Rich said, Fdr caved to the demands of the labor unions, socialists, and communists, as so many Americans were suffering from the outrages of the financial system, no thanks to such as the Kennedys et al (The irony of former bootlegger - Daddy Joseph being put in charge of the new SEC). The oligarchs were furious, especially because they would now be asked to pay income taxes for the wider New Deal, and that is why they wanted a coup to be led by such as General Butler, who bravely refused.
In my humble opinion FDR was told to do, he had now power of his own. The big boys love unions, socialists, and communists, as they created and ran them, oligarchs don't pay taxes. They print the money. Taxes are a joke for them.
Veteran's March. May have been very real and macArthur and Eisenhower from Kansas lead soldiers disrupting them,
General Butler, may have been duped and was part of a plan that refocused any rebellions from the veterans March to the business Plan confusing the two.
I don't see the plan as any more then pr.
You said The oligarchs were furious,
I say, why ? They seem to be getting every thing they want no matter how long it takes
This response gets to one of the reasons for my problem with the term 'oligarch', no matter how technically correct it might be. Just who gets to be considered an oligarch (or 'big boy') versus a mere businessman, i.e. an industrialist concerned solely with his immediate profits (and couldn't give a tinker's damn about some big long running global plan)? That is, does an 'oligarch' (or whatever a better term might be) have a wider scope of interest than monetary profits? So in this sense, I should have used the term, 'industrialists', who were furious at the prospect of paying income tax rates that became around 90% during the war. And yes, many industrialists do have networks of connections that can indeed make them part of some larger plan, but here they may not be aware of the whole picture, but just their role via a narrower window.
This also impacts the issue of models, whether or not, as some like the Postmodernists do, that there can be no long running schemes, and thus all unfolding events have an organic nature strictly embedded in the mundane drives human nature, albeit from those with compulsive natures. Thus no need to connect dots over time and examine the value of cultural memes.
Yes, the 'big boys' love unions, but only when they control them. Today, in the USA unions are only relevant when the jobs at stake can't easily be exported to slave wage countries. In this case, please tell me how the 'big boy's are setting up unions for these workers to demand higher compensation from the 'big boys'? As Jerry and I have stated elsewhere, such things as unions are targets for co-optation, so as to mitigate the damage to the 'big boys' and/or to make use of them for other political purposes.
Imagine some farmer (formerly serfs), from Kansas let's say, who has to leave the farm because his family is starving, because the markets and the weather (for whatever reason) wont help. He goes to a big city to get an industrial job, and accepts whatever wages are the going rate. Well, at least he can now feed his family and keep them from being naked. He decides to ask for a raise, but he gets fired for doing so, as there are a hundred others like him waiting to take his place. This is called supply and demand, and thus the impulse to form a union, thus via numbers increasing one's negotiation leverage with the employer. The Constitution does not prevent this from occurring.
People did other things to increase their leverage, such as forming co-ops, community banks, and credit unions. Under your definition these can all be termed as communitarianism, as these structures do not allow for outside capitalists to perform their sacred duty as you see it. Don't confuse cause and effect.
Hitler and the NSDAP are a classic example of such confusion, which I have discussed before. Hitler and 'the big boys' he was associated with targeted the NSDAP, a worker's socialist party for takeover, via a process known as Entryism, from which he used his natural and acquired skills to elevate himself to power. Upon which he converted the workers party into a party that did the bidding of the German industrialists. This was explained, first hand, by Otto Strasser, in his Hitler and I
book, where he and his brother were officials in the NSDAP before Hitler joined.
Please read Waldner's analysis of Marx's function
to mitigate the power of organizing workers for his Prussian sponsors. Of course there is no discussion here about the implications of matters like this as it seriously conflicts with the traditional Cuckoo Coup Model (the CCM). BTW, still waiting for Joe to have his forum discussion on the merits of the CCM vs. the SSM, but apparently we're in a holding pattern for the DNA results to come in. With the CCM the plane is too light to land and there is no more ballast to throw out the door.
So yes, FDR likely did have no choice in the matter, but the dynamics were more complex than you're allowing, and he was all part of the larger plan in any case.
For good reasons or bad, the middle class America that you and I, and Joe grew up in, was a function of the massive government spending and programs coming out of the Depression and WWII. I have asked elsewhere, which America is it that the culture was being degraded from, and Joe refuses to answer this question. Instead I have been told, indirectly, that Joe believes the vaunted apex of American high culture was created as some near miraculous perfect storm of seemingly random circumstances. Was this all in a vacuum from the influences of the 'big boys'? As such, has the Cuckoo Coup Model been operent for some longer time or only became active in the sixties let's say, with JFK and all? They subtly announced their maleficent knowledge and revenge basis in The Tempest
and patiently waited four (more) centuries to spring into action?