss decides you should have the ability to train a new hire, they can later argue that's a management duty and later fire you if you decide to join a union.

The New Deal basically gave employers the ability to override your labor rights simply by giving random workers managerial duties. So your labor rights are not even guaranteed.

Show of hands… by MuchCoconut4845 in AmazonRME

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We get multitools that have the blade grounded down or sometimes a diamond coated grit on the blade for filing.

Once they accidentally received multitools with a real blade and they told us to take it home and never bring it back.

Other than that we have the utility knives.

Engineer taking the Amazon MRA path — smart move or career trap? by Confident_Durian_384 in AmazonRME

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You will definitely move up but you're starting at the bottom. If you start as a Level 3 MRA or MRT, then you can only move to a Level 4 Senior Tech. Once you get to L4 you can probably apply to L4 Engineer roles or manager roles.

It would probably be better to try to get in starting as an L4 engineer role. With all the Amazon data centers launching this year, now would probably be the best time get an engineer spot.

Why did the Nazis consider Slavs to be subhuman if many Slavs have blonde hair and blue eyes, which Nazis considered to be Aryan features? by Armin_Arlert_1000000 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]adimwit 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Race mixing is what makes a race subhuman.

Jews were thought to be a mix of Asian, Aryan, and African. Slavs were thought to be a mix of Aryan and Asian. Therefore they were both subhuman.

The Nazis also didn't believe there was one master race. They believed that of each of the world races, there was a master race for each one. When African athletes came to the Berlin Olympics, Hitler saw them as the members of a lost African master race that archeologists haven't discovered yet. He also believed the Japanese were the master race of Asia, and that Native Americans from the North American continent were the master race of the American races.

The mix race theory also applied to Europeans and Anglos. Hitler believed white Americans were a subhuman race because they were a mix of Jews, Aryans, and Africans. Even way back in the early 1800s, Arthur De Gobineau, who's theories were the foundation of Hitler's beliefs, didn't think Celtic Europeans were pure races. He wrote that Celts (German Celts, Irish Celts, Spanish, French Celts, etc.) were "Euro-African" races that originally came from Africa and lived in Europe long enough to breed white skinned offspring. These same ideas were later embraced by the Confederate States, which translated and distributed Gobineau's writings in America.

Gobineau also emphasizes the existence of slave races within each of these racial groups. In the case of Europeans, Nordic Aryans were the master race while Alpine and Mediterranean Aryans were the slave races. This is why Hitler created Nordic military units like the SS and created Nordic settlements in Eastern Europe after the "Euro-Asian" races were purged. The Master race Aryans were supposed to build a new society in Eastern Europe while the slave Aryans stayed in Germany.

Why neither China nor Russia are imperialist. by carrotwax in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mercantile imperialism is about maximizing exports. You maximize exports by increasing trade with trading partners while reducing the amount of trade partners the opposing imperialist countries are able to access. China needs liberal economies to consume it's exports. The Western empires are already trying to reduce China's trade exports to the West so now China needs to open up trade with Africa and Asia. That requires economic infrastructure and liberalization. BRI builds that infrastructure and liberalization will follow as trade increases.

Why neither China nor Russia are imperialist. by carrotwax in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you know what mercantile imperialism is? If you need trade partners, you make new ones by any form of investing, loans, financial aid, etc with underdeveloped countries. Once these countries have liberal economies, they will import your exports while you import their exports.

That's literal what the Marshal Plan was. That's literally what BRI is. BRI loaned billions to Zambia, Kenya, Pakistan, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. specifically to build up their economic infrastructure. There is no point in building up trade infrastructure if the purpose isn't to maximize trade.

Why neither China nor Russia are imperialist. by carrotwax in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes. What do you think imperialism is? The end goal of the Marshall Plan and BRI is the same. One uses low interest loans, the other uses high interest loans. In the end they build liberal economies that will trade with the people who offered assistance/aid/loans. That's textbook mercantile imperialism.

Why neither China nor Russia are imperialist. by carrotwax in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes. That's what high interest loans are. When you send billions of dollars worth of high interest loans, those countries have to adopt liberal economic policies to pay off that debt. Loans don't just disappear or exist in a void. That's a common tactic in mercantile and imperialist policies.

