|
Apparently, deluded with the queer economics of John Maynard Keynes.
However, I have no doubts about the ‘intellectual honesty’ of this author. In other words, it seems that in no instance is the reader (that means me) being deliberately misled. 'Unconsciously' so ? Perhaps, occasionally. But then, the infallibility of any author is only a matter of degree.
I for one think S. Chase an author of some relevance, especially on the linguistic issues ; and of some historic importance, the details of his numerous connections with the leading authors and scientists of the period having been recorded in his writings.
(WPT, 15 March 05).
From The Roosevelt Myth, John Thomas Flynn 1948
This New Deal [1932] was a program for action strictly within the framework of the traditional American system of government, with emphasis on states’ rights, opposition to too powerful central
government, opposition to BIG government which should be cut down to its proper size, opposition to high taxes, unbalanced budgets, government debts. Where the name New Deal came from I do not know. Stuart Chase had written a book called “A New Deal” some time before in which he outlined a completely different program. Perhaps the name was swiped from this book. But in any case the Roosevelt New Deal was as I have described it. This was what the people voted for in 1932. Now Mr. Roosevelt, in March, 1933, was in the White House. And there he proceeded to set up what he continued to call the New Deal. How much did it resemble the one voted on in November, 1932? ( pages 37 – 8 )
Stuart Chase, one of the few among the Planners who stated the case fearlessly and frankly, admitted that to introduce it into a society of laissez-faire would be suicidal. “It can be introduced,” he said, “only when governments take power and speculative profits away from bankers and business men . . . New industries must be set up; old industries liquidated; industrial research for substitute commodities encouraged on a large scale; millions of potentially unemployed steered to new jobs; colossal capital shrinkage adjusted in some fashion; such foreign trade as remains rigidly budgeted by central authority. National Planning and economic nationalism must go together or not at all.”14 ( p. 155 ; note p. 421 )
14. Stuart Chase, “Autarchy,” Scribner’s Magazine, Sept., 1933.
New York : Devin-Adair 1948.
From Autobiography, George Samuel Schuyler 1966
The rise of Hitler to power (made inevitable by Stalin’s orders to the German Communist Party) compelled a hasty transfer of the International Trade Union Committee of Negro Workers from Hamburg to Copenhagen. The Kremlin decided to fire Padmore and sent Otto Huiswood to Copenhagen with a letter of peremptory dismissal. Huiswood then took over the job of subverting Africans, albeit this Surinamer had never been to Africa.
Padmore hastened to Paris where he eluded several attempts to assassinate him during the height of Stalin’s purge of Old Bolsheviks who failed to follow the party line or were suspected of defection or potential opposition. He escaped to London, the heart of his hated British Empire, where he remained, subverting African students, until the 1950’s when he went to Ghana as the right-hand man of his protégé and loyal follower, Kwame Nkrumah. While my debate with Huiswood was in June, 1923, this disgression shows that thereafter he remained . . . always ready to do the Kremlin master’s bidding.
For the next year I kept abreast of the ramifications of the Communist conspiracy, attended meetings and forums downtown, and kept up The Messenger’s correspondence with European Socialists and alert Negroes in Africa and the West Indies. We had numerous exchange newspapers . . . The financial state of The Messenger was perpetually parlous. Stuart Chase came occasionally to do our books and was puzzled over how we kept going. So was I. We often laughed over the miracle.
Black and Conservative; the autobiography of George S. Schuyler.
New Rochelle, New York : Arlington House 1966.
|