tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post1579303682256397649..comments2024-02-06T16:17:25.826+00:00Comments on THE GRĂNMARK BLOG: Pre-1934 Hollywood talkies were full of sex, violence, fascist sentiments and horror Scott Gronmarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15118026157459333174noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-67341836493281155382015-03-26T15:24:48.573+00:002015-03-26T15:24:48.573+00:00Where we differ is that I don't accept that Fa...Where we differ is that I don't accept that Fascism or Nazism are examples of extreme right-wing political movements. They were started by socialists, and remained socialist throughout. An extreme right-winher would be a libertarian or an anarchist. A fasicst is an extreme left-winger. My only real problem with this classification comes with military leaders who set up rigidly hierarchical dictatorships of a South American type, but who don't seem to have any utiopianist tendencies and would claim (spuriously) simply to be resisting chaos. <br /><br />One of the miracles of the 20th century, I reckon, was that America didn't even remotely come close to embracing socialism - although they're now having it imposed on them via the back door by Cultural-Marxist-in-Chief Barck Obama. <br /><br /> Scott Gronmarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118026157459333174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-33152210817509625162015-03-24T23:18:20.568+00:002015-03-24T23:18:20.568+00:00I didn't say that communism and fascism met up...I didn't say that communism and fascism met up round the back of the political spectrum. My point was that right and left in their extreme forms become more or less indistinguishable as the common ground of communism/fascism. Gabriel etc could be read as both extreme right or left wing in its perspective, because it occupies that bonkers space round the back. I am not sure that the films you cite do reflect a contempt for democracy as a political position, so much as a rather bizarre and ultimately inaccurate reflection of a popular feeling that the elected US Government was not up to dealing with the consequences of the crash and the proliferation of graft and gangsterism. Their obscurity is probably a reflection of the fact that not many people took them seriously.<br /><br />I shall now stitch my mouth shut on the subject.ex-KCSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-8946819003946075402015-03-23T11:37:05.322+00:002015-03-23T11:37:05.322+00:00I dont think communism and fascism meet up round t...I dont think communism and fascism meet up round the back - they start and end in the same place: the citizen exists to serve the state, and the state controls (or has the power to control) every aspect of the citizen's life. The citizen can't get rid of the "government". The law is whatever the government says it is at the time, etc. Hitler and Mussolini didn't think of themselves as right wing - that was a description intrpoduced by Marxists to distinguish themselves from their totalitarian left-wing rivals. The only real difference between the various ideologies is which section of society they feel it's necessary to exterminate in order to realise their utopian vision.<br /><br />I don't think that many would disagree that FDR was keen on Big Government. Under the New Deal, the power of the American government expanded hugely, with endless new agencies staffed largely by idealistic young leftists taking direct control of vast swathes of the American economy. That (to me, at least) is Big Government socialism in action. In some areas, this was probably necessary - but in many instances, interference by leftist idealists actually made things worse (even Ken Burns's excellent if somewhat hagiographic recent TV series on the Roosevelts admits that it didn't all work). <br /><br />I don't think Roosevelt was a bad or evil president (or a communist - that would be his wife), and I can see that America needed his ebullience and optimism at that time - but there seems to be a growing consensus of opinion amongst US historians and economists that the imposition of the New Deal may very well have retarded America's emergence from the Depression - massive state intervention happened at the point in the natural economic cycle when the pain had been got through and the economy was already starting to recover. That's partly why non-interventionist Britain - despite all the nonsense about the Jarrow marchers (all 207 of them) - emerged from the Depression far more quickly and less painfully than America. <br /><br />To this day, we labour under two false leftist myths about the '30s - that the New Deal saved the American economy, and that Britain's relative inaction harmed ours. Unfortunately, these myths underpinned our economic policies until Mrs. Thatcher came to power, explain why America's post 2008 economic recovery has been so sluggish, and would underpin the policies of the Labour-SNP coalition that might take over the country in May. Scott Gronmarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118026157459333174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-69638810243182162962015-03-23T00:54:58.668+00:002015-03-23T00:54:58.668+00:00Fascinating. I watched "Gabriel over the Whit...Fascinating. I watched "Gabriel over the White House" about 30 years ago when Channel 4 used to fill schedule space with interesting old films rather than "My Mum's Fatter than Yours" type reality shows. I have to say I didn't make the lefty conspiracy connection at the time. It seemed to me to fit into a broader political context, both US and European and not necessarily of the left. <br /><br />In the US, there was the continuing public concern about organised crime and corruption, post-Prohibition. In Europe and the US, depression, drift and the public sense of an absence of Government. That was what made firm grip dictators seem attractive to the Daily Mail, the makers of the Musso hagiography you feature and presumably the writers of Gabriiel over the White House. Was this a right or left thing? I suppose it depends on where you see fascism in the political spectrum. The left and right always end up meeting at some point, usually round the back in the section labelled "Bonkers". The same set of social phenomena led to the Blackshirts and also the Cambridge spies and the apologists for Stalinism.<br /><br />Where I don't follow your logic is the connection to Roosevelt and big government. There's a reasonable argument that all the social interventionism of that era was a more balanced response to the public concern about something genuinely apolitical - the US economy was up shit creek and people were struggling - than military takeover and firing squads for gangsters as depicted in Gabriel. In other words, stuff that people voted for, in this case the Democrats, like it or not. I think it's a bit of a stretch to tie dotty films of the 30's to public gullibility and end up with FDR as a raving commie.ex-KCSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-67139452922692114652015-03-21T13:30:33.897+00:002015-03-21T13:30:33.897+00:00Glad you enjoyed it. Sky Arts is forever repeating...Glad you enjoyed it. Sky Arts is forever repeating a documentary series on the history of sex in Hollywood movies, but I reckon BBC4 should do a similar thing for the history of politics in American films. Scott Gronmarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118026157459333174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2215553202978284468.post-1682187631556027092015-03-20T19:14:19.875+00:002015-03-20T19:14:19.875+00:00Thank you for an excellent and informative post. M...Thank you for an excellent and informative post. Much appreciated.SDGnoreply@blogger.com