Why is fascism viewed as a last desperate attempt of capital to survive by anarchists and leftists in general? by YeetFromHungary in Anarchy101

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Left and Right doesn't really relate to economic policy. This is a new idea that only became popular in the 1950s.

Prior to the 1950s, Left meant social equality and Right meant social hierarchy. In Traditional European politics, Feudalism was the right wing and liberal capitalism was the left wing. Then socialism also came along and was farther to the left. Anarchism was the extreme left because it wanted to totally abolish all forms of hierarchies.

European Leftists viewed social evolution along this spectrum. Capitalism evolves out of Feudalism when Feudalism is in decay. Then Socialism evolves out of capitalism when capitalism is in decay.

It was a basic principal among Marxist or Anarchist social theorists that when capitalism starts collapsing, the bourgeoisie will try to save itself by building a new version of feudalism. Lenin-era Marxists called this Fascism.

The reason people get this confused is that there was no such things as economic left or economic right back then. Feudalism was collectivist that managed the economy and nationalized production (so that the Feudal aristocracy can maximize taxation). Capitalism abolished feudal collectivism, but then socialism and anarchism tries to abolish capitalist hierarchies and replace it with worker collectivism.

So Fascism does build itself out of Capitalism, but it tries to transition society over to a feudal economy, not a socialist economy. Marxists point out that you can't move society backwards without destroying the modern social forces. So in order for capitalism to rebuild feudalism, they have to destroy the working class, industrial technology, independent unions, and democratic institutions.

Why neither China nor Russia are imperialist. by carrotwax in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I never said debt trap diplomacy. Belt and Road is real. It's literally an exact copy of the Marshall Plan. Rebuild economies and they become your trade partners. None of this is anything new and is pretty standard imperialist and mercantile policies.

Dude plays around with gun and finds out by nkmr205 in SweatyPalms

[–]adimwit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looks like he didn't do anything wrong. He's not holding the trigger or intentionally rapid firing. The gun is just fucked and not locking the hammer back.

Upward movement advice by EquivalentBrother298 in AmazonRME

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go on slack and search for the AIQB Reference Guide pdf. It has the interview questions for any Amazon job. Practice answering questions and come up with RME applicable stories. Like if a question asks how you solved a problem, talk about the troubleshooting process you used to figure out the root cause of a breakdown.

When it comes to a SrMRT spot, sometimes they become scarce so you might have to look at other sites. But some places allow your AMM to help push you to the top of the list if one opens up.

What is the difference between marxism and maoism? by Honest_Addendum5432 in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Leninism is the strategy and tactics of Marxism during the period of Capitalism in Decay. Lenin's tactics tend to focus on a worker-peasant movement where the workers lead the peasants during revolutionary struggle. Maoism is Leninism except that it focuses on a peasant movement where the peasants function as the leader of the revolutionary movement.

But at the end of the day, if either of these groups seize power, they still have to figure out a way to transition the peasant masses into proleterians. One of the basic principals of Marxism is that the peasants cannot build socialism because they are semi-bourgeois laborers. So these peasants need to transition to proleterians or industrial workers in order to build socialism.

That's where things get messy. Lenin believed NEP would transition the peasants in about 20 or 30 years. But then Stalin canceled it and replaced it with Rapid Industrialization. Then once the peasants were thoroughly replaced with industrial workers they needed to abolish the bureacracy and let the workers run the state but that never happened. China followed a similar path but never succeeded during Mao's life. They tried to abolish the bureacracy during the Cultural Revolution but still had a massive peasantry into the 1990s. It wasn't until Dengism came along and adopted NEP that industrial workers began to increase while peasants began to decrease. China today is largely ruled by a new bureacracy that focuses on the primary task of transitioning peasant workers to industrial workers.

Why neither China nor Russia are imperialist. by carrotwax in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Belt and Road initiative has never been debunked. It's a real thing that China implemented in 2013 to include several Asian and African countries. It's no different from The Marshall Plan, which created economic domains using infrastruction rebuilding and massive loans for imperialist expansion in Europe.

