Changes

==Economic planning==

==Economic planning==

As the Depression set in, terms like “[[planned economy]]” and “national planning” became the watchwords of the day. <ref>[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1468 ''FDR: The Man, the Leader, the Legacy''], Ralph Raico, Future of Freedom Foundation, April 1, 2001. Retreived from The Independent Institute.org 06/17/07.</ref>  They had been used by theoriticians for years and popularized by best-selling writers like George Soule and Stuart Chase, who lauded the Soviet Gosplan (central planning), asking plaintively, “Why should the Russians have all the fun of remaking a world?” The most prominent of the [[Brain Trust]]ers and the man often considered the chief ideologist of the “first New Deal” (roughly, 1933–34), was [[Rexford Guy Tugwell]]. Tugwell was a follower of the school of thought known as Institutional Economics, founded by the eccentric writer on economics, [[Thorstein Veblen]]. His official position was assistant secretary of agriculture, that is, second in command to [[Henry A. Wallace]], but his influence extended far beyond that.  In 1927, Tugwell traveled to the Soviet Union and observed through scientific economic planning the Soviets were able to “carry out their industrial operations with a completely thought-out program.” “The future,” he announced, “is becoming visible in Russia.”  Tugwell scorned the [[free market]] as anarchical, an uncoordinated muddle of hopelessly conflicting aims and purposes. It would have to be replaced by national planning, or technocracy, another shibboleth of the day, implying rule by the technical experts and managers, <ref>James Burnham, ''The Managerial Revolution'', Indiana University Press, Bloomingham 1966.</ref> like himself.

As the Depression set in, terms like “[[planned economy]]” and “national planning” became the watchwords of the day. <ref>[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1468 ''FDR: The Man, the Leader, the Legacy''], Ralph Raico, Future of Freedom Foundation, April 1, 2001. Retreived from The Independent Institute.org 06/17/07.</ref>  They had been used by theoriticians for years and popularized by best-selling writers like George Soule and Stuart Chase, who lauded the Soviet Gosplan (central planning), asking plaintively, “Why should the Russians have all the fun of remaking a world?” The most prominent of the [[Brain Trust]]ers and the man often considered the chief ideologist of the “first New Deal” (roughly, 1933–34), was [[Rexford Guy Tugwell]]. Tugwell was a follower of the school of thought known as Institutional Economics, founded by the eccentric writer on economics, [[Thorstein Veblen]]. His official position was assistant secretary of agriculture, that is, second in command to [[Henry A. Wallace]], but his influence extended far beyond that.  In 1927, Tugwell traveled to the Soviet Union and observed through scientific economic planning the Soviets were able to “carry out their industrial operations with a completely thought-out program.” “The future,” he announced, “is becoming visible in Russia.”  Tugwell scorned the [[free market]] as anarchical, an uncoordinated muddle of hopelessly conflicting aims and purposes. It would have to be replaced by national planning, or technocracy, another shibboleth of the day, implying rule by the technical experts and managers, <ref>''The Managerial Revolution'', James Burnham, Indiana University Press, Bloomingham 1966.</ref> like himself.

==Collectivism==

==Collectivism==

Young men were enrolled as amateur forest rangers, marsh-drainers, and the like, on projects designed to improve the countryside. The recruits were given room and board, clothing, and a dollar a day. More than two and half million of them passed through the camps of the Civilian Conservation Corps, until the program was abolished in 1942, when the men were needed for the draft.

Young men were enrolled as amateur forest rangers, marsh-drainers, and the like, on projects designed to improve the countryside. The recruits were given room and board, clothing, and a dollar a day. More than two and half million of them passed through the camps of the Civilian Conservation Corps, until the program was abolished in 1942, when the men were needed for the draft.

In 1973, John A. Garraty published an important article on the CCC in the ''American Historical Review'' <ref>John A. Garraty, ''The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression'', American Historical Review, Vol. 78, October 1973. </ref> Garraty was Gouverneur Morris Professor of American history at Columbia and later general editor of the ''American National Biography''.  Yet, while a warm admirer of FDR, Garraty was compelled to note the striking similarities between the CCC and parallel programs set up by the Nazis for German youth. Both were essentially designed to keep young men out of the labor market. Roosevelt described work camps as a means for getting youth “off the city street corners,” Hitler as a way of keeping them from “rotting helplessly in the streets.” In both countries much was made of the beneficial social results of mixing thousands of young people from different walks of life in the camps. . . . Furthermore, both were organized on semi-military lines with the subsidiary purposes of improving the physical fitness of potential soldiers and stimulating public commitment to national service in an emergency.

In 1973, John A. Garraty published an important article on the CCC in the ''American Historical Review'' <ref>''The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression'', John A. Garraty, American Historical Review, Vol. 78, October 1973. </ref> Garraty was Gouverneur Morris Professor of American history at Columbia and later general editor of the ''American National Biography''.  Yet, while a warm admirer of FDR, Garraty was compelled to note the striking similarities between the CCC and parallel programs set up by the Nazis for German youth. Both were essentially designed to keep young men out of the labor market. Roosevelt described work camps as a means for getting youth “off the city street corners,” Hitler as a way of keeping them from “rotting helplessly in the streets.” In both countries much was made of the beneficial social results of mixing thousands of young people from different walks of life in the camps. . . . Furthermore, both were organized on semi-military lines with the subsidiary purposes of improving the physical fitness of potential soldiers and stimulating public commitment to national service in an emergency.

Garraty listed many other similarities between the New Deal and National Socialism. Like Roosevelt, Hitler prided himself on being a “pragmatist” in economic affairs, trying out one panacea after another. Through a multitude of new agencies and mountains of new regulations, both in Germany and America, owners and managers of enterprises found their freedom to make decisions sharply curtailed.

Garraty listed many other similarities between the New Deal and National Socialism. Like Roosevelt, Hitler prided himself on being a “pragmatist” in economic affairs, trying out one panacea after another. Through a multitude of new agencies and mountains of new regulations, both in Germany and America, owners and managers of enterprises found their freedom to make decisions sharply curtailed.