We have not learnt from the mistakes of 1930's nationalism

Post Reply New Topic

Bloody hell Orwell the full answer to that question would fill a unit of study blackelk is basically correct.

Marx basically saw the industrial revolution and the emergence of the working class as a chance for revolution. He saw the need for the full extent of capitalism to be apparent before this would occur,
He also believed that the revolution could not be successful in an agrarian setting, basically you need an educated working class that had suffered the worst of capitalism. As he wrote during the early 1850's

"With this general prosperity, in which the productive forces of bour-
geois society develop as luxuriantly as is at all possible within bour-
geois relationships, there can be no talk of a real revolution. Such a
revolution is possible only in the periods when both these factors the
modern productive forces and the bourgeois forms of production,
come in collision with each other... A new revolution is possible only
in consequence of a new crisis. It is, however, just as certain as this
crisis"

Marxism is not a set in stone idelogy, Marx himself expected it to evolve

"we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new princi-
ple: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles
for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the
world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true
slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting
for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does
not want to"

He an Engels believed that by studying history and economics in a scientific manner you could predict the future course of capitalism, this is what modern Marxists do, we look at the historical consequences of the actions of the bourgeoisie to predict the future ramifications of their present behaviour.

Governments and nations arose as a piss poor imitation of the natural extended family, which is the product of our biological nature.

Any system that runs on lashing and prodding is doomed to either outright failure or very substandard (in material terms) performance. A lash and prod system will never produce general prosperity and it will produce a wide spread squalor. Look how the late and unlamented Soviet Union turned out. Better still, look at North Korea.

Also look at the flow of people. You almost never see anyone fleeing from a prosperous domain to a poor and squalid domain. You see many people fleeing (sometimes at the risk of their lives) from squalor to prosperity. Consider the Berlin Wall. What was it for? Was it to keep people from the West out, or was it to keep people from the East in?

ruveyn

Democratic reality topic

Democracy is the most difficult of governments. And it works better in some countries than in others. Same with communism/socialism. Perhaps an eclectic approach incorporating elements of both political systems is the better option. This is what is done in Canada (ours is a parliamentary democracy) and some other countries. No, it is not perfect (no life is) but nationalism/ protectionism is not the answer. And the use of treaties like Nafta have got to be reworked in the interest of US and Canada. (I suppose this is what Steve and Barack will be discussing on February 19.) There has got to be a middle ground between protectionist nationalism and fair trade treaties. Learn from the mistakes of the 1930s.

This thread should be renamed: "We have not learned from Irrational Exuberance/Foolish Greed and subsequent Market Collapse in 1920s/30s, etc"

Doesn't capitalism rely on sticks and carrots? Make money - buy things needed (including carrots). Not make money, not have carrots, not have medical care, have house taken away for failure to pay taxes, etc.

Compare the above to the Gulags, the midnight banging on the door the abuse the subjects of the Dear Leader of North Korea are exposed. Our poorest don't starve in the U.S.A. In North Korea almost everyone (except the army, the burocrats, the leaders) starves.

Make no mistake. Market based systems are far from perfect but they do not pile up bodies like the communist dictatorships did and do.

ruveyn

Ok, but I am not disputing that - my point is that even capitalism involves actions and consequences, rewards and penalties. How many people would go to work every morning if not lured by a pay check and scared of the consequences of unemployment?? Wage slavery is better than chattel slavery, but it is not an optimal system.

Human existence is incompatible with an optimal system, I think.

speak for yourself

Yes, I agree. That's why we are all

Will you stop associating totalitarian dictatorships with communism, I loath and detest the regimes you are speaking about, they are an abomination. For starters the concept of communism is an evolved form of socialism where there is no longer a need for a centralised government. By repeating fallacious propoganda you are either being deliberarely misleading or simply showing a complete ignorance of the subject.

Back to the post, it seems that most of you agree that the present climate of protecionism is a worry, do you think it will spiral out of control and lead to similar results seen in the 1930's?

I'll back up the commie bastard here- governments can be totalitarian and dictatorial with either communism or capitalism- look at Pinochet.

I think that protectionism in the 1930s was a negative thing, but not the ultimate cause of the depression.

The beggar of questions topic

Well, AG, what do you think IS?

The pre-existent economic problem. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed in as a response to economic conditions that were already worsening.

As for the pre-existent problem for the Great Depression, nobody really knows for certain, but I think most economists do not think that the stock market or the increase in tariffs holds a large responsibility. I could be wrong though, as it has been awhile since I looked this, and I am feeling too lazy to bust out my book on American economic history for what it says.

Thanks for the support but I have to slap you anyway. Communism by definition cannot be dictatorial, the regimes that have been refered to are Stalinist.

Stalinism is the antithesis of Communism. Just because something is named does not make it so.

For example, Both you and GW Bush claim to be christians, from what I know I would say that you do your utmost to adhere to these principles but to claim the same for GW Bush is quite obviously erroneous.


You of all people should know this, after all you did write "Animal Farm"