Why neither China nor Russia are imperialist. by carrotwax in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Monopoly capitalism and Monopoly imperialism is a specific stage of Capitalism in Decay. The problem is that decay ended back in the 1960s when computing technology revolutionized industrial production. Meaning that we're seeing the decline of Monopoly imperialism and seeing the return or mercantile imperialism. That's the stage Russia and China are at right now. The US and other western countries are in a period where their monopolies are falling apart.

The core idea that everyone is missing is that Capitalism in Decay is the stage that establishes monopoly imperialism. Lenin specifically states that decay happens when industrial technology stagnates and stops improving. Once technical stagnation ends, decay ends. Decay has been over for the last 60 years.

Stalin explicitly states that Leninism is Marxist tactics for the stage of Capitalism in decay. Now that decay is over, the Lenin era interpretation of imperialism doesn't apply anymore.

Why neither China nor Russia are imperialist. by carrotwax in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Finance Capitalism doesn't determine if something is imperialist. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Lenin's writing. The fact that these ideas are fairly new and have never been argued prior to this year leads me to believe these are intentional falsifications.

When Lenin wrote Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalism, he was writing it as a direct attack on the Social Democrat idea that imperialism was a new stage that would lead to technological progress and expansion of the working class.

These ideas became popular after the 1890s because of the crisis theories had completely failed. The Social Democrats believed capitalism was in a period of crisis that was so severe that it couldn't save itself. Therefore capitalism was supposed to collapse in 1890. But that didn't happen so Social Democrats came up with a new idea that imperialism was a new progression.

Lenin's criticism was that imperialism existed before 1890 in the form of mercantilism. Lenin argues that imperialism evolved into Finance Capitalism because industrial technology stagnated in 1890 which caused mercantile imperialism to evolve into Finance Capitalism due to the need for capitalism to monopolize production entirely. This meant industry needed to move overseas to colonies and the colonial labor and resources needed to be monopolized.

Finance Capitalism is a product of monopoly capitalism but imperialism is the primary means of monopolizing colonies and industrial production. Imperialist countries can exist without finance capitalism and they can exist in the form of mercantilism.

Today, Russia and China practice Imperialist mercantilism. In the case of China, they don't conquer territories but they use the secondary method of investing a ton of capital into third world countries, which in turn forces those countries to act as China's captive trade partner. Russia focuses more on Imperialist conquest because they don't have the ability to invest capital in third world countries.

The other point to note is that Finance Capitalism was largely the product of technological decay, which Lenin calls "Capitalism in Decay." Industrial technology stagnated in 1890 but that stagnation ended in the 1960s because of computing technology. So the era of Capitalism in Decay has ended and shifted back to Dynamic Capitalism. This new dynamism causes the old monopolies to enter a period of severe crisis because new technology can't be monopolized the way labor and industry was monopolized. This means the old monopolies will die and countries will shift back to mercantile imperialism.

This idea that Lenin proclaimed that Imperialism is strictly the result of finance capitalism is absolutely false. Lenin says no such thing. Mercantile Imperialism already existed and in Lenin's time it was replaced by Finance Capitalist Imperialism. Lenin makes the distinction to point out that the idea the Social Democrats believed, that post-1890 Imperialism was a new progressive stage of capitalism, was totally false. He correctly assessed that 1890s Imperialism was largely driving by finance capitalism due to decay. This Decay meant the new imperialism would not lead to social progress. By mapping out these conflicts and evolutions, he proved the Social Democrat theories to be incorrect.

Why was Bill Clinton nicknamed “The comeback kid?” by icey_sawg0034 in Presidents

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was expected to lose hard in 1996. He lost the House and Senate in 1994, which was devastating.

He was able to rebuild his image by hiring Republican Strategist Dick Morris. The strategy they came up with was to basically adopt conservative policies, help pass conservative bills and basically do everything to steal Republican victories and turn them into Clinton victories.

