Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ancapistani | Hacker News Reader

He claimed also to have been approached to be installed as dictator of the US. He immediately exposed the plot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

The real question is: if it's true, what do you think those who tried learned from it? Did they find a way to achieve their goal without any outright observable changes from the public's perspective?

Nobody went to jail, the united states is primarily run by business interests since the 80s, and facism is alive and well in the states. It sounds to me like they got exactly what they wanted, just had to be patient.

> the united states is primarily run by business interests since the 80s

The 1880s.

The 1780s.

And earlier, but then it was Britain being run by business interests, and the main reason for the US becoming independent was conflict between local and remote business interests. (Particularly, North American interests and regulation serving the East India Company.)

Arguably the revolution was heavily motivated by business interests. Arguably.

Yes, mostly through the ideas of Edward Bernays and Ivy Lee.

It sure puts the 60s in a new light.

Dictator of the US. That's one of the weirdest things I have ever heard. But I know once upon a time that word had no negative connotation. Just like fascism after all.

Not really Trump was planning the same thing a few years ago.

Hopefully the Republicans choose an adult this time who will not try that again but that is doubtful given the choices so far.

The two front runners are Trump again or wannabe Theocratic Dictator. There's no hope.

The movie AMSTERDAM which came out recently touches on the Business Plot, and themes of sub rosa fascists and Nazis in the American ruling class more generally. Fairly worth a watch if you're interested in history viewed through this sort of parapolitical lens.

FDR was a borderline dictator, so this is ironic.

Even if he was, he clearly represented the national/public interest. These guys wanted an entirely different flavor of dictator.

yeah no doubt, he was popular, mostly because of great depression social programs and war ... but he also expanded executive power and ultimately led us on a path to the welfare state status we're at today.

It is remarkable that the totally ahistorical narrative of "FDR ruined the US (economy), Reagan saved it" is still popular outside of the elite whom it benefits. Propaganda works.

"Welfare queen" stereotypes are still alive and well on the Right, despite there NEVER BEING A WELFARE QUEEN. It was a complete fabrication. Maybe they haven't had a great grip on reality for quite some time, or at least a willingness to ignore it.

> led us on a path to the welfare state

You may be interested in this pamphlet written by founding father Thomas Paine:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/tpaine3.html

I wasn't aware of this paper, thank you for sharing. Paine is an interesting character and mused on alot of subjects. Way more utopian in his ideas compared to his peers at the time. Obsessed with Revolution. Wouldn't say economics was his strength.

On the contrary, it seems to me that his reasoning about taxation - that it is unjust to coerce via force from the living and thus infinitely preferable to collect from the dead since they no longer need it, whereas the elderly and young do - to be unmatched in halls of power to this day.

And its not unjust for the state to seize inheritance in the name of equity? I think there are limits ... I'd like to give my children my wealth when I pass, but I am a modest person, not Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. We pay tax on our income, things we buy, our property, our investments, etc - now we must fork over what is left to the state to divvy out? There's a reason only 6 people attended Paine's funeral - he was advocating for a Peoples Monarchy.

Mr. Paine answers all your concerns in his wonderfully well thought-out pamphlet. If more people read it, the world would be a better place. Here's the full text: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Paine1795.pdf

Calling the modern USA a welfare state is laughable.

> ultimately led us on a path to the welfare state status we're at today

That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be: he made enough basic concessions to the working class to prevent an outright socialist revolution. We weren't very far from it at that point in history.

The welfare state is a safeguard. Every modern state has social supports, just like every modern road system has traffic control devices and other safety measures. The alternative, as we've seen repeatedly, is to allow unchecked profit motive to grind the masses down to the point that they start erecting guillotines.

This is a very important point.

You mean, Corporate Welfare. The right often bemoan the welfare state for people, but love welfare for corporations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com