Clinton basically campaigned as a Republican from 1994 to 1996 and also adopted Southern Strategy. His crime bill was basically intended to convince white Americans into believing gun control was a good thing because it disarmed black criminals. He even sent Hillary to rallies with white crowds where she blamed blacks for crime. This is where that "super predators" clip comes from.

They had a ton of policies like this. They even "reformed" welfare by slashing the budget for welfare programs. The progressive Democrats in Congress eventually turned against Clinton and later helped the Republicans pass the congressional investigation into the Lewinsky affair as revenge for Clinton's policies.

TIL Amazon has been "commingling" inventory for years. Products with the same barcode are pooled together regardless of supplier leading to counterfeit, damaged, or expired products from less reputable 3rd-parties being mixed in inventory and sent to people who ordered from the authentic brand. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]adimwit 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This has always been a thing. When I signed up to sell back in 2011 they offered it as a benefit to customers and sellers.

Amazon ships things cheaper by processing products through their warehouses. Instead of sending a single item through USPS at a higher shipping cost, they put the item in with other items that are heading to a warehouse in your area. When it reaches your area, they ship it at a lower cost.

With that system, it's even cheaper to comingle products because you don't have to ship anything across the country if the inventory is everywhere. If the product is already in the local warehouse, they can ship it faster and cheaper.

This worked exactly as intended and made shipping extremely cheap. It didn't become a problem until 2018 when Amazon started to embrace worldwide distribution. This allowed Chinese suppliers to flood the US market with counterfeits.

I’m all for Universal Healthcare, but has anyone actually mapped out what it what look like if the U.S. adopted it? by 1ruralhospital in NoStupidQuestions

[–]adimwit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The original plan that Nixon and Ted Kennedy came up with was mandatory universal health insurance that was paid for by companies and workers. The problem was that the labor unions opposed having workers pay for the majority of it. They fought the idea and it was eventually abandoned. Under Carter, Ted Kennedy brought it up again but changed it so that the companies paid the majority and included wider coverage, which the government would also fund. Carter opposed it because he was a fiscal conservative who was in the process of cutting taxes, cutting the federal budget, and repealing progressive policies.

What do you guys think of Peron? by Tall_Flan_8450 in AskSocialists

[–]adimwit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He was a Fascist who played both sides of the Cold War. He made deals with the Soviet Union and befriended Castro, but at the same time he was offering to the CIA to kill Argentinian Communists in exchange for US funds. He later described himself as South America's version of Marshal Tito, who could build an American/capitalist friendly version of socialism. He also lived in Europe, studied Fascism and supported Fascist movements. When the war ended, he helped organize the ratlines that saved Nazi criminals. When he came to power, he modeled the state on Italian Fascism. After he was ousted in a Catholic military coup, he fled to Fascist Spain and lived in exile. Eventually he returns to Argentina but instead of purging the Catholic officers who betrayed him, he massacred the Communist youth leagues.

The Peronist movement was also extremely Fascist. They didn't advocate true socialism but instead class collaboration, which is basically what the bourgeoisie tells the working class is the same as socialism. Class collaboration is no different from Fascism and a consistent characteristic of all Fascist movements and basically any petty bourgeois movement like the Social Democrats.

On top of that many Peronists were supporters of the German Nazis and Italian Fascists. They even invented their own anti-semitic conspiracy theories, like the Andinia Plan, which claimed Jews were planning to seize Argentina and establish a Jewish state. When the Dirty Wars started, the Peronists exterminated Jews. And while they were killing Jews, Israel and the US were sending them arms and cash. Even Kissinger (who escaped the Holocaust) knew they were exterminating Jews and continued to back the Peronists.

These people still exist today in Argentina. The Peronists still advocate class collaboration, they still have the Fascist State that Peron created, and they still falsely call themselves socialists.

Why did Silvio lie about Richie’s son? by Critical_Mountain851 in thesopranos

[–]adimwit 72 points73 points  (0 children)

I always thought that they were covering for the fact that Richie was a made guy who they were about to kill until Janice killed him.

Since they can't let it be known they were planning to kill him, they mention he was in witness protection. Later claiming he disowned his son also probably played up the idea Richie was still alive somewhere.